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.
Much more than "Green" - this is about the survival of life on our planet. Us, and everyone we care about..
Saw this the other day, an answer to which has been nagging at me for years. At least now, I can feel like I'm taking part in starting something to correct this by giving a small gift...
Honestly that reads and is built like one of those free energy scam sites. I'm serious, go read one then read that. Wild exaggerations, famous logos like NASA, FREE, FREE, FREE... just send me some money.
As side note it's not a non profit that would require them to disclose financial information such as how they are spending your money. It's a business operation.
Quote:
The United States has less than 4% of its forests left
For example this is a gross misrepresentation , there are different estimates on this but they would be citing one very low estimate on original growth. Most of that was lost before the 1900's and reforested with new growth. Total loss since Europeans arrived might be 25%, about 75% of the land forested in the 1600's is still forested which of course is much larger than 4%. Loss of total forested land in the US ceased in the early 1900's and has even rebounded some.
If you want to throw some feel good money at this I'd suggest finding different avenue. Just checked, the US forest service has projects for volunteers.
Maybe so, but it has no practical significance: With increasingly stringent EPA regs, death rate from COPD has climbed continuously here, since 1979 in this study http://research.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/...N_COPD2003.pdf (more COPD or wider criteria for diagnosis?--either way, certainly no improvement in health outcomes despite "better" air quality).
Smoking is such an over-powering cause of COPD (3x higher in smokers 18% vs 6%), ambient air quality has little impact on the incidence of the disease..... Just because we can measure some factor and regulate against it, it doesn't mean the results will be "an improvement" of practical importance (obscenely polluted Chinese big cities excepted).
Maybe so, but it has no practical significance: With increasingly stringent EPA regs, death rate from COPD has climbed continuously here, since 1979 in this study http://research.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/...N_COPD2003.pdf (more COPD or wider criteria for diagnosis?--either way, certainly no improvement in health outcomes despite "better" air quality).
Smoking is such an over-powering cause of COPD (3x higher in smokers 18% vs 6%), ambient air quality has little impact on the incidence of the disease..... Just because we can measure some factor and regulate against it, it doesn't mean the results will be "an improvement" of practical importance (obscenely polluted Chinese big cities excepted).
I would suggest the problem is modern construction. Insulation, tyvek, air tight windows. While they make for more efficient buildings they also trap indoor air pollution. The other problem is the way we heat and the addition of central air. Most Older heating systems used radiators. Most newer systems use ducting. That ducting can harbor some nasty stuff and then easily spread it through the air.
One of the best ways to save the forest, not to mention your own life and health, not to mention a huge amount of money spent on health care is to eat a meat light diet with minimal processed foods. He mentions at 3:00 "The food system itself is the #1 cause of climate change."
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?
I would suggest the problem is modern construction. Insulation, tyvek, air tight windows. While they make for more efficient buildings they also trap indoor air pollution. .
--don't want to hijack the thread, but the real reason is more inclusive criteria for diagnosis plus higher utilization rates thanks to wider availability of insurance. COPD is a classic combination of "Nurture vs Nature." Only some people are genetically predisposed to developing COPD. Cf- if 18% of smokers do get COPD, then 82% don't (!!)….You may be right about more measurable indoor pollution, but I don't think we can actually make a case saying it's a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
...a huge amount of money spent on health care is to eat a meat light diet with minimal processed foods. He mentions at 3:00 "The food system itself is the #1 cause of climate change."
Please present data to support the health benefits of a plant base diet. (You can't.) In fact, DM rates have skyrocketed in the past 40 yrs since the USDA has been encouraging people to eat more veggies and less meat.
"Raising cattle is bad for the environment" is a lie perpetuated with false and incomplete data on the use of fossil fuels in raising crops vs meat animals. It is believed only by those who have never seen crops or animals raised. (The liars count on the "extra"co2 from raising animals that eat plants and the inefficiencies of converting plants to meat...but they conveniently ignore the inefficiencies of omnivorous humans eating plants to build our own meat (muscle)….They also conveniently ignore how many passes of the tractor a crop takes to get it from seed to market.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
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?
Excellent analysis....It's also, unfortunately, a pipe dream to think we can "reforest" The Amazon. The hot, wet climate provided for an extremely rapid growth rate of the vegetation and of the rate of degradation/recycling the nutrients after the plants underwent natural death. Virtually all the nutrients are in the biomass itself and not in the soil.....Ironically, the forests were cleared to grow crops or pasture grass, but those do very poorly due to the infertility of the soil.
Left to its own machinations, the cleared land will take generations to undergo natural ecological succession and even our best intentions won't speed that up.
Pile on top if that the economic (survival) problems faced by the owners of the land. Who are we to say they are not entitled to a better life?
Ideological arguments always seem so simple on paper.
Please present data to support the health benefits of a plant base diet. (You can't.) In fact, DM rates have skyrocketed in the past 40 yrs since the USDA has been encouraging people to eat more veggies and less meat..
It's in the guy's book mentioned at the beginning of the video. Others have said similar things and done comprehensive studies, most notably the Blue Zones books by Dan Buettner.
Just because they encourage people to eat more veggies and less meat doesn't mean people actually are doing so.
And the consumption of soda and processed foods has certainly skyrocketed in the last 50 years.
It's in the guy's book mentioned at the beginning of the video. Others have said similar things and done comprehensive studies, most notably the Blue Zones books by Dan Buettner.
Just because they encourage people to eat more veggies and less meat doesn't mean people actually are doing so.
And the consumption of soda and processed foods has certainly skyrocketed in the last 50 years.
I stated the case clumsily above. Maybe it's better to look at it this way:
"They" claim X amount of co2 is released in raising animals & eating the meat, while a much smaller amount is supposedly released when we eat plants...The problem is, ONLY fossil fuel use releases "extra" co2 into the air. The co2 released from animals eating plants & us eating animals is just a re-cycling of co2 taken from the air: NO NET CHANGE IN [co2]...except for that used in running machines, like tractors--which are hardly used at all in raising animals, but are used EXTENSIVELY in raising crops. "Their" published "calculations" are simply improper.
When you read something your first impulse should always be "I don't believe it." Think it thru yourself. Surely all readers here have the basic science knowledge to see thru the false narratives proclaimed by "environmentalists."
Again, I don't want to hijack the thread, but the reasons for increasing obesity in the US is most easily summarized by saying food has gotten really inexpensive and readily available. Americans are eating about the same amount of meat per capita now as 50 yrs ago (less beef but more chicken) but WAY more carbs. Other factors like microwaves & SNAP programs all enter into the complex equation too...And video games and remote controls have replaced good old fashioned exercise for too many people.
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.
