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.
I won't bother arguing with Pequa about this because he can't see the forest for the trees... It's "new sudden" in the scope of how long the Earth has been here vs. when industrialization started, when we commercialized food, etc. Extinction doesn't only happen overnight via a comet like in the movies - we've proven we can basically wipe out a species just to eat and produce energy. So I can't believe you don't think what some companies do or what happens in the name of energy is irrelevant in the big picture... why should we regulate fishing or deforestation? No need to care about what gets dumped into our watersheds or how Monsanto messes with the genetics of our food? You learn about ecosystems at a fairly young age in school - I believe it's beyond foolish to think that what we do doesn't matter... unless of course you're of the mind it's all coming to an end soon anyway.
I will agree "Save the Earth" is silly... it's not going anywhere. But what we do matters to our survival.
Well it is foolish to poop in your water supply, something that Long Island was doing figuratively and literally for a long time. It's also stupid to over fish or over harvest forests as it'll put the very people who depend on on out of business. It's in any human's self interest to be a good steward of their resources, but with that may come unintended side effects (more expensive fish fillets at MickyD's, more expensive goods made from wood like furniture, frame houses, etc).
Think about what Monsanto is doing, figuring out how to grow more food so producers can sell to more markets, usually markets that can't feed their populations by natural means. So we ban genetically modified foods, which is fine by me, I'll eat my Hanover tomatoes each summer in season and pay three times the average for naturally grown foods. I can afford it and I have alternatives in the off season. But for the poorer people and locations where food isn't plentiful we can expect undernourishment and starvation. That may be an acceptable trade off for me as long as I don't go hungry. For the rest of the world, they may not like it as much.
And yes, corporations stand to make a profit off of this stuff, but for the number two fattest country in the world finding food isn't much of a problem.
There's even bigger money in denying global warming! (Take a look at who is denying it and where their interests lie!)
Exxon/Mobil? Great, hit them with a big carbon tax, and then pay the price at the pump. Long Island could handle it with it's awesome mass transit, high paying local jobs and low density population. It also has great weather for switching to scooters and bicycles for getting around. I'm actually surprised that Islanders haven't ditched their cars and oil burning furnaces by now.
There's money for many other big companies in Climate Change that you may not even think about. Surprised the heck out of me when I found out.
So if Long Islanders rush to buy property in Sandy damaged areas do you think those same people are on the cutting edge of sustainability? If anything Long Island becomes more and more dependent on a non-sustainable environmental economic model each and every year, so complaining about global warming is really hypocritical for the area.
Well it is foolish to poop in your water supply, something that Long Island was doing figuratively and literally for a long time. It's also stupid to over fish or over harvest forests as it'll put the very people who depend on on out of business. It's in any human's self interest to be a good steward of their resources, but with that may come unintended side effects (more expensive fish fillets at MickyD's, more expensive goods made from wood like furniture, frame houses, etc).
Think about what Monsanto is doing, figuring out how to grow more food so producers can sell to more markets, usually markets that can't feed their populations by natural means. So we ban genetically modified foods, which is fine by me, I'll eat my Hanover tomatoes each summer in season and pay three times the average for naturally grown foods. I can afford it and I have alternatives in the off season. But for the poorer people and locations where food isn't plentiful we can expect undernourishment and starvation. That may be an acceptable trade off for me as long as I don't go hungry. For the rest of the world, they may not like it as much.
And yes, corporations stand to make a profit off of this stuff, but for the number two fattest country in the world finding food isn't much of a problem.
It's all a trade off.
So it does matter? or it only matters if it impacts you within the next 20, 30, 40 years? I can't figure out your stance based on that reply. You can afford it right now at 3x, but when it's 5, 6, 7x the current price or gone entirely?
I'm not concerned about more expensive fish fillets... I'm concerned about wiping out entire species - or when they sub in "fish" while the average person won't even notice. Tilapia/garbage fish labeled as more expensive seafood, horse meat in chopped meat/beef - it happens all the time.
What Monsanto is doing is anything but what you represent - they're a chemical company posing as agriculture. They're more evil than the energy companies and that says a lot. The last thing they are concerned with is feeding people.
It all matters... what is happening at Fukushima matters - all that radiation being dumped into the ocean and atmosphere. Look at the half life of those fuels to understand how long that will continue. Producing energy - burning fossil fuels. They all have side effects... We can and will impact the planet to feed ourselves and provide the energy we need.
Someone ate those fish. Monsanto isn't posing as anything but what they are a chemical company in business to make a profit that figured out a way to grow crops faster and bigger. I've eaten horse, it isn't bad. Japan needed the energy.
Quote:
They all have side effects...
Bingo! Everything has side effects. Feast or famine. Light and heat, or darkness and cold. Living in the burbs or living in the city. We want a car to go where ever we want whenever we want but not the carbon emissions. We wanted our clams but are shocked when they were over harvested. Each action (or inaction for that matter) has a side effect.
Someone ate those fish. Monsanto isn't posing as anything but what they are a chemical company in business to make a profit that figured out a way to grow crops faster and bigger. I've eaten horse, it isn't bad. Japan needed the energy.
Bingo! Everything has side effects. Feast or famine. Light and heat, or darkness and cold. Living in the burbs or living in the city. We want a car to go where ever we want whenever we want but not the carbon emissions. We wanted our clams but are shocked when they were over harvested. Each action (or inaction for that matter) has a side effect.
This is my entire point... we can impact the environment - it's the Pequa's of the world who find their way to disprove everything because of charts and graphs about the temp of the Earth. It's silly - what we do can and will impact our life on the planet long term.
and btw - the issue is that horse should be labeled horse and GMOs should be labeled GMOs... meanwhile both don't happen because of crooked companies and lobbyists. Monsanto isn't figuring out how to grow it faster and bigger. They've figured out how to genetically modify seeds so their pesticides won't kill them, then they put local growers out of business when their patented seeds blow in the wind and grow on their farms. It's a great business model if you're a stockholder - not so much if you want to find natural foods in the future.
I happily live my life without worrying about climate change... I usually don't worry about things I can't control. There's a lot of hype on both sides.... All I need is some tasty waves and a cool buzz and I'm good
Sent from my iPhone 5
using Tapatalk 2
Whether or not you use LED bulbs and drive a hybrid car isn't going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things, so do what you want. We need paradigm shifts in transportation and energy generation to do anything about climate change, but that's not going to happen with people who "think" like Pequa in elected office. I mean Christ if everyone says the sky is blue and you call them liars I guess there isn't much room for debate.
This is my entire point... we can impact the environment - it's the Pequa's of the world who find their way to disprove everything because of charts and graphs about the temp of the Earth. It's silly - what we do can and will impact our life on the planet long term.
But hunger and making ends meet are more pressing needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid
and btw - the issue is that horse should be labeled horse and GMOs should be labeled GMOs... meanwhile both don't happen because of crooked companies and lobbyists.
In regards to horse, it's really Americans who are squeamish about eating Trigger burgers, in Europe it was not big deal. Same for GMOs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid
They've figured out how to genetically modify seeds so their pesticides won't kill them, then they put local growers out of business when their patented seeds blow in the wind and grow on their farms. It's a great business model if you're a stockholder - not so much if you want to find natural foods in the future.
Glad you brought that up, there's always the other option. And no body is stopping someone from finding natural foods of the future, it just takes a long time to do so.
Now back to, "What do you think about buying a house in Sandy damaged areas?"
It's crazy but as long as the buyer wants to take the chance and buy, but understands there is no bailout for damages to their home, no cheap insurance and will foot whatever bill for rescue, they could go for it.
There have been 2 hurricanes in a row and significant damage, rebuilding in some of these areas is the definition of madness. They are questioning whether to restore the Long Beach Hospital to it's original capacity, many Park Avenue businesses were flooded again by the heavy rains in the spring. The federal government is putting almost $1B in shoreline restoration, how many times can they afford to continue repairing coastal dunes. We should be retreating from the waterfront where possible, not constantly rebuilding homes in areas that are prone to flooding, New Jersey seems to be ahead of us in that area.
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.
