Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Environmentalism

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 1:46pm

Pegasus16

Pegasus16

45 posts

I think its gone to far, and that it is starting to severely affect our economy. Your thoughts?

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 3:48pm

Krill11

Krill11

99 posts

Using inventions that don't work (yet) and not very efficient, and not using inventions that are worth peoples while. Anyone wish to argue this point? Take the hydrogen car for example! there is a perfect example of making efficient energy, taking saltwater and turning it into water. so your traveling, and watering the earth at the same time!

Also the change is to dramatic, things need to be smoothly placed into effect, instead of Making gas engines illegal. (Its coming, you watch....)

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 4:47pm

loloynage2

loloynage2

3,106 posts

I...don't see how it's gone too far... I mean the big countries hardly did anything for the environment. So I doubt that's the cause of bad economics. Actually using clean resources would improve our economy that is currently unstable with our current resources.

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 5:13pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,027 posts

Knight

What has gone too far is solely companies and businesses taking advantage of the new environmentalism movement by selling expensive and asinine things like the electric car, which is a perfect example of a good idea, but awful realisation. It makes people feel like they're doing something for the environment, but they're not, they're only filling already full pockets. This seriously pisses me off.

As loloynage said, some of the changes that should be done aren't done at all, pollution is still as massive as before, it will need more time before the movement will have bigger effects. I mean there are already a few good helpful inventions, but they don't get enough funds to really spread enough, while stupid things like the electric car boom because it brings in money. Scumbag capitalism...

Sustainability is a good thing, a sensible thing for everyones future and the economy (yes, the economy will profit from reasonable sustainability in the long term), but the good intentions are too often taken advantage of and then all people become fed up, like the OP, which is highly nuisible to the actual important movement.

So no, the reasonable environmentalism hasn't gone far enough yet, only people are unable to distinguish it from the parasitic "environmentalism ($$$)"...

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 6:03pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

What has gone too far is solely companies and businesses taking advantage of the new environmentalism movement by selling expensive and asinine things like the electric car, which is a perfect example of a good idea, but awful realisation. It makes people feel like they're doing something for the environment, but they're not, they're only filling already full pockets. This seriously pisses me off.

"Well here I am, at a gas station getting some lunch. Here maybe a hotdog and hamburger, and for a drink one of these 99 cent water bottles. No, look at this! This one is made of almost 30% plant! I will get this one instead. Because plant bottle."

I...don't see how it's gone too far... I mean the big countries hardly did anything for the environment.

So what have the small companies done, exactly?

Actually using clean resources would improve our economy that is currently unstable with our current resources

What do you base this off of, exactly?

As loloynage said, some of the changes that should be done aren't done at all, pollution is still as massive as before, it will need more time before the movement will have bigger effects. I mean there are already a few good helpful inventions, but they don't get enough funds to really spread enough, while stupid things like the electric car boom because it brings in money. Scumbag capitalism...

I am confused. You just said that these wonderful inventions will save us money, but then and curse capitalism? If the inventions actually do save us money, as you claim they do, then wouldn't capitalism hook on to them?

Sustainability is a good thing, a sensible thing for everyones future and the economy (yes, the economy will profit from reasonable sustainability in the long term)

Witch is of course why capitalism has ignored it? Your flip flopping again.

So no, the reasonable environmentalism hasn't gone far enough yet, only people are unable to distinguish it from the parasitic "environmentalism ($$$)"...

What is the difference?

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 6:13pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,027 posts

Knight

"Well here I am, at a gas station getting some lunch. Here maybe a hotdog and hamburger, and for a drink one of these 99 cent water bottles. No, look at this! This one is made of almost 30% plant! I will get this one instead. Because plant bottle."

Errr.... what? Please explain again, understandable this time.

So what have the small companies done, exactly?

Some small companies have innovated in the right direction, while a lot of big companies still don't give a ****. Which one has more influence on the environment?

I am confused. You just said that these wonderful inventions will save us money, but then and curse capitalism? If the inventions actually do save us money, as you claim they do, then wouldn't capitalism hook on to them?

Obviously capitalism isn't 100% evil, I just mean that it is usually blind about the long term advantages and avid about the short-term profit.

Witch is of course why capitalism has ignored it? Your flip flopping again.

WHICH.

What is the difference?

Common sense. Electric cars don't pollute less than regular cars as long as the electricity itself isn't clean enough. The car itself isn't a bad idea, selling them at the current time is.

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 6:48pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Errr.... what? Please explain again, understandable this time.

You see, alif aba kadabra. Icecream. The end justifies the means. I don't remember what I meant and have no clue what I am typing at this moment.

Some small companies have innovated in the right direction, while a lot of big companies still don't give a ****. Which one has more influence on the environment?

The one that makes the most money off of it. If the small companies are making enough money that they are actually getting somewhere financially using the environmental ones, then logically they would be making money. If they are making money, then they will make a bigger impact. Why wouldn't big companies make the switch, if it makes them money?

Obviously capitalism isn't 100% evil, I just mean that it is usually blind about the long term advantages and avid about the short-term profit.

Don't short term benefits gather to become long term benefits?

WHICH.

Which? BURN THE WHICH!

Common sense. Electric cars don't pollute less than regular cars as long as the electricity itself isn't clean enough. The car itself isn't a bad idea, selling them at the current time is.

Great. That defiantly explains the difference between environmentalism ($$$) and environmentalism. So, witch is it?

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 9:35pm

loloynage2

loloynage2

3,106 posts

So what have the small companies done, exactly?

I don't understand how that is a question for my statement which has absolutely nothing to do with your question...

What do you base this off of, exactly?

hmm...Let's see. Waging costly wars or overpriced deals with countries that have oil instead of using resources from inside our own country. Holding back climate change will save money from complications (illness, massive floods...) and the good thing with renewable resources is that it never runs out, thus, in the long run, it will cost a lot less money. And the US has great potential. Anyway, if you manage to tell me one country that has a high percentage of clean energy use and has a bad economy, I might reconsider.

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 10:09pm

Wyrzen

Wyrzen

325 posts

There are all sorts of wonderful ideas for helping our environment, such as the perviously mentioned hydrogen cars, and a recent idea of artificial trees to clean the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, most don't get past the "That's a great idea!" phase due to the lack of interest from those with the money. Plus when the engine of a hydrogen car is hit, it explodes. Like the Hindenburg on a Honda Accord scale.

I mean, think about it. Why would a company invest millions to billions of dollars in an idea that MIGHT work and then cut 7.2% of their carbon monoxide and chlorofluorocarbon emissions, when they can save all that money and just do whatever little things the government requires?

I think I'm contradicting myself.

There are obviously the PETA of environmentalists who go live in the forest and then those who burn forests for fun. (I can't think of a good analogy.)

I wish....let's see....I wish our environment was in better shape, but I think companies are largely unwilling to fork valuable assets to the environmentalists, due to the poor return of those ideas.

If any of my garbled mess of a thought makes any sense.

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 10:16pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

I don't understand how that is a question for my statement which has absolutely nothing to do with your question...

Well you said big companies don't do anything for the environment. Logically, small companies must do something, or you would have simply said "companies", correct?

hmm...Let's see. Waging costly wars

....Wait....A war? What does that have to do with anything?

overpriced deals with countries that have oil instead of using resources from inside our own country.

Overpriced? I was always told our oil was some of the cheapest....

Either way, wouldn't this just lead to getting oil from our own country?

Holding back climate change will save money from complications (illness, massive floods...) 

And that will help in what, two hundred years? Not really going to help the economy at the moment.

and the good thing with renewable resources is that it never runs out, thus, in the long run, it will cost a lot less money.

Great! Then it will be cheaper to use renewable resources, thus capitalism will take effect and renewable resources will be used. This will probably take effect the second renewable resources become cheaper than it's equivalent in nonrenewable resources, correct?

And the US has great potential.

Does it? What do you base that on?

Anyway, if you manage to tell me one country that has a high percentage of clean energy use and has a bad economy, I might reconsider.

That sounds like a misdirected cause and effect. Since clean energy costs MORE, that means that bad economies can't afford them, while good economies can. Correct? That is like saying "Eating caviar makes you rich, or can you name one poor person who eats caviar on a regular bases?"

 
Reply to Environmentalism

You must be logged in to post a reply!