Why don't Americans care more for the environment?

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Global warming is junk science. I'm looking forward to "Water World"! :roll:

From my 1st semester biology professor: if all ice on the earth melts the sea level will raise by 250'. Water World? bullsh!t 😀

the point is that people should do their part for the environment whether global warming is speeding up because of human actions. Don't drive when you don't have to, don't buy big SUVs unless you need one, recycle as much as possible. Whether you agree with what politicians are doing there are always ways to make this world a better place.

 

[SagaLore]

I would just be happy if all the smokers would stop throwing their butts on the group.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am the only America in the office where I work. The issue that is #1 to them is Kyoto/the environment, and they hate the fact that Americans could care less!

So why don't we sign the Kyoto treaty? What don't Americans care at all?

Some of us do. But people with a lot more money than us don't. And for some reason, a lot of people believe that they are truly separate from each other.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: spunkz
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.

How's the increase in asthma cases? Oh, and cancer.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: her209
Because the right has stigmatized the environmentalists as tree-hugging hippy liberals.

And lefty pinkos. 😀

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: spunkz
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.

How's the increase in asthma cases? Oh, and cancer.

Ever think that the rise in long term diseases might be due to the fact that people are living MUCH longer than they used to, and diagnosis is MUCH easier. Before, if someone gasps and dies, it's natural causes, Today, if someone gasps, an ambulence comes, sprays and inhaler, and they're diagnosed to athsma. I doubt 100 years ago they even KNEW what cancer really was. Mental diseases usually don't kick in until the 60's, but that used to be a life expectancy. Now 80's are pretty much expected. That's 20 more years into the degenerative parts of the human's life that people are now living.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
...by the way, how many of these eco freaks have considered [...]

interesting to see people call other people, who are concerned about the environment, "freaks". I think every hope is lost with people like you, sorry...

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: Eli
Who fscking cares about global warming and whether we're causing it or not? We don't have an accurate picture of our climate to be able to tell.. we need another few thousand years.

There are more pressing problems, like how we're going to support a population of 8+billion by 2050.

thats of course hoagwash - in EU the people are (IMHO) much more informed in this matter and therefore also more conscious regarding environment - HERE the people just dont know S***T and therefore dont give a ****.

and:
>>>
Who fscking cares about global warming and whether we're causing it or not?
>>>
this must be the most stupid, ignorant question i heard in a LONG, LONG time....

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: spunkz
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.

How's the increase in asthma cases? Oh, and cancer.

Ever think that the rise in long term diseases might be due to the fact that people are living MUCH longer than they used to, and diagnosis is MUCH easier. Before, if someone gasps and dies, it's natural causes, Today, if someone gasps, an ambulence comes, sprays and inhaler, and they're diagnosed to athsma. I doubt 100 years ago they even KNEW what cancer really was. Mental diseases usually don't kick in until the 60's, but that used to be a life expectancy. Now 80's are pretty much expected. That's 20 more years into the degenerative parts of the human's life that people are now living.

How long have petroleum-based sealants been used for tile floors? Were they doing that 100 years ago? If not, then it's not lifespan (hint: I've had asthma for a little over a year, from breathing in evaporated remains of sealant used in a bathroom's new floor).

 

[flexy]

>>>
Ever think that the rise in long term diseases might be due to the fact that people are living MUCH longer
>>>

you are aware that in other developed countries, eg. Japan and/or Europe the average "lifespan", eg. the average max. age of people is HIGHER than in the (so called) most technologically advanced nation, the us ?

Here an alarming number of people die earlier because of cancer, coronary heart diseases etc. Since we are (allegedly) the technologically most advanced nation i think this should cause *some* concern.

Edit: And yeah, keywords ALSO allergies and asthma...BIG TIME !

What people often dont see....DESPITES the fact of alarming cases of cancer deaths, allergies, asthma..ONE problem of course is the companies which are responsible for pollutants and (very directly) deaths by cancer etc. There are studies which more or less prove extreme high cancer rates eg. in vicinity of certain chemical/industrial factories.
OF COURSE - those company's agenda is a total different one - they will downplay all risks , try to avoid lawsuits and deny every responsibility etc..etc...
WHAT REASON should a normal person have to side with THAT agenda and ignore this and being "cool" with it that people get sick/die for the profits of some companies ??

Am i a freak stating my opinion and being concerned about such things ? I dont think so 🙂

 

[Chompman]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
Ever think that the rise in long term diseases might be due to the fact that people are living MUCH longer
>>>

you are aware that in other developed countries, eg. Japan and/or Europe the average "lifespan", eg. the average max. age of people is HIGHER than in the (so called) most technologically advanced nation, the us ?

Here an alarming number of people die earlier because of cancer, coronary heart diseases etc. Since we are (allegedly) the technologically most advanced nation i think this should cause *some* concern.

But then again those countries are starting to get our medical issues due to the fact that we are spreading our fast food and such to them. 😀

One way to win the health wars 😛

 

[Babbles]

Kyoto accord was a crock, a sham for the US to sign it. It sounds good when the media spins it, but it was just some mega-B.S. crap.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: flexy
interesting to see people call other people, who are concerned about the environment, "freaks". I think every hope is lost with people like you, sorry...

Being concerned is one thing. But there is enough extremists around here to be a problem. Trees are spiked to destroy logging equipment. Earth moving equipment gets vandalized. Dams cannot be created because some area needs to be "protected".

There's a story of an endangered fish, it only grew in one place on this one section of a river. They were like miniature versions of the normal fish. Environmentalists kept a dam from operating because they had to save this fish. DNA testing comes around, it's found that the reason they only grew in this one section was because they were malnourished. They were the same fish as the rest of the river.

They want to reduce the coal and oil plants, but they won't allow rivers to be damed for hyrdo, nuclear to be even in the same state, and they don't want to pay for solar (not counting the other drawbacks, such as the silicon waste in the manufacturing of solar panels), geothermal wastes water, and wind harms birds. Diesels have MUCH better fuel economy than gas engines, europeans have accepted this and embrace it. Here in the US, because in some ways it's worse emissions wise (though in many ways better), it's basically regulated out of feasability.

Unless it's a magical source of free energy that also is magical in the ability to suck up any waste energy they'll never be satisfied. Every solution has a downside, and they're not willing to live with any. The ELF has gone so far as to be considered a terrorist group.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am the only America in the office where I work. The issue that is #1 to them is Kyoto/the environment, and they hate the fact that Americans could care less!

So why don't we sign the Kyoto treaty? What don't Americans care at all?

I care, I care a LOT.

Now if Bush and his ilk only would!

 

[sandorski]

The US is missing a great economic opportunity that will hurt it in the longrun. Europe, Canada, and others are working towards succeeding in acheiving their Kyoto Obligations and as such are developing Technolgies, increasing Efficencies, and building infrastructure that not only will decrease CO2 output, but also benefit their societies in many other ways.

Like the US Auto industry, other US Industries will increasingly become less competitive and require more Trade Protections. Kyoto is an agreement that is the spearhead of a major change that is the Future, the US is at risk of falling way behind in that.

BTW, Global Climate change is very real.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am the only America in the office where I work. The issue that is #1 to them is Kyoto/the environment, and they hate the fact that Americans could care less!

So why don't we sign the Kyoto treaty? What don't Americans care at all?

its because americans dont think about the future in general.



thats why most americans dont save, dont care about schools, and dont care about the environment, social security is ruined etc. we dont care enough to look far ahead, and even if we do look too far ahead we are too lazy to do anything or there are a lot of people who just dont care or are too stupid to believe the future could be bad. we are the #1 country (well at least people say that) so no one can see themseleves get worse as they get older. so america cant get worse in most people's minds, if you could say that you'd be saying america wasnt all knowing and great and thus unpatriotic (well at least in what seems to be the word's current definition)

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: Eli
Who fscking cares about global warming and whether we're causing it or not? We don't have an accurate picture of our climate to be able to tell.. we need another few thousand years.

There are more pressing problems, like how we're going to support a population of 8+billion by 2050.

thats of course hoagwash - in EU the people are (IMHO) much more informed in this matter and therefore also more conscious regarding environment - HERE the people just dont know S***T and therefore dont give a ****.

and:
>>>
Who fscking cares about global warming and whether we're causing it or not?
>>>
this must be the most stupid, ignorant question i heard in a LONG, LONG time....

Uh... No, no.. you completely misunderstand. Read my other posts.

My sentiment was that this thread is turning into an argument about global warming, which is just one aspect of the whole environment. It is true that our weather record is much, much, much too short to know whether it is a natural cycle or not.

What I was trying to say is that it doesen't matter, polluting less should be something that we strive for regardless of if its effects are significant or not.

 

[ed21x]

The environment has improved many folds since the 1920's, and the forests continue to expand and air quality increasing for the better. If anything, the Kyoto treaty was symbolically created by the Europeans to make us reject it. If we actually accepted it, they would be crapping in their pants for they would suddenly have to abide by the standards set forth by it- which they've happily not put to use since we are the scapegoat.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: ed21x
The environment has improved many folds since the 1920's, and the forests continue to expand and air quality increasing for the better. If anything, the Kyoto treaty was symbolically created by the Europeans to make us reject it. If we actually accepted it, they would be crapping in their pants for they would suddenly have to abide by the standards set forth by it- which they've happily not put to use since we are the scapegoat.

Are you high? Please tell me you're high...

And give me some.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: ed21x
The environment has improved many folds since the 1920's, and the forests continue to expand and air quality increasing for the better. If anything, the Kyoto treaty was symbolically created by the Europeans to make us reject it. If we actually accepted it, they would be crapping in their pants for they would suddenly have to abide by the standards set forth by it- which they've happily not put to use since we are the scapegoat.

I agree about Kyoto, and the forests are a fact. The rest is crap. PEOPLE are now several PPM of insectecides and fertilizers. Air quality is terrible, with CO2 content in the air only increasing, not counting whatever else is getting stuffed in there.

We need to tear down trade barriers, and get some execs that can make long-term decisions in the power, oil, and vehicles companies. They can now sit far too happily with near complete control.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: ed21x
The environment has improved many folds since the 1920's, and the forests continue to expand and air quality increasing for the better. If anything, the Kyoto treaty was symbolically created by the Europeans to make us reject it. If we actually accepted it, they would be crapping in their pants for they would suddenly have to abide by the standards set forth by it- which they've happily not put to use since we are the scapegoat.

I agree about Kyoto, and the forests are a fact. The rest is crap. PEOPLE are now several PPM of insectecides and fertilizers. Air quality is terrible, with CO2 content in the air only increasing, not counting whatever else is getting stuffed in there.

We need to tear down trade barriers, and get some execs that can make long-term decisions in the power, oil, and vehicles companies. They can now sit far too happily with near complete control.

The environment has improved since the 20s?

WTF?? Are you telling me that the forests were worse before we came into the picture? LOL

Forests are expanding?

What.. the fsck? So do the 4.5 billion people that have appeared on the planet since the 20s live in the sky or something? Do the crops needed to feed them also grow there?

....

Please tell me you're high too.... lol

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: ed21x
The environment has improved many folds since the 1920's, and the forests continue to expand and air quality increasing for the better. If anything, the Kyoto treaty was symbolically created by the Europeans to make us reject it. If we actually accepted it, they would be crapping in their pants for they would suddenly have to abide by the standards set forth by it- which they've happily not put to use since we are the scapegoat.

I agree about Kyoto, and the forests are a fact. The rest is crap. PEOPLE are now several PPM of insectecides and fertilizers. Air quality is terrible, with CO2 content in the air only increasing, not counting whatever else is getting stuffed in there.

We need to tear down trade barriers, and get some execs that can make long-term decisions in the power, oil, and vehicles companies. They can now sit far too happily with near complete control.

The environment has improved since the 20s?

WTF?? Are you telling me that the forests were worse before we came into the picture? LOL

Forests are expanding?

What.. the fsck? So do the 4.5 billion people that have appeared on the planet since the 20s live in the sky or something? Do the crops needed to feed them also grow there?

....

Please tell me you're high too.... lol

Actually, he's correct. Clear cutting was rampant and logging companies were not replacing trees they harvested. Because of smart logging and planting, the US has more trees and more forestland now than it did in the early part of the 20th century. Loggers realized that instead of culling, they needed to be farming.

The US is in no danger of running out of wood. Unlike what Europe and Britain did to itself over the centuries.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: her209
Because the right has stigmatized the environmentalists as tree-hugging hippy liberals.

Don't be so quick to judge the right as not caring about the environment. Gray Davis did more to harm the environment in the name of money and political contributions and he was a Democrat.

I consider myself a moderate republican but I do care about the environment since I am a surfer. I hate to see the oceans become our trash can. 🙁

 

[kreb]

...whoops..I thought this was another amusing RobCur thread.. 😀

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Actually, he's correct. Clear cutting was rampant and logging companies were not replacing trees they harvested. Because of smart logging and planting, the US has more trees and more forestland now than it did in the early part of the 20th century. Loggers realized that instead of culling, they needed to be farming.

The US is in no danger of running out of wood. Unlike what Europe and Britain did to itself over the centuries.

I was kinda thinking on a worldwide scale...

Forests are extremely complex ecosystems. When you clear cut a forest, it has been killed.

You do not simply plant a douglas fir every 8 feet and call it a forest again. Have you ever seen or been in a replanted "forest"? It is an abysmal sight, to say the least. The trees are tall and spindly. The lower branches are dead and diseased. It isn't natural... It doesen't feel like a forest. It doesen't smell like a forest.. it's bizarre.

Maybe they're getting better about replanting with more of the natural diversity of trees and plants found in a true old-growth forest, but we'll never be able to make it like it was before it was logged.

I suppose I agree with you at the core, though. I never thought we were in danger of running out of wood, it is the destruction of ecosystems that gets me. They are never the same again....... well, at least not for several thousand years. It's good that we're trying, though.