How Green Are You?

[Deleted member 848]

Siro, you're wrong about why we cleaned up our act. Think about how people lived just 70-80 years ago let alone 30-40.

You're approaching this monolithically, & simplistically.

In some ways we've cleaned up our act-- no more leaded gasoline, for example.

In some ways, we haven't: before plastics, we use to reuse a ****load. That has changed drastically.

This is an incredibly nuanced discussion to make-- and you're making baloney generalizations with no justification.

We've come a long way in such a short period of time that it's hard for us to relate to the true struggles of life. We started cleaning up only after it either affected us or we could afford to.

In many areas, we have. In many areas, we haven't. Your world may be black & white, but mine certainly isn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[franklin]

This is an incredibly nuanced discussion to make-- and you're making baloney generalizations with no justification.

Our air, water and dirt are all dramatically improved over the last 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 years. The wholesale slaughterings of the 5000 years prior to Teddy Roosevelt no longer occur. Our cities are no longer rivers of filth, blanketed in a layer of nasty wood, coal and manure smoke. We've even cleaned up naturally occurring nastiness, including marine issues. Those beautiful oil slicks off the West coast that were an eyesore before we got all dirty and turned them into plastics, those were the good old days eh? And those caves belching methane gas.

My "generalizations with no justification" are all quantifiable and documented. Your fear mongering is not.

 

[franklin]

Anyway, getting back to being green, I don't see why everyone gets up in a fuss about it when technology is always the solution and will solve the problems in there own due time. At the end of the day, all the hubbub doesn't change a thing.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Anyway, getting back to being green, I don't see why everyone gets up in a fuss about it when technology is always the solution and will solve the problems in there own due time. At the end of the day, all the hubbub doesn't change a thing.

It's because there are hundreds of environmental scientists (who know this field better than you) who repeatedly point out that a technological silver bullet solution will not solve the environmental crisis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 848]

Our air, water and dirt are all dramatically improved over the last 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 years.

Struggling with monolithic, over-generalized speak yet again. Define "our".

The wholesale slaughterings of the 5000 years prior to Teddy Roosevelt no longer occur. Our cities are no longer rivers of filth, blanketed in a layer of nasty wood, coal and manure smoke.

Right. Let's ignore the fish that have been found with multiple heads in streams off Lake Athabasca.

We've even cleaned up naturally occurring nastiness, including marine issues. Those beautiful oil slicks off the West coast that were an eyesore before we got all dirty and turned them into plastics, those were the good old days eh? And those caves belching methane gas.

See above.

My "generalizations with no justification" are all quantifiable and documented. Your fear mongering is not.

They aren't justified, because I have repeatedly provided proof proving the contrary. "Fear mongering"-- cute. I feel like I'm having this discussion with Sarah Palin.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nightmare3983]

Even Sarah's going green.

 

[franklin]

Right. Let's ignore the fish that have been found with multiple heads in streams off Lake Athabasca.

More cherry picking, fear mongering. Simple formula: something bad happened 'insert place here' and claim it as undeniable proof the world is getting ever dirtier and that we need to make dramatic changes on top of the already dramatic, far overreaching, so meaningless and unimpactful but golly they sure make me feel good changes we have in place.

 

[Carbon13]

Ive spoken to several climate scientists, with works published in Science and Nature, they've all told me climate change is real. At this point we're trying to understand how it will affect us. One very respected person told me the real effects like eastern seaboard inundation, he believes, will be seen in three to five hundred years.

Who is to blame? Truth is, we need oil and gas. We arent technologically beyond it at this point. I think the real question is what happens when China and India have a similar quality of life as the United States? Can our environment handle 2 billion more cars? 50 times more fossil use?

 

[fishonjazz]

And why do you have a problem with me not narrowing it down? You asked to name any example, and I did.

This is what Frank does. Starts an argument then changes his argument and the specifics of it as he gets proven wrong. He does this all the time.
I think it's because he just so smart

 

[Siro]

Struggling with monolithic, over-generalized speak yet again. Define "our".



Right. Let's ignore the fish that have been found with multiple heads in streams off Lake Athabasca.



See above.


They aren't justified, because I have repeatedly provided proof proving the contrary. "Fear mongering"-- cute. I feel like I'm having this discussion with Sarah Palin.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You guys are talking past each other. The fact that economic development is necessary for bringing people to the table is hard to dispute. So is the fact the developed countries tend to fix many of the environmental problems that the developing process caused in their own countries.

None of that is relevant to what Dalamon is saying. The global environment is deteriorating, and hoping that things will just work themselves out is a very counterproductive mentality and is, at the end of the day, just a faith based statement. We are heading toward a serious environmental crisis, and no amount of development is going to magically solve it. It will require purposeful collective action from all of us.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You guys are talking past each other. The fact that economic development is necessary for bringing people to the table is hard to dispute. So is the fact the developed countries tend to fix many of the environmental problems that the developing process caused in their own countries.

None of that is relevant to what Dalamon is saying. The global environment is deteriorating, and hoping that things will just work themselves out is a very counterproductive mentality and is, at the end of the day, just a faith based statement. We are heading toward a serious environmental crisis, and no amount of development is going to magically solve it. It will require purposeful collective action from all of us.

This idea Frank has of the world being the cleanest it's ever been is the type of mentality that perpetuates our environmental crisis in general. "Fear mongering" accusations are a neoliberalist pacifier used for self-assurance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 848]

This is what Frank does. Starts an argument then changes his argument and the specifics of it as he gets proven wrong. He does this all the time.
I think it's because he just so smart

Well smart, until someone calls him out on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk