Simple Thing Everyone Can Do to Reduce Carbon Footprint/Save Species (gas, global warming)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP, I''m not going to watch their videos to get basic info. Tell me, please, how they plan to "save" the Amazon by planting trees. The original trees there were cut down & the land bulldozed for a reason; in part--poverty that led people to try to eke out an existence growing their own food in so-called "virgin" lands. In part, it was to accommodate ranchers, some of whom were producing beef for export. How does the organization plan to prevent their new plantings from being chopped down again? Do they have some kind of contact with the government? And if so, will it be honored after the next election brings a new leader and different political party into power?
There are deep, systemic problems underlying the deforestation issue in the Amazon. Those would need to be resolved first, before any tree-planting can take hold.
But maybe their info covers that, IDK. Are they partnering with any economic-development organizations, to provide alternatives for people?
Exactly. People have a basic human right to improve their lives and the lives of their children, even at the expense of the environment. We in the U.S. did it (and are still doing it with clear cutting and strip mining).
If the rich West does not like it, then the can cough up the money to fix it all.
Most experts say the carrying capacity of the planet is 12-14 Billion (and we can easily produce enough food for 20B) At 8B presently, we're only 2/3rds of the way to "just right." At the carrying capacity, things are stable-- birth rate equals death rate.
That's not "a crisis" but rather the way most populations exist in Nature--populations at the carrying capacity where there's maximum competition for and maximally efficient use of resources.
"Oh, why can't we ______(fill in the blank-- end war, get rid of guns, stop using oil, whatever)?--That's juvenile thought. We're supposed to stop using magical thinking around the age of six.
I wouldn't assume anything about food production capacity, at this point. You may not have been aware, that just a few years ago, agriculture in the state of California, which feeds a large percentage of the US--too large a percentage; they've taken over a larger and larger share of fruit and vegetable production over the decades--was verging on complete collapse due to a severe multi-year drought. Climatologists warn, that such drought conditions will soon become the "new normal" in the American Southwest, including California. I'm not seeing other states with a more reliable water supply taking steps to expand their own production, in preparation for the seemingly inevitable day, that California agriculture does collapse. No one seems to be thinking ahead, in these days of climate volatility, in relation to the food supply. Some countries in Europe have issued forecasts of severe food shortages by mid-century.
Take nothing for granted, especially food and water. They are precious, and endangered, commodities in a growing number of geographic locations.
I do not believe the planet can support 12-14 billion people with such standards of living, it cannot even support 8 billion, not without devastating consequences to the planet,...
Please document the facts on which base your "belief."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAbiqua
Exactly. People have a basic human right to improve their lives and the lives of their children, even at the expense of the environment. We in the U.S. did it (and are still doing it with clear cutting and strip mining).
.
I agree with you on "right to improve life." I just want to point out that, after a few basic corrections a century or so ago when they finally realized our resources weren't really unlimited, our only real impact on the environment now is our encroachment on natural habitat by development, not "pollution." Even the strip mines & landfills are eventually returned to Nature by rehabilitation, and "clear cutting" is now only done here as a limited, remedial measure to improve forest habitat.....Those Treehuggers who insist meat production is bad for the environment should check into what the production of that healthy palm oil is doing to the rain forests of The East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
I wouldn't assume anything about food production capacity, at this point. You may not have been aware, that just a few years ago, agriculture in the state of California, which feeds a large percentage of the US--too large a percentage; they've taken over a larger and larger share of fruit and vegetable production over the decades--was verging on complete collapse due to a severe multi-year drought. Climatologists warn, that such drought conditions will soon become the "new normal" in the American Southwest, including California. I'm not seeing other states with a more reliable water supply taking steps to expand their own production, in preparation for the seemingly inevitable day, that California agriculture does collapse. No one seems to be thinking ahead, in these days of climate volatility, in relation to the food supply. Some countries in Europe have issued forecasts of severe food shortages by mid-century.
Take nothing for granted, especially food and water. They are precious, and endangered, commodities in a growing number of geographic locations.
I addressed the problem of increasing salinization of The Central Velley on another thread here. Actually, the problem there is more one of economics than of nutrition. The produce that comes from CA provides very little actual useful nutrition, and we could easily remain healthy without it. Meat, dairy, potatoes & wheat provide over 3/4th of the nutrients in a healthy diet. ....Look up the nutritional value of "lettuce" before you try to argue this point.
We in the U.S. did it (and are still doing it with clear cutting and strip mining).
Logging in the US is done in a sustainable manner. I know where I live most if not all of the logging occurs on private land and no one in their right mind is going to allow clear cutting which is unnecessary to begin with. They harvest the oldest trees suitable for the saw mill, smaller trees are removed, trees in the 20 to 40 year range are left untouched and those trees can thrive with the removal of the larger and smaller trees. Rinse and repeat in 100 years.
As I already noted in previous post the amount of forested area in the US is about 75% of what was forested in the 1600's. Loss of forested area ceased in the early 1900's and has even rebounded some.
Anyone mining is required to reclaim the land, that doesn't mean it will be returned to the exact state is was in before mining. What that means is if you go there 100 years from now you will find it difficult to know they were there unless you know what you are looking for. In regards to abandoned mine lands that could of been created 100 years ago, whether they are coal mines or gold mines active coal mines have special fee assessed to address those issues.
We literally cannot even support it now, a good portion of the world does not live in such standards.
Standard of living/availability of material goods is related to economic factors, not availability of natural resources.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ While the USA is a special case (5% of world population but 25% of world's economic wealth) many countries have quite a high GDP per capita. Anyone with the money can buy just about anything they want. The supply keeps up with the demand.
I could be wrong---Please document some impending shortage of a natural resource in danger of depletion.
I bet I can plant trees myself for much less money than the overhead of these non profits. Sorry but I have a very skeptical view of most charities when they end up paying their presidents and higher ups 6 and 7 figure incomes. I want a list of all the top paid members of this organization and what their salaries are before I commit any money. Out here in South Dakota I've planted dozens of trees over the years and have thought about the idea of getting permission to plant even more of them... there's lots of low lying swampy area where I live where water loving trees would thrive.
We could help the rainforests by not using palm oil. Banning trans-fats ended up being very bad for the environment as saturated fats mixed with unsaturated ones ended up being the substitute, and palm oil is one of the most popular. Realistically I don't know what the answers are besides to cut our population and cut consumption. Another reason I don't support charities to feed the poor in countries with high birth rates. It only adds to the existing problem of overpopulation that leads to the destruction of these habitats. A lot of these cultures also have some very poor practices yet when it comes to respecting the environment, still hunting animals for their tusks, hides, etc.
we can thank NextGen for more planes in the sky, ever since it was implemented in 2012, planes now fly at 30 seconds apart, both landing and taking off, thus creating more, lower altitude flying planes crop dusting all the land with jet fuel.
Ofcourse by the airplanes halted the air quality would be better, but once this covid thing is over, the planes will be back in full speed, and most likley more, to make up for all the revenue lost.
we can thank NextGen for more planes in the sky, ever since it was implemented in 2012, planes now fly at 30 seconds apart, both landing and taking off, thus creating more, lower altitude flying planes crop dusting all the land with jet fuel.
Ofcourse by the airplanes halted the air quality would be better, but once this covid thing is over, the planes will be back in full speed, and most likley more, to make up for all the revenue lost.
No clue what you're talking about. NextGen has been around since at least 2004, and the goal is to increase efficiency. Planes don't typically dump fuel... it's too $$$.
The tree planting is just something to make people feel good about themselves. I mean, it's not 100% worthless, but it's not the cure to all of our problems.
Also, I almost never agree with guido, but he is correct in that the lower standard of living that many experience around the world is not due to lack of resources but instead due to economic and distribution issues.
I bet I can plant trees myself for much less money than the overhead of these non profits.
I have no idea of the effectiveness of non profits but I would certainly research before donating anything to anyone, at least they need to divulge financial information. The company linked to in the OP is not a non-profit, it's a business. As i noted in my original post that site reads like free energy scam site, that is the exact impression I got.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
