Texas_Curl
100+ Posts
don't mix!
Democracy and Environmentalism
- Thread starter Texas_Curl
- Start date
THEU
2,500+ Posts
What 'global environmental emergency'?
I say it that way because the majority of people see no environmental crisis. I do believe that when called to action people in liberal democracies are much better equipped to respond than any other political system I can think of.
I would say that safety and working conditions (including things like contaminated soil and air, and asbestos) have much better track records in the West than in Soviet countries, or in dictatorships.
I say it that way because the majority of people see no environmental crisis. I do believe that when called to action people in liberal democracies are much better equipped to respond than any other political system I can think of.
I would say that safety and working conditions (including things like contaminated soil and air, and asbestos) have much better track records in the West than in Soviet countries, or in dictatorships.
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
I can't even begin to address everything wrong with that column.
Theu- Regardless of any alleged controversy about global warming (which at any rate is about 7th on my list of the world's most pressing environmental problems), if you don't think that we are destroying God's creation at a horrifying rate, I can't help you. You cite exceptions, but the rule is everywhere you look. I encourage you to talk to people who are involved in conservation in any angle about this- it's not a political issue, but a moral issue.
Theu- Regardless of any alleged controversy about global warming (which at any rate is about 7th on my list of the world's most pressing environmental problems), if you don't think that we are destroying God's creation at a horrifying rate, I can't help you. You cite exceptions, but the rule is everywhere you look. I encourage you to talk to people who are involved in conservation in any angle about this- it's not a political issue, but a moral issue.
Eastwood22
250+ Posts
Becoming environmentaly friendly has many economic advantages in the long run. The last thing on my to-do list is to hug a tree, but if you are telling me that if we convert our transportation to hydrogen, we no longer have to rely on foreign oil, I'm in.
I'm more opposed to the clearing of wildlife than I am global warming.
In Al Gore's documentary, he states that the disappearance of ice from Mt. Kilamanjaro was from global warming. Scientists later found that it was from the clearing or rain forest nearby.
I'm all for a hydrogen economy and a paperless society.
I'm more opposed to the clearing of wildlife than I am global warming.
In Al Gore's documentary, he states that the disappearance of ice from Mt. Kilamanjaro was from global warming. Scientists later found that it was from the clearing or rain forest nearby.
I'm all for a hydrogen economy and a paperless society.
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
All true, Eastwood
THEU
2,500+ Posts
bozo, I wasn't trying to make a statement of personal belief. I agree with you that being a good stewards of a world God has created is a pressing issue for me. I try to do all I can to be environmentally friendly. My wife and I recycle as much as we can in a city that has no curbside recycling, I drive a fuiel efficient car, we try to consume less energy... etc.
I was making a statement about the majority of people in the US. I was making a comment about all the people who nearly always drive with one person in the car, but feel the need to drive a Tahoe, etc. I hope that clears up my point.
I was making a statement about the majority of people in the US. I was making a comment about all the people who nearly always drive with one person in the car, but feel the need to drive a Tahoe, etc. I hope that clears up my point.
Texas_Curl
100+ Posts
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
Theu, I stand corrected- I didn't get your meaning correctly.
Texas Curl
Texas Curl
Eastwood22
250+ Posts
^ Planting more trees will suck up more CO2. Getting rid of CO2 will not plant trees.
Lets take care of the things that we have more control over, first. We can replant forests and see results in a decade. We stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, we see results in a century.
Lets take care of the things that we have more control over, first. We can replant forests and see results in a decade. We stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, we see results in a century.
Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. The subject is almost sacrosanct and those who indulge in criticism are labeled as Marxists, socialists, fundamentalists and worse. These labels are used because alternatives to democracy cannot be perceived!
_________________________________________________
I don't really understand this paragraph, i guess he is saying our personal liberty is a bad thing and the government should force the public to comply with environmental regulation. he then uses the chinese example of plastic bags to show the greater good that can come from a totalitarian regime. i guess he forgot to leave out the chinese pollution that is thicker than fog and rivers that are running in all the colors of a spectrum.
the hard core environmental advocates have finally figured out that the only way people in industrialized nations are going to comply with environmental protocol is by force. they will ignore the violations taking place in russia, china, pakistan, india, and africa due to the fact that they simply will not comply. Russian scientists are even saying now that the warming is going to be replaced by a cooling period. putin is not about to cripple his new economic clout...not russia's.
the US and Europe are in a peculiar circumstance. Both have the ability to alter their economies to some extent to lessen green house gas emissions. however, making those changes will come at a price....a price that will not be shared by the aforementioned growing economies. No government is going to risk economic ruin in the face of new emerging superpowers. The United States has too much at risk. Al Gore says that our example will lead the way and put us in a position of moral authority. Unfortunately, this way of thinking has never worked in the past for any civillization. Did our moral superiority stop the spread of communism, of the nazi's, or any regime or dictatorship that ran contrary to ours?
I am all for alternative forms of energy, i have even begun to enjoy the delay that occurs when i turn on my energy saving scew looking bulbs. I am tired of relying on foreign governments for oil, i believe it runs contrary to our long term national security. unfortunately, the people of this country are not buying it. SUV sales are not dropping despite the cost of about $80.00 to fill up the tank. These prices are goijng to go up as are food prices due to misguided attempts by our legislators to pursue ethanol as a oil substitute.
people in this country are stubborn to a fault and proud as can be and they are all going to act like a bunch of spoiled teenagers if told what to do the government. Change is not going to come without a catastrophe first and even hillary clinton and obama will not be able to bring about the change they have pledged.
howeverm i would not be concerned. i believe carbon dioxide would need to rise to 4 times its current levels before soime sort of major extinction level even occurs. i believe we will have changed to some extent by then...
_________________________________________________
I don't really understand this paragraph, i guess he is saying our personal liberty is a bad thing and the government should force the public to comply with environmental regulation. he then uses the chinese example of plastic bags to show the greater good that can come from a totalitarian regime. i guess he forgot to leave out the chinese pollution that is thicker than fog and rivers that are running in all the colors of a spectrum.
the hard core environmental advocates have finally figured out that the only way people in industrialized nations are going to comply with environmental protocol is by force. they will ignore the violations taking place in russia, china, pakistan, india, and africa due to the fact that they simply will not comply. Russian scientists are even saying now that the warming is going to be replaced by a cooling period. putin is not about to cripple his new economic clout...not russia's.
the US and Europe are in a peculiar circumstance. Both have the ability to alter their economies to some extent to lessen green house gas emissions. however, making those changes will come at a price....a price that will not be shared by the aforementioned growing economies. No government is going to risk economic ruin in the face of new emerging superpowers. The United States has too much at risk. Al Gore says that our example will lead the way and put us in a position of moral authority. Unfortunately, this way of thinking has never worked in the past for any civillization. Did our moral superiority stop the spread of communism, of the nazi's, or any regime or dictatorship that ran contrary to ours?
I am all for alternative forms of energy, i have even begun to enjoy the delay that occurs when i turn on my energy saving scew looking bulbs. I am tired of relying on foreign governments for oil, i believe it runs contrary to our long term national security. unfortunately, the people of this country are not buying it. SUV sales are not dropping despite the cost of about $80.00 to fill up the tank. These prices are goijng to go up as are food prices due to misguided attempts by our legislators to pursue ethanol as a oil substitute.
people in this country are stubborn to a fault and proud as can be and they are all going to act like a bunch of spoiled teenagers if told what to do the government. Change is not going to come without a catastrophe first and even hillary clinton and obama will not be able to bring about the change they have pledged.
howeverm i would not be concerned. i believe carbon dioxide would need to rise to 4 times its current levels before soime sort of major extinction level even occurs. i believe we will have changed to some extent by then...
"howeverm i would not be concerned. i believe carbon dioxide would need to rise to 4 times its current levels before soime sort of major extinction level even occurs."
What are you basing this statement on? Many biologists believe we are already in the midst of a major mass extinction event. See -
The Link
Global climate change will only exacerbate the loss of biodiversity we're already experiencing. Of course if you have data to suggest that everything is honkey-dorry please share it.
What are you basing this statement on? Many biologists believe we are already in the midst of a major mass extinction event. See -
The Link
Global climate change will only exacerbate the loss of biodiversity we're already experiencing. Of course if you have data to suggest that everything is honkey-dorry please share it.
Kyrie Eleison
500+ Posts
THEU, for someone who's in seminary I simply do not understand how you fail to see this issue as a theological issue.
ru'ah, for example....the Ancient Hebrew word that Tanakh uses for "spirit" and "wind" and "breath of God." Translated it means exactly that, the wind, the air we breath, is the very breath of God as the Creator.
Why it's then okay in the name of some economic theory to give God as much bad breath as is legallly permissible misses the point; the point being that Christians should always stand in opposition to those who see nothing wrong with such an ethos (who always conveniently couch it in terms of economic "growth"....which is really nothing more than an appeal to a fear of being poor).
Even looking at it from an economic standpoint, it's still a theological issue. There are repeated examples in the text of how we are to make money, and the text is very clear what we're not allowed to do in order to make money, one of those being destroy God's Good Creation.
Look no further than Jubilee for the best example.....letting the land lay fallow every 5 years rejuvenants the soil and allows it to sustain life, which would be impossible if one were allowed to cultivate the same land year after year.
Tell you what, you're seeming insistence that every issue is couched in political terms and that you're bound to take the conservative stance is doing a great disservice not only to yourself, but to those who currently and in the future will entrust you with their moral and spiritual formation.
ru'ah, for example....the Ancient Hebrew word that Tanakh uses for "spirit" and "wind" and "breath of God." Translated it means exactly that, the wind, the air we breath, is the very breath of God as the Creator.
Why it's then okay in the name of some economic theory to give God as much bad breath as is legallly permissible misses the point; the point being that Christians should always stand in opposition to those who see nothing wrong with such an ethos (who always conveniently couch it in terms of economic "growth"....which is really nothing more than an appeal to a fear of being poor).
Even looking at it from an economic standpoint, it's still a theological issue. There are repeated examples in the text of how we are to make money, and the text is very clear what we're not allowed to do in order to make money, one of those being destroy God's Good Creation.
Look no further than Jubilee for the best example.....letting the land lay fallow every 5 years rejuvenants the soil and allows it to sustain life, which would be impossible if one were allowed to cultivate the same land year after year.
Tell you what, you're seeming insistence that every issue is couched in political terms and that you're bound to take the conservative stance is doing a great disservice not only to yourself, but to those who currently and in the future will entrust you with their moral and spiritual formation.
What are you basing this statement on? Many biologists believe we are already in the midst of a major mass extinction event.
__________________________________________________
Great..a cherry on top of my day...well, the reason i thought that CO2 levels were 4 times as high as today is because...keep in mind i am no scientist...but i saw a history channel (or something like that) show on global warming and through fossilized plants, they discovered that during the last catastrophic extinction level event...the one that killed everything, plant records showed 4 times the amount of canbon dioxide as today...according to the theory, plants will absorb the amount of carbon dioxide in the air dependant on tha amounts, and this is recordable through the fossilized record...apparently, at the time, there was this long and huge volcanic area in siberia and eventually, everthing died and iced over..the entire globe, hundreds of feet thick even at the equator....anyway, this is what i saw..obviously, 3 times the amount could cause catastrphic famine...i mean, the lucky ones could be eating food bricks like in soilent green.
__________________________________________________
Great..a cherry on top of my day...well, the reason i thought that CO2 levels were 4 times as high as today is because...keep in mind i am no scientist...but i saw a history channel (or something like that) show on global warming and through fossilized plants, they discovered that during the last catastrophic extinction level event...the one that killed everything, plant records showed 4 times the amount of canbon dioxide as today...according to the theory, plants will absorb the amount of carbon dioxide in the air dependant on tha amounts, and this is recordable through the fossilized record...apparently, at the time, there was this long and huge volcanic area in siberia and eventually, everthing died and iced over..the entire globe, hundreds of feet thick even at the equator....anyway, this is what i saw..obviously, 3 times the amount could cause catastrphic famine...i mean, the lucky ones could be eating food bricks like in soilent green.
accuratehorn
10,000+ Posts
Voice your no extinction mantra to the polar bears, while there is still time.
Hello General,
The History Channel is a great source for scientific information. I suspect they were talking about atmospheric conditions at the K-T boundary (~65 million years ago). Some neat work has been done on the correlation between a catastrophic event (meteor impact), mass extinction (the dinosuars for example), and possible changes in atmospheric conditions. A good description of some of the research on CO2 levels associated with K-T can be found here:
The Link
Please note - there is nothing in this research that would suggest that today's CO2 levels would have to increase 4X to bring about another mass extinction event. The K-T boundary events were very different from what is happening today.
The History Channel is a great source for scientific information. I suspect they were talking about atmospheric conditions at the K-T boundary (~65 million years ago). Some neat work has been done on the correlation between a catastrophic event (meteor impact), mass extinction (the dinosuars for example), and possible changes in atmospheric conditions. A good description of some of the research on CO2 levels associated with K-T can be found here:
The Link
Please note - there is nothing in this research that would suggest that today's CO2 levels would have to increase 4X to bring about another mass extinction event. The K-T boundary events were very different from what is happening today.
Two questions:
1. Why do you think so many of the people who think we have an environmental crisis focus on wealth redistribution schemes instead of real solutions? The major international effort of the past few years was the conference in Bali. It seemed to be ALL about wealth redistribution although I'm sure that was just the reporting.
2. If the situation is so dire why aren't the people most scared willing to support nuclear power? They argue that nuclear waste is going to escape vaults buried way inside a mountain in Bumfuck Nevada far away from people, and cause some undefined problem way, way into the futue and therefore we can't use that as part of a solution to a crisis.
I'm ready to talk about potential solutions but you may not be surprised to discover I'm not ready to accept draconian measures targeted at the US and its corporations.
Specifically addressing the question of the compatibility of democracy and environmentalism, I see no proble. A democracy ought to be able to figure out how to facilitate laws to make building nuclear power plants profitable.
1. Why do you think so many of the people who think we have an environmental crisis focus on wealth redistribution schemes instead of real solutions? The major international effort of the past few years was the conference in Bali. It seemed to be ALL about wealth redistribution although I'm sure that was just the reporting.
2. If the situation is so dire why aren't the people most scared willing to support nuclear power? They argue that nuclear waste is going to escape vaults buried way inside a mountain in Bumfuck Nevada far away from people, and cause some undefined problem way, way into the futue and therefore we can't use that as part of a solution to a crisis.
I'm ready to talk about potential solutions but you may not be surprised to discover I'm not ready to accept draconian measures targeted at the US and its corporations.
Specifically addressing the question of the compatibility of democracy and environmentalism, I see no proble. A democracy ought to be able to figure out how to facilitate laws to make building nuclear power plants profitable.
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
Kyrie Eleison
500+ Posts
bozo,
- I wasn't labeling the technology projects as wealth redistribution. The wealth redistribution schemes are the mechanisms which send money from US corporations over low limits to corporations in lesser developed under high limits.
- Obviously everybody isn't opposed to nuclear power so I'm not criticizing everybody on that. But nuclear power should be a huge component of the short-term solution and it is not.
- Kyoto is an example of Draconian measures.
- I wasn't labeling the technology projects as wealth redistribution. The wealth redistribution schemes are the mechanisms which send money from US corporations over low limits to corporations in lesser developed under high limits.
- Obviously everybody isn't opposed to nuclear power so I'm not criticizing everybody on that. But nuclear power should be a huge component of the short-term solution and it is not.
- Kyoto is an example of Draconian measures.
"But nuclear power should be a huge component of the short-term solution and it is not."
I agree that nuclear energy should be a big part of the equation. The energy industry has done a poor job of promoting the nuclear option, primarily because traditional (i.e., C-based) sources of energy have been more profitable. Now that alternative energy is required, they have decades of bad press, bad image, and misconception to over-come.
"- Kyoto is an example of Draconian measures."
Kyoto is an example of too little, too late.
I agree that nuclear energy should be a big part of the equation. The energy industry has done a poor job of promoting the nuclear option, primarily because traditional (i.e., C-based) sources of energy have been more profitable. Now that alternative energy is required, they have decades of bad press, bad image, and misconception to over-come.
"- Kyoto is an example of Draconian measures."
Kyoto is an example of too little, too late.
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
Kyrie Eleison
500+ Posts
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 128
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
TikTok
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 2
- West Mall
