vbnautilus 48 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 The biggest way to do irreparable damage to the environment is to give it to the government. Something like 90% of the superfund sites were government land; the biggest polluter in the country is the government; the number of trees on private land has increased in the last 100 years while the number of trees on government land has decreased.It seems like pure folly the way the enviro-wackos keep turning to the worst steward for answers."Number of trees" sounds like a rather crude metric for amount of pollution done. Anyways, I wasn't proposing a solution, although it seems to me that a totally free market will exploit the land as much as is beneficial to the particular individuals profiting from it. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,753 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I mean, I consider park rangers to be a pretty great example of rational environmentalism in action. park rangers HATED treadwell for misleading the public and habituating bears to humans. maybe I'm wrong.I agree with you in your definition of environmentalism... but I don't think that the far majority of 'environmentalists' would say that Park Rangers working for the federal government are on their side. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 "Number of trees" sounds like a rather crude metric for amount of pollution done. Anyways, I wasn't proposing a solution, although it seems to me that a totally free market will exploit the land as much as is beneficial to the particular individuals profiting from it.Historically, the point where people start being willing to pay for "environment" (more trees, clean air, clean water) is when their per capita income is around $4700 (that's from about 10 years ago, so it may be $6K or so by now). The point is that you don't protect the environment by doing things that harm the economy -- as is the usual solution, kicked into high gear under Obama -- but instead you protect the environment my making people rich enough to care about such things. And history is quite clear on how to make people rich. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Historically, the point where people start being willing to pay for "environment" (more trees, clean air, clean water) is when their per capita income is around $4700 (that's from about 10 years ago, so it may be $6K or so by now). The point is that you don't protect the environment by doing things that harm the economy -- as is the usual solution, kicked into high gear under Obama -- but instead you protect the environment my making people rich enough to care about such things. And history is quite clear on how to make people rich.It's a question of priorities really. The "point at which people become willing to pay for environment" is not necessarily the point which benefits the environment most. I also don't concede that wealth correlates with environmental harmony. I'd have to see some data on that. On the surface that doesn't seem to be true across nations. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 protecting the environment is also extraordinarily important.I'm sure no will will disagree with this statement in principle. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy's_touch 0 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I agree with you in your definition of environmentalism... but I don't think that the far majority of 'environmentalists' would say that Park Rangers working for the federal government are on their side.I mean, my point is, treadwell was about as ignorant and insignificant as it gets. the ONLY reason he has any notoriety is because he committed suicide via bears. watch the documentary on him... it's retarded to hold him up as an example of what's wrong with environmentalism because he represents nothing. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 It's a question of priorities really. The "point at which people become willing to pay for environment" is not necessarily the point which benefits the environment most. I also don't concede that wealth correlates with environmental harmony. I'd have to see some data on that. On the surface that doesn't seem to be true across nations.If you try to force people to pay for environmental concerns before they are ready, you will get unintended consequences -- see the cap and trade discussion for an obvious example. If you tell someone "you can't have the things you care about because we want you to pay for things other people want", the result will always be worse than letting them be.It seems intuitively obvious that wealth corresponds with environmental concerns. If you are poor, you scrape and fight any way you can for food, shelter and warmth. You don't really care if it's a sustainable practice or if a few innocent animals die in the process. As you get richer, the destruction of your world starts to bug you, so you take actions to care for it. For example, I am currently letting about 5 acres of extremely arable land return to forest. I could be renting it to the local farmers or using it to grow stuff and sell, but I'd rather have a forest in my back yard.It just turns out that you can put numbers on the various concerns. When you reach income level X, you care about Y. When you reach 2X, you care about Z. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,753 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I mean, my point is, treadwell was about as ignorant and insignificant as it gets. the ONLY reason he has any notoriety is because he committed suicide via bears. watch the documentary on him... it's retarded to hold him up as an example of what's wrong with environmentalism because he represents nothing.But what do those EarthFirst people crying over dead trees represent? ****ing lunatics? Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 But what do those EarthFirst people crying over dead trees represent? ****ing lunatics?you're asking the wrong dude. I was just pointing out that mr. troll was constructing a massive straw man.my personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter who is right or how hard their organizations campaign. inertia is going to win this battle until the coastal cities are all underwater, etc. etc. I sure hope they're wrong about it all. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 It seems intuitively obvious that wealth corresponds with environmental concerns. If you are poor, you scrape and fight any way you can for food, shelter and warmth. You don't really care if it's a sustainable practice or if a few innocent animals die in the process. As you get richer, the destruction of your world starts to bug you, so you take actions to care for it. For example, I am currently letting about 5 acres of extremely arable land return to forest. I could be renting it to the local farmers or using it to grow stuff and sell, but I'd rather have a forest in my back yard.No, that doesn't seem intuitively obvious to me at all. The people running huge chemical plants are not scraping and fighting for food. People often become wealthy at the expense of the environment, and if what you are doing is making you rich, you tend to keep doing it. Also, the more wealthy you become, the more power you have to destroy. The poor guy living in a tent is not really in a position to ruin the Mississippi. Environmental destruction is generally the result of the pursuit of individual wealth. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 No, that doesn't seem intuitively obvious to me at all. The people running huge chemical plants are not scraping and fighting for food. People often become wealthy at the expense of the environment, and if what you are doing is making you rich, you tend to keep doing it. Also, the more wealthy you become, the more power you have to destroy. The poor guy living in a tent is not really in a position to ruin the Mississippi. Environmental destruction is generally the result of the pursuit of individual wealth.The people who run the plants live in the community too. The people who make the argument you give here act like the employees and bosses at the plant are aliens who beam in from space and then go to live comfortably on their home planet. The truth is, people care about how nice their place of residence is in direct relation to how much they can afford to care, and that includes the people who work in and run the factories.Another factor is that pollution is basically a bad choice for use of resources. It is almost always an inefficiency that will be cured over time via competition.And yes, I know all this isn't always true. There is such a thing as a negative externality, and we need to find ways to deal with it, but if the makes people poorer, it will do more harm than good. But overall, wealth = cleaner environment. The US has more trees now than when it was poor. The air is way, way cleaner than it was in the 70s. The water is cleaner. Lake Eerie used to occasionally start on fire it was so polluted. In the meantime, in Africa, people burn manure to heat their homes, leading to massive pollution and premature death. Yes, we have that big scary polluting power plant, but guess what -- we can heat and light 10,000 homes with less pollution than they can heat and sometimes light 100 homes. A lot of what enviro-people see is the effects of the efficiencies of consolidating our production. If you have one plant serving tens or hundreds of thousands of people, yes, it will produce more pollution than any particular individual. But it's obvious it won't produce as much as if each person had to generate their own heat source.Again, I won't ignore things like intentionally dumping toxic waste, but you can make those a crime without destroying the economy. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 The people who run the plants live in the community too. The people who make the argument you give here act like the employees and bosses at the plant are aliens who beam in from space and then go to live comfortably on their home planet. The truth is, people care about how nice their place of residence is in direct relation to how much they can afford to care, and that includes the people who work in and run the factories.Another factor is that pollution is basically a bad choice for use of resources. It is almost always an inefficiency that will be cured over time via competition.If any of this were true, there would not be pollution. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 you're asking the wrong dude. I was just pointing out that mr. troll was constructing a massive straw man.my personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter who is right or how hard their organizations campaign. inertia is going to win this battle until the coastal cities are all underwater, etc. etc. I sure hope they're wrong about it all. You'll be happy to know that they are wrong. If they were right the coastal cities would have been under water in the early 1990s as they predicted. Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Paradise 57 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 in honor of this thread I am now watching deliverance. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 If any of this were true, there would not be pollution.Really? Do you create zero pollution in your own life? Of do you not care about the environment? You seem to think the two are mutally exclusive. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Really? Do you create zero pollution in your own life? Of do you not care about the environment? You seem to think the two are mutally exclusive.Huh? My point is that there has been egregious pollution in our lifetimes, and if what you say about it regulating itself were true, we would not have seen that.I personally live in a self-contained sustainable biodome, but I don't expect everybody to do that. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 You'll be happy to know that they are wrong. If they were right the coastal cities would have been under water in the early 1990s as they predicted.or frozen over as they were predicting in the 1970s. I am well aware of their garbage track record. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 To a lesser (by a lot) extent, some of you may know and care (or not) that we currently have a garbage strike in Toronto, going on 3 weeks now.Well, some of the citizens living near Christie Pits, a fairly central downtown Bloor park, took exception to the rink area being used as a public drop off point and were giving anyone dropping off their garbage a hard time. Do you think they had an alternative in mind? If they did, I didn't hear a peep about it. They just cared about their own little corner of the universe and everything was cool as long as the dumping happened elsewhere... Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 To a lesser (by a lot) extent, some of you may know and care (or not) that we currently have a garbage strike in Toronto, going on 3 weeks now.Well, some of the citizens living near Christie Pits, a fairly central downtown Bloor park, took exception to the rink area being used as a public drop off point and were giving anyone dropping off their garbage a hard time. Do you think they had an alternative in mind? If they did, I didn't hear a peep about it. They just cared about their own little corner of the universe and everything was cool as long as the dumping happened elsewhere...I am working with a guy who is near Toronto right now and he was telling me about some of the smells and problems with the trash getting piled up near the river.Man I am glad I live in a country that knows how to keep it's corrupt unions in line by paying them whatever they ask. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I am working with a guy who is near Toronto right now and he was telling me about some of the smells and problems with the trash getting piled up near the river.Man I am glad I live in a country that knows how to keep it's corrupt unions in line by paying them whatever they ask.That'd probably be people dumping down by the Don River, both legally and illegally. The City is treating and covering legal dump sites, but it's difficult to control. Also, the union is trying to blockade people from dumping at legal sites as a pressure tactic.Not a lot of fun...The streets are in horrible shape for biking, among other things, although my neighbourhood is still selling fairly fresh (I live downtown west near High Park, so we're near the lake). Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 My biggest bitch with environmentalists is their opposition to genetically modified foods. GM foods in the United States require the most rigorous testing of any food product in the world, prior to being grown on farms. Greenpeace has consistently opposed the release of GM foods because they do not understand genetics or the tests that these crops undergo. Greenpeace is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in Nigeria, because of their lobbying the Nigerian government to not accept the feed offered them by the greatest man who has ever lived: Norman Borlaug. They took the seed later, after thousands of their citizens had succumbed to starvation.Fuck Greenpeace. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 My biggest bitch with environmentalists is their opposition to genetically modified foods. GM foods in the United States require the most rigorous testing of any food product in the world, prior to being grown on farms. Greenpeace has consistently opposed the release of GM foods because they do not understand genetics or the tests that these crops undergo. Greenpeace is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in Nigeria, because of their lobbying the Nigerian government to not accept the feed offered them by the greatest man who has ever lived: Norman Borlaug. They took the seed later, after thousands of their citizens had succumbed to starvation.F Greenpeace.Then there's the DDT outlawed to save the integrity of the bird's eggshells that has resulted in over 60 million people dying of malaria.Largest act of murder ever committed in human history, brough to you by the 'people who care'. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 My biggest bitch with environmentalists is their opposition to genetically modified foods. GM foods in the United States require the most rigorous testing of any food product in the world, prior to being grown on farms. Greenpeace has consistently opposed the release of GM foods because they do not understand genetics or the tests that these crops undergo. Greenpeace is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in Nigeria, because of their lobbying the Nigerian government to not accept the feed offered them by the greatest man who has ever lived: Norman Borlaug. They took the seed later, after thousands of their citizens had succumbed to starvation.Fuck Greenpeace.If you eat genetically modified food, doesn't it stand to reason that you and your progeny will become genetically modified? I mean, have there really been long term studies done of the potential effects of consumption of GM foods? I'm not saying they are good or bad, just asking a question that should be asked.Look at it this way: Many products have been developed to use that have turned out to be, in the long term, bad for the environment (ie: styrofoam, various types of plastics, nuclear waste, PCB's, etc...) While some of these things have been useful and even beneficial, some of the disposal methods are found wanting, thus fucking things up. Isn't it conceivable that there might be something "wrong" with GM foods at, say, the cellular level? It's possible that some of the modification aspects may have a leaching property that causes, for example, deterioration of our immune system.Just sayin' Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 If you eat genetically modified food, doesn't it stand to reason that you and your progeny will become genetically modified? I mean, have there really been long term studies done of the potential effects of consumption of GM foods? I'm not saying they are good or bad, just asking a question that should be asked.LOL, this is so misinformed that I thought you were being sarcastic at first, until I read the rest of the post.Please tell me you were joking. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 LOL, this is so misinformed that I thought you were being sarcastic at first, until I read the rest of the post.Please tell me you were joking.Maybe it's naive and uninformed, but at least I'm asking rather than taking an opinion and running with it or accepting what people tell me without asking.What exactly is your position on GM foods and what do you know about them? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now