We're Screwed

just because you feel like you're being environmentally conscience, doesn't mean you are.

see, the whole 'green movement' isn't really about saving the planet or sustainability, it's about making people feel good about purchasing a certain product or service. it's marketing, and people fall for it allll the time.
 
original
But really? Why not suggest things to do to be sustainable and less wasteful along with what you posted. I also still think green products are better than normal ones but still not as good as people believe.
 
Of course there are some companies that will say "We'er Green buy this buy that" When in fact they are no where near green. Its just like companies that say they are organic. There are some fucked companies out there just trying to get peoples money and there are some companies that are actually trying to make an impact. Saying the whole movement is in for the money is just strait stupid. Someday in the near future we will run out of fossil fuels. Why not start working on alternatives in energy now (more than what we a currently doing).

I was watching film in class a couple months back. It was talking about the environment and the impact we have on it. Apparently the Saudis have been lying about the amount of oil in their reserves so they can increase quotas and get more money. And soon they will run out of oil since they have already reached peak oil. They said in like 20-30 years only the rich will be able to travel by air since the cost of oil will be so high.
 
if you look at what the average person in the world makes, this has been true for years if not decades...also back in the 70s they were saying that we'd be out of oil by the year 2000.
 
this post is incomprehensible.

Global warming is real. This isn't "up for debate." Please, everybody, quit being dumbasses.

this thread is dildos.

/thread
 
I'm impressed that the general sentiment towards global climate change has come along this quickly. When you think about it, it wasn't long ago when a thread like this would be overrun by skepticism and accusations of tree-hugging, liberal propaganda. Although I wish steps were being taken a lot more quickly towards promoting a green movement, it's good to see a fairly enlightened sense of agreement that we have a dire problem here. We've identified the 'what,' now it's time for the 'how.'

The two prominent programs concerning greenhouse gas emissions are a carbon tax and a cap+trade system. Both have advantages and disadvantages and both represent very difficult political dilemmas. First, a carbon tax allows the government to increase its revenue and penalize the biggest polluters. However, there are certain ethical issues in the sense that corporations would still be able to simple pay their way to continue polluting. Not to mention taxes almost always increase inefficiencies within markets. On the other hand, a cap+and trade system would allow the government to know how much greenhouse gases are reduced, as they begin to scale back the number of permits issued each year. However, the price at which these reductions come is the new unknown variable, as the trading system would be done in a free market setting among corporations. In both cases, some serious technology would have to be employed at the ground level to monitor emissions by individual corporations.

Either way, global climate change is just that, global. This means that solutions must be addressed with international support and cooperation. As we all know, that can be very very difficult politically, even for small international gatherings such as the G8 summits. I don't know if the world is ready to cooperate, so the US and other superpowers MUST take the lead and set an example. Sure, the positive impacts may be decades down the road, but I firmly believe in intergenerational equity and the chance for my future grandkids to experience some blower glade runs.
 
you must be insane. co2 rates were up to around 14 times higher throughout history compared to the last decade. if you really believe it is harming the planet then you should immediately kill yourself and end your hypocrisy since you are releasing co2 everytime you exhale. but if not then i guess just continue to pay your carbon taxes since that is what is saving our planet. i bet you think the separation of pangea occured because there was nobody to pay carbon taxes.
 
I don't think they said oil would run out by 2000. All I can see is people predicting about the price of oil going over $100 a barrel. Look at how they are getting oil today and who gives us the most oil. The middle easts reserves are running low. People are now fracking for oil. Fracking is the last resort for getting oil. Just take clues and look at what going on. By 2050 I bet that close to all our supply of oil will be depleted if we are still this dependent on fossil files. If not sooner. They were predicting that in 15-20 years suadi arabia will be out of oil.
 
You may not have noticed but the US government has almost always subsidized farmers over the past 10 years. Subsidizing the most important crop to US ag - corn. Ethanol has been a joke of a fuel and wastes a solid 20% of crop production yearly. This wave permeates through all crop and protein producers $s. You know how you feed chickens, pigs and cattle? Ya, poultry, pork and beef have been hurtin due to ethanol, an oil substitute roughly 60% as effective as gas.

Certainly the grain markets are about to get railed, but its been made even surer by the government.
 
It's called OPEC and its been around long before you existed. I do hope you realize that oil companies aren't planning on not existing years from now - currently we're about 200-300 years away from losing all oil supply.... the good news is that they're learning more and more everyday about how to enhance travel so that it burns less fuel. Costs won't be rising much more than inflation in the near years, you've been misled.
 
Small tip from the in's and slowly threadbombing. Fracking is for natural gas, and do you realize what it did for the industry? Made it cheap and ruined all nat gas companies because supply reached such a high level - we have nat gas for life! Commodities are at such a high level at this day (and I'm not speaking on metals as I don't have much experience). They will last much beyond our lifetimes, their prices only depend on what companies do with them. The planet has more than what it can deal with thanks to hard working college cats. Right now its on a time frame - 200+ years. Something that shouldn't be a concern for those who aren't scizo enviro fools.
 
I may not know a lot about being environmentally "green" but why risk losing the ice and possibly snow in the mountains. Im not saying this could happen any time soon but why ruin the sport of skiing for future generations?
 
I hope a giant meteor hits the earth in 150 years. I hope everything is destroyed before we can jackass it too bad
 
What I mean is the extraction of oils from shale. They use the fracking method. Natural gas is good and we do have a lot of it. However we are still supporting coal? Coal is the shittiest fossil fuel nature has to offer.

What I would like to see is fusion power. That would be the best source of energy.
 
pretty theyve been subsidizing farmers for 30+

the agriculture industry in this country is a joke economically and environmentally. Also I was in no way acting as a proponent of ethanol as a fuel. that was strictly as an anecdote of potential issues we could already be seeing due to anthropogenic changes in our atmosphere

where i think the answer lies in terms of energy production, is nuclear terrapower in conjunction with wind and solar and battery technology such as what this MIT professor and his graduates students have come up with in this video. such technology can make up for the shortcomings of renewables such as wind and solar

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

and the problem being the politics surrounding all of this

 
the model t ford got 27 miles to the gallon... how many years ago? what do we get now? something seems amiss?

oh yeah, the fact that those in the (all of the) fossil fuel industries don't want to resort to increased efficiency standards until they have to. the same way apple drags its feet on releasing new features for its products. additionally youre only focusing on economic impacts, it is fact that fossil fuel extraction ruins ecosystems and the environment they compose..

look at:

the tar sans of alberta

BP oil spill

Richmond, CA processing plant that caught on fire and now people are being hospilized for infections impacting their breathing and cardiovascular systems

the oil spill in wiconsin two years ago that it took (i think shell) over 17 hours to realize their pipeline was leaking

people think its justifiable to drill in ANWR.. really? theres only about 200 days worth of US use of oil up there. only 40 if you include the rest of the world

fracking resulting in methane leaching into ground water (believe this was in arizona?)

you could light your faucet on fire

this and countless more shit right in front of you man. come on. i know how it is, my parents watch fox news too. but i at least make fun of them for it. you should just change your name to shaun hannity
 
ok guys, lets just leave it at that:

obviously the earth was warmer before. you guys have all sorts of "sources" for whatever argument that manmade global warming isnt happening. i get that, and since you believe all scientists are fuckheads, go on with your lives, i am not gonna argue with you.

BUT i dont think there is anyone doubting that renewable energy sources are the way to go.

oil spills, the deforestation everywhere, the building of deserts, overfishing, extinction of animal species WAY above the "normal" rate are clearly man made and unanomimously wrong. i hate how people always come with some sort of argument against manmade climate change and in the same breath call efforts to better one of these situations "dumb" or "hippie shit".

we are destroying this planet, and while i am also doing horseshit to change that, at least i dont think that we are the best thing ever happening to this planet.

you could say that emission of CO2 and a few degrees here and there are very small problems, indeed, but would it kill us to stop using coal for energy production and develop an alternative way of transportation than otto-engines? the way you guys make it sound, apparently yes.
 
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

97% of climate researchers/scientists said "yes" to the following question:

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing

mean global temperatures?"

climate researchers. 3146 climate researchers. obviously nearly all of them couldve been bribed by the green industry. obviously, all of them couldve feared some sort of problems if they go against the stream. OR is it what they think?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top