You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
why we are still polluting the environment after known results?
- Thread starter ankita
- Start date
big incidous
New member
first of all the ozone layer problem has already been pretty much solved. CFCs aren't in products anymore, and we can see the ozone growing back. and global warming... there are many scientists that believe "climate change" is a natural cycle in the earth's life that we cannot change.
and how are you holier than thou art? the electricity used on your computer takes a toll on the environment. you most likely have a car. and if it's a hybrid it does more damage to the environment when being produced, than a hummer does during the cars entire existence. your home is heated, you buy products that came from high emission plants, apple, microsoft, accessories, plastics, rubbers, shoes, etc.
don't act you are better than anyone else.
and how are you holier than thou art? the electricity used on your computer takes a toll on the environment. you most likely have a car. and if it's a hybrid it does more damage to the environment when being produced, than a hummer does during the cars entire existence. your home is heated, you buy products that came from high emission plants, apple, microsoft, accessories, plastics, rubbers, shoes, etc.
don't act you are better than anyone else.
Convenience trumps it.
I understand your concern, but hey - I'm not going to give up my comforts for something that won't change the fact that I'm going to eventually die anyway and therefore, whatever destruction the environment has sustained isn't my problem anymore.
The fact is, it's not our OBLIGATION to do it.
I understand your concern, but hey - I'm not going to give up my comforts for something that won't change the fact that I'm going to eventually die anyway and therefore, whatever destruction the environment has sustained isn't my problem anymore.
The fact is, it's not our OBLIGATION to do it.
I don't really want to give you a hippy response. I used to work for the US gov and got tired of hearing it.
Global Warming: The results are very sensationalized. It's not that global warming isn't happening, but the results are being interpreted differently by different people, and worst of all scientists are trying to instigate political changes. It is not a scientist's job to give political insight, only to report what he sees. The global warming data is also based off of climate model data which isn't as reliable as they want to believe it is. Although now, a lot of the data the IPCC produced is believed. Although you should know that an Inconvenient Truth was riddled with inaccuracies. It was beneficial on the grounds that it increased awareness of the issue. The primary issue with global warming is what the human footprint is. Global warming has been judged based on the amount of specific green house gasses, and the way scientists are measuring footprint is (carbon emission) is hard to interpret as methane gas from cows and water itself produce more than factories or cars. Thus we like to say that cattle farms are a big cause of global warming.
Ozone layers... We've cut out CFC emissions since the nobel prize was won in chemistry for determining the reaction that causes ozone "destruction"...so I think we've done a fairly good job there...as americans. As far as third world countries, we can't really do much about them.
But taken as a whole...there are way too many variables to know what is a pollutant. During the industrial revolution, art during that time period often shows factories polluting the environment because it was a sign of prosperity. They had no idea they were doing enough damage that it couldn't be reconciled.
Now a days, we don't know what is a pollutant as to stop doing it now. And stopping what we know is a pollutant could possibly do more detriment for humanity. Cutting down on pollutants forcibly could have the effect of causing a recession and massive job loss. The great depression is probably a lot more immediate a fear than the earth flooding everything over. Depression and recessions are something we can conceive of where as catastrophic global disasters which may or may not come to the fruition described is not as easy to conceive ...nor would we want to believe.
I think the primary fear now is a lack of resources, especially water. All of our problems can be reduced if there was a smaller global population (at least that's what a lot of people believe) taking up resources. Reducing the amount of growth is also something that not every individual wants to even consider. Just look at the humanitarian issues involved with China's one child policy. A lot of the global population thinks very poorly of China for doing this, but the country probably would just drive themselves into a famine and more disease epidemics if they didn't have the policy reducing their population.
So...put it all in perspective. I'm not asking you to go the traditional democrat / republican perspective of "everything must be balanced", but at least try to doubt your own beliefs in order to truly believe them. Hypotheses can only be disproved, never proved.
Global Warming: The results are very sensationalized. It's not that global warming isn't happening, but the results are being interpreted differently by different people, and worst of all scientists are trying to instigate political changes. It is not a scientist's job to give political insight, only to report what he sees. The global warming data is also based off of climate model data which isn't as reliable as they want to believe it is. Although now, a lot of the data the IPCC produced is believed. Although you should know that an Inconvenient Truth was riddled with inaccuracies. It was beneficial on the grounds that it increased awareness of the issue. The primary issue with global warming is what the human footprint is. Global warming has been judged based on the amount of specific green house gasses, and the way scientists are measuring footprint is (carbon emission) is hard to interpret as methane gas from cows and water itself produce more than factories or cars. Thus we like to say that cattle farms are a big cause of global warming.
Ozone layers... We've cut out CFC emissions since the nobel prize was won in chemistry for determining the reaction that causes ozone "destruction"...so I think we've done a fairly good job there...as americans. As far as third world countries, we can't really do much about them.
But taken as a whole...there are way too many variables to know what is a pollutant. During the industrial revolution, art during that time period often shows factories polluting the environment because it was a sign of prosperity. They had no idea they were doing enough damage that it couldn't be reconciled.
Now a days, we don't know what is a pollutant as to stop doing it now. And stopping what we know is a pollutant could possibly do more detriment for humanity. Cutting down on pollutants forcibly could have the effect of causing a recession and massive job loss. The great depression is probably a lot more immediate a fear than the earth flooding everything over. Depression and recessions are something we can conceive of where as catastrophic global disasters which may or may not come to the fruition described is not as easy to conceive ...nor would we want to believe.
I think the primary fear now is a lack of resources, especially water. All of our problems can be reduced if there was a smaller global population (at least that's what a lot of people believe) taking up resources. Reducing the amount of growth is also something that not every individual wants to even consider. Just look at the humanitarian issues involved with China's one child policy. A lot of the global population thinks very poorly of China for doing this, but the country probably would just drive themselves into a famine and more disease epidemics if they didn't have the policy reducing their population.
So...put it all in perspective. I'm not asking you to go the traditional democrat / republican perspective of "everything must be balanced", but at least try to doubt your own beliefs in order to truly believe them. Hypotheses can only be disproved, never proved.