ForumsWEPREnvironmentalism

88 6464
Pegasus16
offline
Pegasus16
48 posts
330

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

  • 88 Replies
Krill11
offline
Krill11
98 posts
1,215

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....)

loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,241 posts
1,000

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.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,560 posts
20,335

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 ($$$)"...

314d1
offline
314d1
3,883 posts
0

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?
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,560 posts
20,335

"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.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,883 posts
0

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?
loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,241 posts
1,000

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.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
327 posts
1,000

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.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,883 posts
0

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?"
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,560 posts
20,335

It's not only about the inventions and the energy, it's also about the whole sustainability and resulting behaviours. For example, instead of buying meat being mass-produced and shipped across half of the world, you buy meat at a local butcher who gets the meat from a local farmer.

Or in cities, around here there's a trend to buy vegetable more at the markets and at stores who get them from the surrounding area, instead of buying them at bigger food chains.

Well in my country it doesn't make a huuuge difference since it's relatively small, but it still reduces transports->pollution, and it helps the local structures and the small and medium-sized businesses; which is good for the economy. In France for example, they put too much on the bigger enterprises and not enough on the multitude of smaller ones; you see where that brought their economy...

BritHennerz
offline
BritHennerz
410 posts
1,505

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


Regardless that it doesn't help the economy at the moment, helping the environment via sustainable development will save our planet in the future.

Over the next hundred or so years, the global temperature could increase by 5 degrees Celsius (41 F). This may not seem like a lot but the temperature of a City like New York which isn't relatively hot compared to the rest of the World will be a hot as the Sahara desert during the summer.

What's worse is if the global temperature increased by 2 C (37 F), 30 to 200 million people dependant on agriculture (such as people living in Africa would starve).

Yes greener energies cost more and it may be a pain but hydrogen powered cars are cheaper than oil and petrol which are both rising in cost by the day and hydrogen won't run out.

We have a moral responsibility to our future generations and we must start now before it's too late. Most of the countries of the World are making doing what they can to stop messing things up for the next generation, why can't those who don't care for the environment accept the fact that it is a necessity that we can't ignore?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,366 posts
24,090

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


It is. But if you're using electricity like nobody's business, or insist on driving large cars, of course you're going to feel the pinch. Almost no one consumes energy per capita on the same scale as America does.

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


Obama already is. The plain cold fact is that America simply does not have enough. It might have enough to sustain itself in the really short run, but oil is finite, and pretty soon will be used up. Better to swallow some pain now and develop technologies instead of relying on fossil fuel.

France for example, runs on 78% nuclear energy. That is a remarkable achievement in itself.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
327 posts
1,000

We have a moral responsibility to our future generations and we must start now before it's too late. Most of the countries of the World are making doing what they can to stop messing things up for the next generation, why can't those who don't care for the environment accept the fact that it is a necessity that we can't ignore?


Many may view this true, but try convincing the people with the power and money to make it happen. It just isn't cost-effective, or else we would have switched to greener options long ago. These companies are all about profit. If they can make more dough using resources that punch the Earth, they're all for it. Now, not every single company does this, but I'd venture to say it is true in quite a few cases.

I mean, we can all go home and turn off the water while we brush our teeth, or turn off the lights when we leave a room.....but that does basically zip when it comes to our entire earth; there just isn't a point in that. You save two gallons/minute when you turn off the water while you brush. That is like raking two leaves in a deciduous forest in autumn. No difference.

Over the next hundred or so years, the global temperature could increase by 5 degrees Celsius (41 F). This may not seem like a lot but the temperature of a City like New York which isn't relatively hot compared to the rest of the World will be a hot as the Sahara desert during the summer.


Which means the average summer temperature of the actual Sahara will be 135 F, and the average winter temperature will scrape 100 F. In the past hundred years, the earth has heated up 1.33 F. Saying the average temperature of earth will go up 41 F means we'll all die. And, if we were going to all roast in the coming century, I assume more would be taking place in the 'green' effort. I'm skeptical of this data. Besides, even if there is a site where this can be found, you can find dozens of different data options on dozens of different views and opinions on global warming, or the myth of.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
327 posts
1,000

France for example, runs on 78% nuclear energy. That is a remarkable achievement in itself.


The United States will never change to nuclear energy however. After the incident of three-mile island, what happened in Chernobyl, and even Japan, it just isn't going to happen. A nuclear reactor hasn't broken ground since 1974, and a couple are even still in production due to lack of funding and interest.

I do agree it is a fantastic idea....just few are on board.

Now, I've always heard that Alaska has millions of gallons of oil underneath her surface, but that it's all underneath some wildlife preserve. My old civics teacher would always complain that all the government had to do is move a section of the fence back a few dozen yards and put in a pipe.

It is. But if you're using electricity like nobody's business, or insist on driving large cars, of course you're going to feel the pinch. Almost no one consumes energy per capita on the same scale as America does.


Totally agree, though I think this is also partially built on how awful our gas milage is. Cars in Europe on average get 40 mpg, with upwards of 50 mpg; here we jump up and share high-fives if we're getting 25. My mother's CRV gets about 26, and my little accord get 21.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,366 posts
24,090

The United States will never change to nuclear energy however. After the incident of three-mile island, what happened in Chernobyl, and even Japan, it just isn't going to happen. A nuclear reactor hasn't broken ground since 1974, and a couple are even still in production due to lack of funding and interest.


My bet is that it might expand in the long run if other sources can't be utilised fully. Solar energy still isn't cost-efficient, wind/hydro isn't possible everywhere, so the other alternative after fossil fuels runs out is possibly nuclear, also given the fact that using corn and maize on biofuels is a crap idea.

Now, I've always heard that Alaska has millions of gallons of oil underneath her surface, but that it's all underneath some wildlife preserve. My old civics teacher would always complain that all the government had to do is move a section of the fence back a few dozen yards and put in a pipe.


Alaska's reserves are tiny compared to world output. Current estimates in the NPR is less than a billion. Other than the fact that the USA will still need to import, even as it drills more simply due to huge demand, the fact remains that oil prices will not dip and decrease even if America drills more, simply because oil is a global commodity. It is traded at a world price, and no single country other than Saudi Arabia has enough clout to change this price.
Showing 1-15 of 88