-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why don't Americans care more for the environment?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'd say it's only fair for you to cut down on your green-house gasses, afterall you're the one ejecting 25% of them into the world where i coexists. And there are 291million ameicans? (Of the top of my head) 5.560.000.000 people living in the world... So (291.000.000*100)/(5.560.000.000) isn't very much...
glenn1
Lifer
Probably because many Americans have been to other countries and realize that on comparative terms, our environmental situation is vastly better than almost any of them. We're at the point where additional environmental spending in this country is reaching diminishing returns at a vastly increasing rate. If anything, a much smaller amount of money being spent in other countries would have a far greater effect.
ShotgunSteven
Lifer
True.
I don't agree with the statement that Americans don't care about the environment. Some don't, sure. Some are so pissed off at the immediate association with between liberal Democrats and environmentalism they may actually go out of their way to do the do the non-Earth friendly thing, like throwing aluminum cans in the trash when there is a recycle bin right next to it.
I know people on both sides of the political spectrum that run the gamut when it comes to their thoughts on environmental policy. I would fall in the conservative camp, but I believe we need to come up with alternative energy sources, that we need to recycle, et cetera. I don't like every environmental policy out there because there are a lot out there that are hype, bullsh!t, or where the danger is overstated. Some "environmental groups" are nothing more than groups out there to make money by fear-mongering and outright lying.
A lot of it might be more palatable for some people if the presentation were changed. Do I recycle aluminum cans because it's being "kind to the Earth?" No. I recycle aluminum cans because it's wasteful to throw them out when they can be recycled and re-used for less energy than it takes to mine and refine aluminum to make new cans.
I do stuff that is "Earth friendly" because it goes along with my belief in efficiency, and because I know that oil is not going to last forever. I would love to get solar panels for the roof and a windmill so I could be entirely off the electrical grid. Not because it's "Earth friendly," but because I don't like depending on someone else for my power, especially when a drunken jackass can knock the pole down.
Same logic for alternative fuel for the country, I hate the fact that we rely on Third World countries (some with unstable governments) for our petroleum. I would rather our country be self-sufficient. Most plastics come from petroleum. People think life would be hard if they couldn't drive much due to high gas prices, let them imagine their current existence without plastic. Less fuel used for energy, more left for plastics. I do like the fact that some alternative fuel sources burn cleaner as well, because all other things being equal, who wouldn't take the cleaner burning choice?
htmlmasterdave
Golden Member
Not that I don't think the environment is important, but there is some shady science to go along with global warming theories...there is some truth to the earth going through cycles, so it may not have much to do with what we are doing...
I think it's more important to worry about things like air pollution (not as much so Carbon Dioxide, etc., but stuff like the mercury released from burning coal, smog or ground level ozone) and just generally trying to become more efficient and use fewer resources altogether.
htmlmasterdave
Golden Member
Someone failed math 😉
Edit: Also, lol, why are you picking Denmark? If you add up all of europe it comes close to the USA... I think Germany has atleast 65 million right there, if you add France, Britian etc. it starts to add up rather quickly. Also if population density or size had something to do with it, why has Canada agreed to kyoto? 😛
Signing Kyoto wouldn't fix the environment... we would have to impliment the protocol.
Kyoto called for a reduction in CO2 emissions down to 95% of 1990 levels by 2012 starting in 1997. It placed different restrictions on all "developed" countries, but not on countries going through an industrial revolution. Those countries are going to be huge pollution sources.
The cost of implementing Kyoto in the US would have been enormous. It would have really hurt our economy. We simply didn't have the technology or money to do what Kyoto wanted us to do in the time scale that it called for. Now, I could envision a new treaty that would include both developing and developed countries have to control their emissions, and giving them 30 years to do it, but the Kyoto scenario wasn't (and still isn't) realizable.
R
Kyoto called for a reduction in CO2 emissions down to 95% of 1990 levels by 2012 starting in 1997. It placed different restrictions on all "developed" countries, but not on countries going through an industrial revolution. Those countries are going to be huge pollution sources.
The cost of implementing Kyoto in the US would have been enormous. It would have really hurt our economy. We simply didn't have the technology or money to do what Kyoto wanted us to do in the time scale that it called for. Now, I could envision a new treaty that would include both developing and developed countries have to control their emissions, and giving them 30 years to do it, but the Kyoto scenario wasn't (and still isn't) realizable.
R
poopaskoopa
Diamond Member
Might want to move that decimal points a few spots.
flexy
Diamond Member
ironically, already many die because of skin cancer etc. which LIKELY is a result of destroyed ozone layer. People die ALREADY and not "in the far future".
Sometimes i wish there was a intelligence-pill or something which you could force-feed many americans....so one day they wake up in the morning and something snaps in their brain and this big stupidity barrier is gone....😛
But, yes, its right, the average A. doesnt give a f***k as long as gas is under $2.50 and they have their feeling of "adventure" by driving a 4WD SUV to the mall 🙂
flexy
Diamond Member
we're not talking about the ice ages, but the global warming caused by destruction of the ozone layer in conjuntion with pollution ! (-> Greenhouse effect).
Ice Age-warming is a totally different issue.
It is to debate whether the current "waming" is just part of a new ice-age...or rather caused by the greenhouse effect. (Studies say the LATTER). Also, as said in the other post...skin-cancer caused by increased UV levels is already REALITY, totally independent from that...but still a interesting bonus 🙂
ALso...smog and increased pollutants in urban areas a re REALITY....and (AFAIK) things like EL-Nino...which totally LEGITIMATE the kyoto threaty and it can only be seen as totally FOOLISH to ignore studies and just ASSUME that the studies MIGHT be wrong....and RATHER go the risky route and keep polluting.
This is NOT the wiser and more intelligent approach....
Hurting the economy by focusing more on alternative energy concepts is only a TEMPORARY thing...the resources will run out SOONER or later..not tomorrow..not in a few years...but they WILL run out and cannot be replaced.
A "new" economy can very well be established with new goals, eg. jobs in companies who look for alternatives...a hole new industry COULD evolve from the search for new and better energy alternatives. It would hurt in the SHORT term - but be very beneficial in the long term.
(Of course, Bush has his hands in the oil-business which doesnt like such ideas, they rather dig up the Arctic....)
Because this country has the 3rd largest population in the world, after China and India. And we have the largest economy in the world by far, so we use up a lot of natural resources. We are also the biggest importer of manufactured goods in the world. If you think Americans shouldn't buy stuffs, maybe countries such as Germany, China, Korea and Japan should stop selling us their stuffs, how that would that effect the economy? Hybrid vehicles should be pushed by the government? No wonder most Americans think of so-call environmentalists a bunch of left-wing liberals. If you want to drive a hybrid, drive a hybrid. This is a free country, it is the American consumers who drive the market, not the government. I'm sure more hybrids will be made, as long as it is profitable for the consumers and the manufacturers. Another thing, Americans don't care about the Kyoto treaty, it doesn't mean we don't care about the environment. Europeans love to sign treaties, the Versailles Peace Treaty after WWI, the German-Russian non-agression treaty before WWII. I could go on and on...
alphatarget1
Diamond Member
Thank Bush, he IS the enemy to the environment.
The only valid argument he had is that other not advanced countries are not bounded by it and we needed to do something about it. I agree with that. But at least it could've been done as a first step to show the world that we care. Bush didn't care. If you care about the environment you WILL NOT vote for Bush. Everything from pollution quota to logging Bush anything BUT environmental friendly.
Sorry I posted this, you might think this is politics but I don't think it is, it merely explains the president doesn't even care. People spend too much time in front of the TV instead of doing other things. If you haven't experienced the nature, go out, be a part of it and enjoy what nature has for us.
environmentalism is the victim of bad science and greedy politicans on both sides. plus humankind has a history of solving problems that scientists predicted would end the world. the hole in the ozone layer is diminishing, the world is not overpopulated and starving, we still have natural resources and other forms of energy available, and the list goes on. when there is a good reason to be motivated to help the environment, we deal with it. end of story.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
