Is it ok to exploit our environment for economic gain?

[God]

Is it ok to exploit our environment for economic gain?

Lately it has become apparent to me that we are abusing our planet.

The Canadian Oil Sands in Alberta is a great point to this. The fact the size of this project is destroying the area equivalent to the state of Florida is appalling. Yet it's legal due to the reason they're is a predicted 1.2 Trillion Canadian Dollars ( ₤ 647 955 600 000.00) of Oil predicted to be mined in a 35 year span.

To be honest, for anyone who thinks this is a good Idea, please just take a hint.



http://www.quickmeme.com/img/64/649ac166a4cd42e8339b602cb7f4c265fa67d846b5dd758a49 d86102ecfa2571.jpg


And Lastly these last few photos sum everything up.

http://rlv.zcache.com/planet_lament_posters-rcca7203037424c16a2772ffa0224adc9_w2q_8byvr_512.jp g
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1551741_273857849433215_1739374373_n.jpg



So the Question is: Is it ok to exploit our environment for economic gain?

You Explain below.

[Empired]

Of course not.

I think a lot of humans forget that actually we're just monkeys in shoes sometimes. We share our planet with so many other species yet we steal their homes, their food, their offspring and their safety for our own benefit. If it were the other way around and, say, eagles (just an example!!) were crushing our houses, stealing our food and killing our children we would definitely have something to say about it. So I don't understand why it's okay for us to take stuff from them?

Also we do seem to have realised that the way we're living isn't anywhere near sustainable yet we still don't seem to be doing anything about it. I'm not sure if it's because we just don't care about future generations, or if it's because we're just too stupid to fully understand that our actions have consequences, or maybe even that we just think if we keep ignoring it this problem will go away.

Anyway at the same time scientists really are trying to come up with more sustainable solutions. Solar power, wind power, electric cars, paying for plastic bags, etc. are all beginning to be put in place so we can still live comfortably but keep our way of living going for longer as well. It's just a shame that we need time we don't have to develop new sustainable ideas..

[Eric]

yes, we exploit environment for necessities and luxuries. It's supply and demand. Natural resources are utilized to provide housing, food, electricity, clothing, and etc unless you live in a cave eating berries and fishes. The electricity used to power your laptop and internet are generated by burning coal too. And the smartphone you're using is manufactured using minerals obtained from mining.


Of course not.

I think a lot of humans forget that actually we're just monkeys in shoes sometimes. We share our planet with so many other species yet we steal their homes, their food, their offspring and their safety for our own benefit. If it were the other way around and, say, eagles (just an example!!) were crushing our houses, stealing our food and killing our children we would definitely have something to say about it. So I don't understand why it's okay for us to take stuff from them?

Also we do seem to have realised that the way we're living isn't anywhere near sustainable yet we still don't seem to be doing anything about it. I'm not sure if it's because we just don't care about future generations, or if it's because we're just too stupid to fully understand that our actions have consequences, or maybe even that we just think if we keep ignoring it this problem will go away.

Anyway at the same time scientists really are trying to come up with more sustainable solutions. Solar power, wind power, electric cars, paying for plastic bags, etc. are all beginning to be put in place so we can still live comfortably but keep our way of living going for longer as well. It's just a shame that we need time we don't have to develop new sustainable ideas..

It's the circle of life, the resources are there for us to utilize. same goes to the eagles, they build nests and eat rabbits.

the only thing we should do is ease on our luxuries and dwindle on the exploitation of resources and develop sustainability, make more environmentally friendly products, reducing the wider impacts on environment, ecosystem and humans. and sustainability is not just about environment, it's about society too

[Empired]

yes, we exploit environment for necessities and luxuries. It's supply and demand. Natural resources are utilized to provide housing, food, electricity, clothing, and etc unless you live in a cave eating berries and fishes. The electricity used to power your laptop and internet are generated by burning coal too. And the smartphone you're using is manufactured using minerals obtained from mining.



It's the circle of life, the resources are there for us to utilize. same goes to the eagles, they build nests and eat rabbits.

the only thing we should do is ease on our luxuries and dwindle on the exploitation of resources and develop sustainability, make more environmentally friendly products, reducing the wider impacts on environment, ecosystem and humans. and sustainability is not just about environment, it's about society too
That's what I was trying to say I think, not sure how well I said it though :P

I meant I know I'm burning coal and using unsustainable resources but I'm using them because there aren't any other options at the moment. We need more sustainable ways of living but they just haven't been invented properly yet!

[-:Undertaker:-]

To be honest, for anyone who thinks this is a good Idea, please just take a hint.

I probably do more for the environment than most on here so I won't be told that I do not care about nature.

Yes it is okay to 'exploit' our environment for economic gain. The Canadian tar sands have greatly helped Canada's economy by providing cheap, home-sourced energy. The oil wells of the Arabian Gulf have created paradises and welfare states for the UAE, Dubai and Qatar that had previously been economic backwaters - the people benefit greatly. The same can be said for mining in China, or the great dams that have been built that have flooded huge areas of forest. Energy does not come from thin air.

Obviously I am not saying KILL KILL KILL EVERYTHING - but you've got to be practical. If you want to live in a first world nation with a first world lifestyle, then the environment will be sacrified so you can enjoy such a lifestyle. Coal and oil are there to be used. In any case, many areas which are destroyed by mining, oil slicks and so forth recover in a decade or two very quickly - nature is an amazing thing and if humans disappeared off the planet tommorow, come back in a hundred years and you'll hardly notice we were ever here. Look at Chernobyl and the Red Forest in Ukraine, despite being one of the most radioactive places on earth.... after 30 or so years it's now a wildlife haven.

[God]

I probably do more for the environment than most on here so I won't be told that I do not care about nature.

Yes it is okay to 'exploit' our environment for economic gain. The Canadian tar sands have greatly helped Canada's economy by providing cheap, home-sourced energy. The oil wells of the Arabian Gulf have created paradises and welfare states for the UAE, Dubai and Qatar that had previously been economic backwaters - the people benefit greatly. The same can be said for mining in China, or the great dams that have been built that have flooded huge areas of forest. Energy does not come from thin air.

Obviously I am not saying KILL KILL KILL EVERYTHING - but you've got to be practical. If you want to live in a first world nation with a first world lifestyle, then the environment will be sacrified so you can enjoy such a lifestyle. Coal and oil are there to be used. In any case, many areas which are destroyed by mining, oil slicks and so forth recover in a decade or two very quickly - nature is an amazing thing and if humans disappeared off the planet tommorow, come back in a hundred years and you'll hardly notice we were ever here. Look at Chernobyl and the Red Forest in Ukraine, despite being one of the most radioactive places on earth.... after 30 or so years it's now a wildlife haven.


Thing is, the sun is beaming down the same amount of energy of all the natural gasses/oil/ect. we have discovered, in 20 minutes.
The winds will be here forever, and the Tides will continue to flow in, and out every 12 hours for the rest of the time we have the moon. Sun, Wind, Water. These all can provide the world with enough energy if we just make the amount of Green Energy plants that would supply the demand.

Thing is in most cases, the earth is able to restore it's self, mostly in isolated areas. Considering what we are doing to our whole planet, if we don't make immediate changes, we will go past this tipping point.

A few things I've come across off the internet:

"Growth for the sake of Growth, is the Ideology of the Cancer Cell." ~ Edward Abbey

Why do we treat our planet like we have another one to go to? There is not Planet B.

[Eric]

Thing is, the sun is beaming down the same amount of energy of all the natural gasses/oil/ect. we have discovered, in 20 minutes.
The winds will be here forever, and the Tides will continue to flow in, and out every 12 hours for the rest of the time we have the moon. Sun, Wind, Water. These all can provide the world with enough energy if we just make the amount of Green Energy plants that would supply the demand.

Thing is in most cases, the earth is able to restore it's self, mostly in isolated areas. Considering what we are doing to our whole planet, if we don't make immediate changes, we will go past this tipping point.

A few things I've come across off the internet:

"Growth for the sake of Growth, is the Ideology of the Cancer Cell." ~ Edward Abbey

Why do we treat our planet like we have another one to go to? There is not Planet B.

yea but solar systems can't generate power at night, dams could flood cities and won't last long, wind power could have environment impact. The problem is there are constraints with the use of renewable energy too but considering we're reaching a peak of petroleum extraction and climate change have brought attention to new renewable technologies limiting future impacts on the environment and the climate and ensuring clean and cost-efficient delivery of energy.

even the tiniest human actions could alter the environment. what we can do is consume less, care more and vote the right thing

and mars is actually another planet we can go to but it's yet to be terraformed and has too much radiation

- - - Updated - - -

and it takes a lot to actually destroy earth itself

[Landon]

We are becoming careless.
We need to actually start saving what is precious. Forests, landforms, maintain them! They are beautiful things!

Say in Canada, you cut down the wilderness. That is killing our animals, plants, and resources that are important to us.
Who cares that it will gain 1.2 trillion dollars, I am sure there are more ways we can do this without destroying the world first :P

Just my opinion.
~Landon

[Empired]

Thing is, the sun is beaming down the same amount of energy of all the natural gasses/oil/ect. we have discovered, in 20 minutes.
The winds will be here forever, and the Tides will continue to flow in, and out every 12 hours for the rest of the time we have the moon. Sun, Wind, Water. These all can provide the world with enough energy if we just make the amount of Green Energy plants that would supply the demand.

Thing is in most cases, the earth is able to restore it's self, mostly in isolated areas. Considering what we are doing to our whole planet, if we don't make immediate changes, we will go past this tipping point.

A few things I've come across off the internet:

"Growth for the sake of Growth, is the Ideology of the Cancer Cell." ~ Edward Abbey

Why do we treat our planet like we have another one to go to? There is not Planet B.
That sounds great on paper but just can't work in reality. Earth is far too unreliable for us to be able to just use solar energy, wind power, etc all the time. As said above, we can't use solar panels at night because there is no sun. And in a lot of places it's more cloudy that it is sunny so they just wouldn't generate enough energy.

These do not supply us with enough energy unless we were to cover huge (can't even begin to imagine the scale) areas of land with solar panels and build massive dams (which isn't safe anyway). But this is just a waste of space and we would still have to clear enough area (probably through deforestation) to have anywhere to put this equipment.

These methods are useful but we cannot purely rely on them because they don't supply us with the amount of energy we need.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Thing is, the sun is beaming down the same amount of energy of all the natural gasses/oil/ect. we have discovered, in 20 minutes.
The winds will be here forever, and the Tides will continue to flow in, and out every 12 hours for the rest of the time we have the moon. Sun, Wind, Water. These all can provide the world with enough energy if we just make the amount of Green Energy plants that would supply the demand.

Thing is in most cases, the earth is able to restore it's self, mostly in isolated areas. Considering what we are doing to our whole planet, if we don't make immediate changes, we will go past this tipping point.

A few things I've come across off the internet:

"Growth for the sake of Growth, is the Ideology of the Cancer Cell." ~ Edward Abbey

Why do we treat our planet like we have another one to go to? There is not Planet B.

Most renewables are costly and simply do not work. You can never have a national grid based on wind for example because the wind doesn't always blow, and thus you then need coal and gas fired power stations on standby... and the process of starting up a coal or gas station actually costs more and pollutes more than if you kept it running 24/7 (from what I have read).

I'm all for hydro power though provided it's cheap & we actually have sites to do it. However, I think that the future in terms of energy is going to be more nuclear based with the continued advancements made in cleaning up and using coal/gas/oil more efficently. As somebody who wants cleaner energy (who doesn't?) but who doesn't believe the world is going to end by driving SUVs around, i'm laid back about it.

[The Don]

I probably do more for the environment than most on here so I won't be told that I do not care about nature.

Yes it is okay to 'exploit' our environment for economic gain. The Canadian tar sands have greatly helped Canada's economy by providing cheap, home-sourced energy. The oil wells of the Arabian Gulf have created paradises and welfare states for the UAE, Dubai and Qatar that had previously been economic backwaters - the people benefit greatly. The same can be said for mining in China, or the great dams that have been built that have flooded huge areas of forest. Energy does not come from thin air.

Obviously I am not saying KILL KILL KILL EVERYTHING - but you've got to be practical. If you want to live in a first world nation with a first world lifestyle, then the environment will be sacrified so you can enjoy such a lifestyle. Coal and oil are there to be used. In any case, many areas which are destroyed by mining, oil slicks and so forth recover in a decade or two very quickly - nature is an amazing thing and if humans disappeared off the planet tommorow, come back in a hundred years and you'll hardly notice we were ever here. Look at Chernobyl and the Red Forest in Ukraine, despite being one of the most radioactive places on earth.... after 30 or so years it's now a wildlife haven.

The Economy isn't the most important thing in life. If there are alternative methods which cost more, it would be responsible and conservative for us to use those instead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Economy isn't the most important thing in life. If there are alternative methods which cost more, it would be responsible and conservative for us to use those instead.

It isn't no, but renewables simply cannot power a first world economy. It is not responsible for us to shut down our economy in the name of AGW madness when China and India are building a new coal (often dirty coal)/gas powered power station every week.

Renewables just don't work so it's not even as though we can debate whether we should switch to renewables because we can't.

[The Don]

It isn't no, but renewables simply cannot power a first world economy. It is not responsible for us to shut down our economy in the name of AGW madness when China and India are building a new coal (often dirty coal)/gas powered power station every week.

Renewables just don't work so it's not even as though we can debate whether we should switch to renewables because we can't.

Obviously we aren't at the point where we can rely solely on renewables, this doesn't mean we can't increase the amount we use whilst simultaneously reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use. Let us not forget that both China and India are in the process of industrialisation, something we did many years ago, which is why that's not a fair comparison. If we increase the amount of renewables we buy, we are also giving income to those companies which drives further research into newer technologies which will eventually find more conservative and cheaper alternatives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Obviously we aren't at the point where we can rely solely on renewables, this doesn't mean we can't increase the amount we use whilst simultaneously reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use.

Which is a completely pointless exercise, as I explain below.


Let us not forget that both China and India are in the process of industrialisation, something we did many years ago, which is why that's not a fair comparison.

Well it is a fair comparison if you are proposing we saddle ourselves with more debt when, if the thing you wish to stop - AGW - won't be affected in the slightest even if Britain disappeared off the face of the Earth tommorow. Britain putting up a few token windmills will do as much difference to the weather as pissing in the wind. The only point in all this would be for hand wringers in the west to feel they've done some moral good.... something they want everyone else to pay for.


If we increase the amount of renewables we buy, we are also giving income to those companies which drives further research into newer technologies which will eventually find more conservative and cheaper alternatives.

Government is incapable of choosing winners and losers in economics.

[The Don]

Which is a completely pointless exercise, as I explain below.



Well it is a fair comparison if you are proposing we saddle ourselves with more debt when, if the thing you wish to stop - AGW - won't be affected in the slightest even if Britain disappeared off the face of the Earth tommorow. Britain putting up a few token windmills will do as much difference to the weather as pissing in the wind. The only point in all this would be for hand wringers in the west to feel they've done some moral good.... something they want everyone else to pay for.



Government is incapable of choosing winners and losers in economics.

Ah, so because everybody else is doing it, we should do it too! Solid logic. If we can reduce the amount we rely on fossil fuels our country won't go to **** as they are depleted/become more expensive. Again, you agreed previously that the economy isn't the most important thing yet the only argument you've put forth is entirely based on the economy.

[Kardan]

Simply, yes.
Dragga; if you want the whole world to run on solar/wind/tidal power, I'm pretty sure we'll have to end up getting rid of the natural environment to place the solar panels/wind farms/tidal plants.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ah, so because everybody else is doing it, we should do it too! Solid logic. If we can reduce the amount we rely on fossil fuels our country won't go to **** as they are depleted/become more expensive. Again, you agreed previously that the economy isn't the most important thing yet the only argument you've put forth is entirely based on the economy.

Pretty much so, especially when us doing something won't make the slighest bit of difference. With this kind of soppy hand wringing nonsense, it's a wonder why - or if - the Chinese and Indians are laughing at us. If you believe we should essentially bankrupt our economy, lose our first world status and start chewing on lentils to look morally good then that's upto you ... personally i'd like to do what works and whats practical rather than implement Guardian-style policies based on the guilt of the upper, liberal, middle classes in Islington.

I don't even believe in AGW.... but even if I did, I wouldn't embark on economic suicide merely to look good.

[The Don]

Pretty much so, especially when us doing something won't make the slighest bit of difference. With this kind of soppy hand wringing nonsense, it's a wonder why - or if - the Chinese and Indians are laughing at us. If you believe we should essentially bankrupt our economy, lose our first world status and start chewing on lentils to look morally good then that's upto you ... personally i'd like to do what works and whats practical rather than implement Guardian-style policies based on the guilt of the upper, liberal, middle classes in Islington.

I don't even believe in AGW.... but even if I did, I wouldn't embark on economic suicide merely to look good.

No point debating someone who refuses to accept what almost all scientists agree as fact.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No point debating someone who refuses to accept what almost all scientists agree as fact.

Scientists can be wrong.

In the 1920s/30s science approved greatly of eugenics.....

[The Don]

Scientists can be wrong.

In the 1920s/30s science approved greatly of eugenics.....

Wow, this clearly shows how ridiculous you are. For starters you must be mad to attempt to compare Eugenics, which is a belief, a concept, something which cannot be measured, to a physical change which is taking place, which can be recorded and can actually be measured to study the change in it by comparing data. Not to mention the fact you seem to think you (a politics undergraduate) seem to know better than an overwhelming majority of accredited and published scientists who have spent more years than you have living, studying the subject themselves, and not relying on propaganda put out by shills payed off by big oil companies, which I proved the last time this topic came up. Literally couldn't make this stuff up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Wow, this clearly shows how ridiculous you are. For starters you must be mad to attempt to compare Eugenics, which is a belief, a concept, something which cannot be measured, to a physical change which is taking place, which can be recorded and can actually be measured to study the change in it by comparing data. Not to mention the fact you seem to think you (a politics undergraduate) seem to know better than an overwhelming majority of accredited and published scientists who have spent more years than you have living, studying the subject themselves, and not relying on propaganda put out by shills payed off by big oil companies, which I proved the last time this topic came up. Literally couldn't make this stuff up.

And the other scientists are funded by the government........ so two can play at such a game. I just prefer to go by what the scientists themselves are saying in private, such as when the University of East Anglia got caught out by leaked emails dicussing how there hadn't been a rise in temperature (like they stated in public) and it was a 'travesty' that they couldn't account for it. Caught out red handed. *waits for response telling me that global warming climate change can now mean a drop in temperatures despite everything we were told from 2000 to 2009*

As for politics, so what? I hate politics. I regard politicians and their fellow travellers (including many scientists who are now political as well as the heads of charities, those in the medical profession and the rest of the ruling elite) as the lowest lifeforms on the planet and I detest them. A great deal of them are megalomaniacs, liars and thieves and their track record of getting things completely wrong (ie eugenics which science suppported in the 1930s along with abortion and AGW today...... along with their wars and their economics, ie the Euro) shows that whilst they may be clever, it certainly doesn't mean they have any common sense. Scepticism is healthy and consensus is unhealthy.

You don't have to be an undergraduate to know that the people running the show are not to be trusted. Indeed that's one of the weaknesses of academia itself: it's often very consensus based (and therefore often wrong) along with carrying a liberal-left agenda.

[The Don]

And the other scientists are funded by the government........ so two can play at such a game. I just prefer to go by what the scientists themselves are saying in private, such as when the University of East Anglia got caught out by leaked emails dicussing how there hadn't been a rise in temperature (like they stated in public) and it was a 'travesty' that they couldn't account for it. Caught out red handed. *waits for response telling me that global warming climate change can now mean a drop in temperatures despite everything we were told from 2000 to 2009*

As for politics, so what? I hate politics. I regard politicians and their fellow travellers (including many scientists who are now political as well as the heads of charities, those in the medical profession and the rest of the ruling elite) as the lowest lifeforms on the planet and I detest them. A great deal of them are megalomaniacs, liars and thieves and their track record of getting things completely wrong (ie eugenics which science suppported in the 1930s along with abortion and AGW today...... along with their wars and their economics, ie the Euro) shows that whilst they may be clever, it certainly doesn't mean they have any common sense. Scepticism is healthy and consensus is unhealthy.

Ah, the GRAND CONSPIRACY THEORY argument. Yes Dan, I'm sure that THOUSANDS of scientists are all colluding together to get some extra funding (which they get anyway so it literally doesn't factor into this scenario) and that it's been kept completely under wraps apart from a couple of emails which were taken out of context and a number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm) I'd love to live in wonderland with you, but up here in the real world, it's pretty obvious that climate change is real, especially with the unanimous agreement (97%) of Climate Scientists, which nasa has on their website http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Take the tinfoil hat off Dan.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ah, the GRAND CONSPIRACY THEORY argument. Yes Dan, I'm sure that THOUSANDS of scientists are all colluding together to get some extra funding (which they get anyway so it literally doesn't factor into this scenario) and that it's been kept completely under wraps apart from a couple of emails which were taken out of context and a number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm) I'd love to live in wonderland with you, but up here in the real world, it's pretty obvious that climate change is real, especially with the unanimous agreement (97%) of Climate Scientists, which nasa has on their website http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Take the tinfoil hat off Dan.

Climate change is real yeah, just I dispute recent changes in the climate taking place due to humanity as do many scientists (http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1). We've had past changes in temperature so I think it a bit rash to destroy the western economy on the concept that somehow this recent period of our fault. Increasing numbers are starting to agree with me, and the Australian and Canadian Governments are, I think, on the same page more or less as me. Your response though is typical of somebody who can't stand his consensus being challenged by attempting to make it out as though I am mentally incapable (tinfoil hat) of making a judgement myself. Just as those who questioned the rotation of the Earth were labelled hundreds of years ago when they dared question the consensus at the time.

Time will tell who is correct, in any case we had a cooling scare a few decades ago.

[The Don]

Climate change is real yeah, just I dispute recent changes in the climate taking place due to humanity as do many scientists (http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1). We've had past changes in temperature so I think it a bit rash to destroy the western economy on the concept that somehow this recent period of our fault. Increasing numbers are starting to agree with me, and the Australian and Canadian Governments are, I think, on the same page more or less as me. Your response though is typical of somebody who can't stand his consensus being challenged by attempting to make it out as though I am mentally incapable (tinfoil hat) of making a judgement myself. Just as those who questioned the rotation of the Earth were labelled hundreds of years ago when they dared question the consensus at the time.

Time will tell who is correct, in any case we had a cooling scare a few decades ago.

Oh please, let's not act as if you don't do the same "Can I have some of what you're smoking?" seems to ring a bell.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh please, let's not act as if you don't do the same "Can I have some of what you're smoking?" seems to ring a bell.

Hehe I take that back then :P ...the denier slur though (which you haven't used thankfully) is a different kettle of fish when it comes to AGW.

[God]

97% of Doctors say "Its Appendicitis, we need to operate on it right now" 3% Say nothing and that person ends up dying.

Same thing goes with our planet and global warming.

[God]

From some smart guy in this youtube video. If you don't have 10 minutes of your time to watch this enlightening video Ill sum it up the best I can. http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-marker-just-made-the-global-warming-debate-completely-obsolete-7?g=2&c=mtla


Basically here is the graph. 4 blocks. For Rows we have Are we the reason for Climate Change ( Global Warming ) True or False.
For the Columns we have Do we take action, Yes or No.

Most of the debates on this issue has been Are we causing Global Warming, we aren't looking at the right area now are we? We need to look at Are we going to Take Action to STOP Global Warming, Yes or No.

Now if we do take action and it all turns out to be false, then we probably will have the cost of all our efforts, and a Global depression will probably follow. If We do take action and It turns out its true we are causing it, then we still have the cost to deal with, but we are happy because we can continue to live on our planet as normal.

Now if we Do not take action and it turns out to be False, Great, no harm done. Yet if we don't take action and things turn out to be true. We will face Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse.


Thing is we need to stop arguing if its true or false we are affecting the environment, we need to decide if we are going to take action. And with that we need to look at the risks on each side. I know whats written down would be the most extreme cases, but that's the most likely outcome.

We nee to decide, Whats more risky. Spending Money and a Global Depression, or Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse (which includes Global Depression).

Honestly no doubt I would Take action, and I plan to do the most I can in the future.
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qx7p0g.png

[-:Undertaker:-]

From some smart guy in this youtube video. If you don't have 10 minutes of your time to watch this enlightening video Ill sum it up the best I can. http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-marker-just-made-the-global-warming-debate-completely-obsolete-7?g=2&c=mtla

Basically here is the graph. 4 blocks. For Rows we have Are we the reason for Climate Change ( Global Warming ) True or False.
For the Columns we have Do we take action, Yes or No.

Most of the debates on this issue has been Are we causing Global Warming, we aren't looking at the right area now are we? We need to look at Are we going to Take Action to STOP Global Warming, Yes or No.

Now if we do take action and it all turns out to be false, then we probably will have the cost of all our efforts, and a Global depression will probably follow. If We do take action and It turns out its true we are causing it, then we still have the cost to deal with, but we are happy because we can continue to live on our planet as normal.

Now if we Do not take action and it turns out to be False, Great, no harm done. Yet if we don't take action and things turn out to be true. We will face Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse.

Thing is we need to stop arguing if its true or false we are affecting the environment, we need to decide if we are going to take action. And with that we need to look at the risks on each side. I know whats written down would be the most extreme cases, but that's the most likely outcome.

We nee to decide, Whats more risky. Spending Money and a Global Depression, or Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse (which includes Global Depression).

I have seen that rubbish before and it doesn't add up, indeed if you believe the UN's own figures - which I assume you do - then you'd realise that even if we shut down the entire global economy tommorow (a real global depression) it would hardly make a difference to the temperature of the Earth. And that's assuming the UN has it right in it's calculations, something I believe not to be the case. In any case, even if our politicians are stupid enough to shut down the economy of the west..... those in the East aren't that stupid and thus we'd be wasting our time anyway. So even if you believe in all this, what do you propose given the political and economic reality of it all?

And the video you gave, it's like saying with the remote possibility the devil or an asteroid could come to Earth, we should spend the entire GDP of the globe building a ray gun that will zap the devil or the asteroid. That's what you'd call madness.


Honestly no doubt I would Take action, and I plan to do the most I can in the future.

Take action then, why not start now? Why wait for everybody else?

Start collecting rainwater. Stop buying plastic. Buy second hand clothing. Don't go on holiday. Sit indoors with no heating on and wear a jumper. Buy vegtables instead of meat products. Pledge never to drive a car. Build a septic pond on your land if you have the room. Go through your rubbish and start sorting it into plastics/metals etc. Don't watch TV. Don't use the computer.

But you won't though will you. That's for you, like the politicians, to preach to everybody else to do.

[God]

@undertaker yes I do most of these, yet things I can't do atm as im 16, and don't have my own residence, but in two-three years I plan on more efficient ventures when I'm no longer living with my Family.


I'm basically done with this thread, as clearly someone has been fed lies upon lies from Big Oil and Corrupt Scientists (paid by Big Oil).