jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (150 posts)

Are we becoming too "Green"?

  1. profile image0
    Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years ago

    I know a lot of people say we aren't doing enough to protect the environment, while others say we do too much, which side do you belong to and why?

    1. junkseller profile image89
      junksellerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Forget about what "people" say. Virtually every single major scientific institute on the planet is saying it. People are entirely welcome to ignore the collected mass of scientific knowledge and evidence that supports their claim, but doing so is pure folly.

      It isn't just about the climate changing, as it always has, it is the rate at which it is changing, which is as best we know unprecedented. Also, even natural climate change happens for a reason; Earth's orbit, solar activity, etc. In our case none of those natural variables explain the change we are seeing. Furthermore, no one is necessarily saying that we are going to destroy the planet, but potential consequences such as sea level rise, water shortages, and/or shifts in food production capacity can have very significant impacts on dense population groups. Especially poor ones.

      What can be done is to halt the emissions of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and to continue to increase our understanding of these very complex relationships.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It would be nice if you'd learn science, instead of political dogma.

        1. junkseller profile image89
          junksellerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It'd be nice if you learned civilized discussion, instead of denigration. Insults are the purview of a weak mind.

          1. Alexander Pease profile image61
            Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And yet you just negated your own point by insulting him. How sad. sad

            1. junkseller profile image89
              junksellerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Not really. Criticizing for a reason is different than criticizing without reason. He didn't engage my argument and instead levied an insult without merit.

              I was criticizing the action (unwarranted denigration) he put on the table.

              And I then made a generic statement about ad hominem attacks being the actions of those who do not have legitimate arguments.

              Maybe you are a little right. Maybe it was a bit too insultury, but then I have seen enough insults come from weholdthesetruths to not care too much about being polite to him (or her). I apologize if it de-civilized this board a bit.

              Pease don't be sad. Haha.

              1. Alexander Pease profile image61
                Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps, I have not read enough posts by weholdthesetruths to develop a negative stigma. I can understand having a bias against a person, as I have many myself towards certain, unnamed persons.

                True, though. He did not contribute with a counter-argument, but instead made a personal attack. I did not view it in the same respect as you did, and I only recognized his statement/attack.

                Although, if he had presented a scientific argument, it may have made his insult, um... less insulting. Alas, that is not the case and the situation is what it currently is. Some people only want to post for the sake of posting, and that is often what happens. I suppose that those people are best to just be ignored. Eventually, they may understand that their statements really don't affect intelligent people, (like yourself).

                As of late though, I have taken up to looking at their presentation of mockery in a humorous light. To make a statement like that about someone online, as if they know them personally, only makes the mocker appear to be foolish. Example: these people don't know me and it would take a lot of traveling and hard effort on their part to find evidence to back up any insult, (that is, if they wanted to make a truthful insult).

                1. junkseller profile image89
                  junksellerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, normally I would just ignore someone who I see as being unreasonable.

                  But in this case, his post was pure insult, with no attempt at all made to make a point, and it was put straight to me and not really in the flow of the larger discussion, so I did. Though as you said it is probably best to leave it be.

    2. CHRIS57 profile image60
      CHRIS57posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Green" is not simply about environmental issues.
      "Green" is the synonym for an upcoming industrial revolution. And as it was with all industrial changes, there is a trigger.

      The trigger is energy cost. Market prices for energy are going up because of growing global demand, especially from developing economies and at the same time instability in the OPEC club (Libya...)
      So it is all about money. You better get a car with high mpg, you better not use too much electricity, you better not use too much airconditioning in summer time and you should insulate your home in winter time - that is what saves you money.
      Of course saving energy requires investment, new car, new insulation, more public transportation, new renewable energy (windfarming, solar photovoltaic) - Guess what investment does? Pushes economy, creates new industries, new products.

      The US uses almost twice as much energy per capita as Japan and almost 3 times as much as Germany, 2 economies with comparable industrialisation. Lot´s to do for the US to reduce energy consumption and carbon footprint.

      To me all this "Green" discussion is just a self regulating mechanism of human demand for prosperity and healthy life. For many years only the more and more sophisticated use of industrial production was in focus. Today we have to reduce energy cost and if we do it right, our high skills in industrial production will help to reduce energy consumption and even more reduce the carbon footprint.

      This is a chance, not something to lamet about.

    3. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There have been programs on which graphically show how much waste one person generates in their lifetime. Totally astounding. Then, consider that the U.S. is considered the most wasteful of all the nations. Sad...just plain sad.

      1. Alexander Pease profile image61
        Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but China emits the most carbon into the atmosphere annually. The average American puts 80 tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. The global average is 17 tons per year.

        I happy to say that I only put 19 tons into the atmosphere per year. Oh, wait, I'm not happy anymore. 19 tons is almost equal twenty school buses...

        1. hottopics profile image57
          hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not critisizing, but how do you know you only put out 19 tons of carbon?

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm kinda curious about that myself...

    4. james_foreclosure profile image55
      james_foreclosureposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      i don't think it's possible to be "too green" - we have been damaging our planet for ages, destroying the ecosystem and emitting toxic gasses into the ozone... remember "An Inconvenient Truth"? it's perhaps the only good thing al gore has done since leaving the oval office as VP.

      i think we personally need to be doing more... especially with gas consumption.

    5. profile image57
      ForYourInfoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We do a lot to destroy our beautiful environment and speak a lot about protecting it.
      In reality we do not sacrifice our momentary comfort forgetting that it is going to ruin ourselves only.
      I think it is really time that we should do something.

    6. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Google the Pacific Gyre.  It's a garbage patch as big as Texas in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and it's not just on the surface - it goes miles down.  Fish and seagulls around the Pacific are dying in large numbers with plastic in their gullets. 

      Whether climate change is natural or man-made, there are lots of other ways we're doing dreadful harm to our environment.

    7. kwade tweeling profile image82
      kwade tweelingposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Both. Much of the "Green Movement" is political maneuvering. Not much done and a lot said.

    8. IntimatEvolution profile image79
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We can never be too green.  We haven't even gone completely green yet.

  2. barryrutherford profile image35
    barryrutherfordposted 6 years ago

    We need to do a lot more to compensate for the 250 years since the Industrial Revolution where we started pumping noxious gasesinto the atmosphere

    1. profile image0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      But isn't the world naturally warming up and cooling down? And what more can be done?

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is a lot more to being green than climate change.

        1. Alexander Pease profile image61
          Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I will extend Holden's thought:

          Going Green is about cleaning up the Earth's environment. It is about preserving what we have on Earth, such as rain-forests and oil. Going Green means investing in alternative energies technologies that will cut back on how much we take from the Earth.

          I am sure that there can be more done about going Green. However, it think that it is also too much too soon. If this trend had been started 20 years ago and gradually introduced, I think that there would have been better "results" produced.

          People like fads, but Green should not be a fad. Green is typically a lifestyle, a way to live. In another twenty years I expect that people will move on from being Green and will find a new movement to follow. Those who are genuinely concerned for this planet may become the minority, while the rest find something else to follow.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How old is the Earth?

      Millions of years old?

      But we are destroying it in a century and a half?

      1. kerryg profile image86
        kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        4.54 billion, actually.

        The Earth will survive anything we throw at it. It took only ten million years for it to recover from the Permian mass extinction that killed 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates.

        The problem is that we are rendering it uninhabitable for ourselves. If we're stupid enough to keep it up, then clearly we deserve to go extinct, but some of us like to think that we're smarter than that. We'd be a pitifully short lived species if we aren't. Most species last about 10 million years, we haven't even made it to 200,000.

        1. Alexander Pease profile image61
          Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If there were survivors from a human extinction then, a few thousand years down the road they would just build everything back up to what it was. I can say that because humans are creatures of comfort. We search to have the best in life and are miserable when we think we have less.

          I am not sure if I would "volley" for a mass human extinction, my survival instinct says no. Logically, it would be an improvement for our planet, but in reality, if humans were wiped out things would actually get worse. Think of all the nuclear plants and such things.

          Speaking of nuclear plants, should they be ditched all together? To state the obvious, they aren't really green, and are dangerous if they melt-down.

          1. kerryg profile image86
            kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "If there were survivors from a human extinction then, a few thousand years down the road they would just build everything back up to what it was."

            Probably yes, although the degree of our success would depend a bit on how messed up the climate is. If we lose Greenland's ice sheet, for example, it will first take hundreds of years to actually melt down to nothing, and the resulting higher sea levels would last for thousands of years. A more serious long term problem would be desertification. This is what the planet could look like by 2100 on a moderate emissions scenario (700ppm by 2100 - we're currently on track to reach 1000ppm by 2100):

            http://i54.tinypic.com/necj7d.jpg

            Just as a reference point, the driest it got during the 30's Dust Bowl was -6.

            Desertification is possible to reverse, but difficult. For example, much of the Middle East used to be fertile farmland and conifer forest, but it was deforested to build ancient cities and salinized by bad irrigation practices and 3000 years later, it still hasn't recovered.

            "I am not sure if I would "volley" for a mass human extinction, my survival instinct says no."

            I'm opposed to mass extinction of humans - that's why I'm an environmentalist. We're not as independent of Earth's natural systems as we think we are, and if those systems break down, we're screwed. If we deliberately break them down through our own greed and short-sightedness, we're both screwed and monumentally stupid. tongue

            "Logically, it would be an improvement for our planet, but in reality, if humans were wiped out things would actually get worse. Think of all the nuclear plants and such things. "

            There's a really interesting book called "The World After Us" that describes what would happen if every human on the planet vanished tomorrow. Radioactive lumps of melted nuclear plant would definitely be one of our longest lasting legacies. Another is plastics, some of which are, as far as we know, essentially indestructible and could stick around for hundreds of thousands of years after we disappear, until something evolves the ability to eat them or they get stuck in some geologic process along the lines of the one that turns concentrated dead plants and animals into oil.

            1. Alexander Pease profile image61
              Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I was actually quite worried when I saw you quoting me, because in many forums when people quote one another it is to degrade another person statement. I was relieved when I continued reading on.

              I will have to check out the book mentioned. Thank you for extending my thoughts. big_smile

              1. kerryg profile image86
                kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "I was actually quite worried when I saw you quoting me, because in many forums when people quote one another it is to degrade another person statement."

                Oh, I do that often enough, but in this case I think we're in essential agreement. smile

            2. Debby Bruck profile image84
              Debby Bruckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks for these figures and map. "If there were survivors from a human extinction then, a few thousand years down the road they would just build everything back up to what it was."

              Something tells me the human mind cannot comprehend the enormity of scale, the numbers in years and the statistics in a tangible visceral manner that touches his inner being. Only the here and now of how a person lives in his or her environment, with some input from the internet, videos, articles etc impacts the person at that gut level where s/he takes action. When it comes to security, health and basic needs in the present time, that takes precedence over what happens in the future, unless a person intellectualizes and foresees what could happen.

        2. profile image65
          logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          kerryg, you are right on!  Nature will continue on it's path whether we are in the way or not.  This planet has face far more cataclysmic events that we can possibly imagine and yet it continues on.
          We can only control what is happening to ourselves by controlling ourselves.  Government can pass all the laws it wants.  The bottom line is each of us has to think about how we are contributing, positively or negatively.  I am not a "greenie", but I am a conservationist.  Have been since grade school, where we were taught common sense conservation, not the extremist crap that goes on now that encourages violence and the destruction of other people's livelihood and property. 
          Do companies pollute?  Absolutely!  If that is a problem for one, then they need to make sure they don't work for that company.  If enough don't want to work there, they will have no employees, and will go out of business. So I guess in other words, the employees are polluting.  Same way with vehicles.  If people don't want to pollute, they need to quit driving and start riding bicycles.  Whoops, can't do that, bicycles are made in those factories that are supplied by polluting industries. Guess we have to walk then.  Whoops, when we walk we fart, so now we are putting methane in the atmosphere.  Guess we should just die and all the pollution will go away.  Hmmm, the volcanoes will still erupt and the earth will still open up and plants and animals will still decay, so where will we be?
          Gist of it is, do as much as you can, based on your own conscience.  We cannot control everything, just what we personally do. 
          Course the elitists here, will disagree, but then they know what's best for me and everyone else so that should be of no suprise.

          1. kerryg profile image86
            kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Gist of it is, do as much as you can, based on your own conscience.  We cannot control everything, just what we personally do."

            I agree with this, but it's important not to create false equivalencies. Just because there is no perfectly "green" action doesn't mean it is pointless to try to become more green.

            To use your example, you'll fart just as much driving a car as you will walking, and an average car uses substantially more raw materials from factories supplied by polluting industries than an average bike does, so it's still by far the least green option of the three, even before you actually turn it on and start shooting carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and unburned hydrocarbons out of its tailpipe.

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image89
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "The problem is that we are rendering it uninhabitable for ourselves."
          Exactly so. The planet was fine before we arrived, and it'll be fine after we're gone (whether we ruin it for ourselves or some astronomical or geological event does the job for us).
          "If we're stupid enough to keep it up, then clearly we deserve to go extinct, but some of us like to think that we're smarter than that."
          Well, some of us are smarter than that, but there are many many stupid stupid people in the world. Also, there are many people who just don't give a darn for anything beyond their own lives, or those of their immediate descendents. They seem not to care about their many-great grandchildren.
          Further, there are the folks who genuinely believe that it would be a Good Thing to wreck the Earth for human habitation, because it would hasten the Apocalypse, when they will receive their Heavenly reward.
          This may or may not be scripturaly supported (and I don't want to needlessly widen the debate), but just in my own humble opinion, if we wreck the planet that god gave us dominon over, won't He think that we've been pretty darn ungrateful?

      2. Maembe profile image60
        Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard and I've been posting here for weeks.

        1. RachaelLefler profile image90
          RachaelLeflerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          indeed.

          1. RachaelLefler profile image90
            RachaelLeflerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well I mean, this whole thread is a silly argument.

      3. sn53Anon profile image59
        sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It has seen many, many cycles of heating and cooling.

        Don't let the alarmists scare you. There is nothing to see here.

      4. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yep.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    We won't be too green until we are 100% green.
    We, as a global community, as a country, and as individuals, have much more greening to do.
    Many people are not incented by "doing the right thing for others."
    There are financial benefits to going green as well.
    You save real $$$ when you drive a fuel efficient car, use energy efficient appliances and install solar panels on your roof.
    There are a zillion little ways we can all become greener.
    And not a single excuse why we don't!

    1. Alexander Pease profile image61
      Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.

      Another major issue is this: factories and coal plants produce more carbon in the atmosphere than all of the cars in America running at the same time.

      OH! I just found a way to calculate your carbon footprint. Here That could help some people go more Green.

  4. Joy56 profile image59
    Joy56posted 6 years ago

    well the schools here are teaching the kids to be very very green........ the next generation of adults, should do a better job of things. 


    They do go a bit far in the schools, ah but sure, tis better to more green than less green

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Schools are teaching dogma, not facts.

      1. profile image0
        Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Can you give an example of the dogma? I'm curious on your perspective on what the schools are teaching.

      2. Alexander Pease profile image61
        Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        weholdthesetruths: I am requesting this in the nicest possible way:

        Could you, maybe show evidence to support this claim?

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Support your assertions or you're not contributing to the discussion; you're just throwing rocks.

  5. wheelinallover profile image81
    wheelinalloverposted 6 years ago

    My take on this is when it takes more infinite resources to make green technology its time to pack it up. I probably understand living green better than most people, I actually lived much of my childhood using nothing but what mother nature provided. The only thing I remember using which could hurt the environment was fire. Cleaning the forest of combustible material might have saved a forest fire so it was a trade off.
    For the first time in my life I will be taking down a living tree in a few weeks. It's still alive but dying and it has become a danger to my neighbors house. There is no other reason I would ever cut down a living tree.
    I guess you would have to say within what I can afford I am as green as I can get.

    1. Alexander Pease profile image61
      Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Being Green is not all about the technology. Being Green can be a simple as recycling, or walking instead of driving.

  6. barryrutherford profile image35
    barryrutherfordposted 6 years ago

    If you look athe average temperature of the earth one can see a gradual but constant rise of hotter days on average taken together collectively since the 1850's.  2010 happenend to be the hottest year globally on average.

    1. Alexander Pease profile image61
      Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe some validation over the enthusiasts of the supposed 2012 Mayan Calender event? Perhaps what those Mayans were talking about all along was global warming. tongue

  7. 2uesday profile image86
    2uesdayposted 6 years ago

    Being green is just a term, it is really about respect for the world you live in, the world that supports you and hopefully the future generations.

  8. BobbiRant profile image59
    BobbiRantposted 6 years ago

    There are Enough resources for man's needs, but Not for his Greed!  That sums that up nicely. If we used things wisely, but, alas, in order to gain fabulous wealth, conservation is out the window.

  9. DonDWest profile image80
    DonDWestposted 6 years ago

    I am sorry if this makes me sound like a right-wing extremist, but I will accept being labelled a right-wing extremist, for now. . .

    I feel a lot of the environmental movement is filled with corruption. I don't have any evidence, mainly because I don't have access or the means to acquire such evidence, but my intuition tells me this movement is leading my generation down a path of economic suicide.

    My intuition tells me this "green movement" is being used to brain wash my generation into accepting and living in squalid like conditions. I believe the rich and privileged in society are using the "green movement" as a weapon, so we can all live like the Chinese. When I see YouTube videos of young adults happy in their 90 foot squalid "micro-studios", I want to puke. Our parents generation wouldn't accept working the rest of their lives for this 3rd world condition hood and neither should we. . .

    I find it hypocritical how "green movements" are often pushed on the young, by the old who own two or three homes, while the young are renting a tiny apartment due mostly to economic conditions. I can't help but feel this "green movement" is being used to create a young sacrificial proletariat, and I don't like it. I don't like it at all.

    People seem to be forgetting that while you're "downsizing" to your tiny squalid conditions, the houses and land don't exactly disappear. Who do you think scoops them up once you're gone? The rich, that's who, who then pick them up at bargain prices and often pollute even more than an ordinary person.

    My father was able to afford a four bedroom house off one wage, I'm sorry if it makes me greedy for wanting and desiring the same. In many ways, I consider the environmental movement the great betrayal of the liberal class. If we cared half as much about fuzzy animals as we do humans, maybe there would be less wars.

    I think this phony environmental movement is all about greedy rich people who want it all for themselves, and want their workers to live in barracks like China.

    1. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Several points:

      1. If we continue on the "business-as-usual" path we're currently on that is projected to land us at 1000ppm by 2100, you're essentially destroying your home in exchange for the short term profits of wealthy corporations anyway. Why not take charge of your future and try to turn things around?

      2. North America doesn't have enough oil resources of its own to become energy independent, unless you count tar sands and shale oil, which are both extremely environmentally destructive to extract. Why not focus on developing clean, domestic energy sources instead of throwing more and more military and diplomatic efforts into ensuring our continued access to foreign energy sources, most of which are controlled by unstable dictators? Again, advocating business-as-usual emphasis on fossil fuel energy would benefit wealthy multinational corporations far more than ordinary citizens.

      1. DonDWest profile image80
        DonDWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I understand where you're coming from in terms of dependence on crude oil, but I'm a tad confused how a lot of the ideas put out by "green movements" help towards addressing that issue. A lot of it seems like propaganda and brains washing toward making us accept less. The whole ideal comes across as regressive in my mind. I'm progressive; I believe you can live an abundant life without oil. I know so, because I've built wealth by cutting oil.

        There are a lot of contradictions in the "green movement" as well: One of them in the CO2 theory. For starters, CO2 isn't a toxic substance; it's a necessary component for photosynthesis. Once I get that argument cleared with the "scientists", their next point is that "it's the high concentration of CO2 that's toxic." My rebuttal to that is simple, "then how the heck does bunching humans up, in squalid like conditions, reduce CO2 concentration? Wouldn't that increase CO2 concentration? Shouldn’t we spread out instead?" Then they mention that would increase oil consumption, but that's mute point, because oil exhaust is CO, not CO2.

        The people who often ruthlessly try to defend such positions are those with Master's degree or above that often they work for major corporations or the government. The entire CO2 theory comes across as rather suspect to me. Science involves a lot of skepticism. In my opinion, such a radical theory as this shouldn't be preached unless you're 99.99% certain, because the sacrifices involved could prove enormous. Presently, the theory is filled with more holes than Swiss cheese.

        1. Alexander Pease profile image61
          Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you have no evidence to back up your statements then isn't it all speculation anyways? When I view your above statements, I do not feel inclined to believe them but, maybe that is because I am on the "greener" side of this discussion.

          There are many resources on the internet that provide information about CO2 emmissions. Carbon emissions are not a fairy tale and is a very serious matter. Reducing your carbon footprint is about more than buying into corporate corruption. It is proven that a CFL light bulb will save money, as well as energy.The less energy that is used means less electricity consumed, which amounts to less coal burned and carbon released in the atmosphere.

          Green was not something cooked up in the labs of a corporation. The damage that we are doing to the Earth's environment is very real. People are not ignorant and took notice of this. These people, I presume, took action and decided to preserve what was left of the Earth.
          In fact, here is a link on the subject of the Green movement and how is started: http://webecoist.com/2008/08/17/a-brief … -movement/

        2. kerryg profile image86
          kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you can point me to where a respected scientist has claimed that CO2 is "toxic" (except in very high concentrations of 10,000ppm or more), I would be interested in reading that. Scientists say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is an entirely different thing and which has been accepted by most scientists since the early 1900s. Also, auto emissions include both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, as well as nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons.

          The argument whether urban areas or rural areas are more green is actually still raging. The theory behind urban advocates is that urban areas have better mass transit and more walkability. My Seattle relatives can easily walk or take a bus anywhere they need to be, whereas my rural Nebraska family has to drive to get anywhere. On the other hand, urban areas need most of their food and raw materials shipped in, whereas rural areas were traditionally, at least, more self-sufficient. In modern times, you'd be surprised by the number of farmers I know who couldn't grow a tomato to save their lives and buy all their food at the grocery store just like a city slicker. tongue

          "In my opinion, such a radical theory as this shouldn't be preached unless you're 99.99% certain, because the sacrifices involved could prove enormous."

          It's not that radical. The scientific principles behind it, as I said, have been pretty well established for more than 100 years. Additionally, if scientists are correct about the results of rising atmospheric CO2 levels, then the cost of adaptation will be far, far higher than the cost of mitigation.

          If we stay on or near our current emissions path, scientists estimate we'll be at 1,000ppm by 2100, with the following effects:

          * Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States
          * Sea level rise of 3 to 7 feet, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
          * Dust Bowls over the U.S. SW and many other heavily populated regions around the globe
          * Massive species loss on land and sea — 50% or more of all life
          * More severe hurricanes — especially in the Gulf

          http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/22/a … igh-water/

          Studies by organizations including the IPCC, the McKinsey Global Institute, and the International Energy Agency have found that mitigation (maxing out CO2 levels at 450ppm and dropping back toward 350ppm thereafter) would have a net cost of 1% of global GDP or less per year, and some studies have even found net economic benefit. The costs of adaptation, on the other hand... well, depending on the exact mix of impacts that we get, the sky is potentially the limit.

    2. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You're mistaken.   It's about power and control, not about "rich people wanting workers".    It's about a political class that believes it is so moral, so righteous, so wise, and so superior to you, that it has a right to control your life for you.   It is no different from the "rich must be controlled" and "capitalists must be controlled" crowd, whose only interest is obtaining absolute control over their fellow humans.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In other words, the extreme capitalist right wing.

      2. DonDWest profile image80
        DonDWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're naive to think globalist corporate employers wouldn't dream to have American and Canadian workers living like the average Chinese. They always talk about how China is an ideal form of capitalism. What employer wouldn't want a dubious and complacent worker who loves his box and his 2 dollars a day? Globalist corporate employers can use the "environmental movement" as a means to accomplish such a goal, just saying. . .

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        roll

  10. thirdmillenium profile image60
    thirdmilleniumposted 6 years ago

    Even the darkest green is not too green

    1. Alexander Pease profile image61
      Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I take it that was either a poetry, or you like the color green. Either way I like the post thirdmillenium.

      1. profile image0
        Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        thirdmillenium, why do you feel that way? I posted this forum to hear people's opinions and reasons behind those feelings.

  11. Mikeydoes profile image76
    Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago

    We are doing too much when it involves the wrong things. And not enough when it comes to doing the right things.

  12. Rafini profile image87
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    Too green?  Did I hear that correctly?  I dunno about too green...but definitely too irresponsible and too wasteful, still.  Going green was supposed to resolve those issues....hmm

    1. Alexander Pease profile image61
      Alexander Peaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, yes, the classical "going green is supposed to resolve--issues" argument. Things will only be resolved if people want them to be resolved. If people take action.

      1. Rafini profile image87
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I dunno....recycling costs just as much as it's supposed to save - is it worth it?  doesn't seem like it to me, but then again, if it keeps some junk out of the landfill that would be worth it no matter the cost - right?  hmmm....

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes of course, absolutely every thing revolves around money doesn't it.

          1. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol  well, do you have a better reason?  (I don't believe the earth will run out of resources - at least not as long as humans are still alive and kicking!)

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Don't you really!
              Even discounting oil, we're rapidly doing away with tropical rain forest, increasing desertification of much needed arable land.
              How about clean drinking water? That's getting harder and harder to find.
              Do we just keep building roads, wider and faster.

              Even with resources such as aluminium, cheap and plentiful (and much cheaper to recycle than to mine) there is a huge cost in land.

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                big_smile  So, what's your better reason for going green?  Cuz from what I can tell, going green doesn't affect tropical rain forests, arable land, or drinking water.  As for oil, if the earth runs out of oil something else will come along to take it's place because it's purpose in existence will have come to an end.

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Cuz from what I can tell, going green doesn't affect tropical rain forests, arable land, or drinking water."

                  Yes, it does.

                  Obviously there are greenwashed products that don't (corn and soy ethanol come to mind as supposedly "green" products that manage to destroy the rainforest, degrade the soil, and pollute drinking water), but strict green standards have all sorts of requirements designed to minimize or prevent habitat destruction, soil degradation, unsustainable water use, etc.

                  1. Rafini profile image87
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    big_smile   Ok.  (I don't mind recycling, but at times think it's gone overboard)

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Think of MacDonalds slashing and burning rain forest for cheap beef for their cheap burgers, then abandoning it after a few years when the fertility has gone.

  13. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    At the moment, given the current level of technology or lack thereof, simply put going energy Green will make you Blue by putting you in the Red.


    And to start the inevitable argument, there is not one green technology that is commercially viable. I offer this perspective from the technical aspect as an electrical system construction manager with over 25 years experience installing systems from over 30K volts to controls systems of 12 volts including “green systems.” All the Green systems of which I have installed proved to be long on promise and short on delivery. I am also a well-schooled marine mechanic.

    The only serious solar power concept is thermal, however the current pricing structure of the most efficient glycol systems is astronomic and promised savings are never realized. And even these “Green” systems require the use of electricity for control and back up. So far solar electricity is currently a pipe dream for anything other than tickle charging batteries. These systems also require conventional electrical power.

    The huge push for adding ethanol in fuels is more of a folly of subsidy than viable option. Ethanol use at the current ten percent levels induces engine damage especially in marine systems and vehicles with non-metallic fuel lines. The drive to get higher ethanol levels will only cause more damage for more people, increasing repair bills across a wider spectrum and reduce engine efficiency.

    Okay let the festivities begin

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not one!
      Not walking or cycling over driving.
      Not recycling over making from new.
      Not using low energy electrical appliances over high energy.

      Do you not think that many green technologies are expensive because they are trying to apply high tech solutions to low tech problems.
      For instance, why the need to use glycol in solar heating systems?
      As for solar electricity, though I believe places like California do quite well with solar generation, there are more practical and universally applicable methods of green generation.
      I think a lot of the problems with green energy are political rather than practical. Here in the UK the government has decided that the only form of green energy we should have is wind generation, totally ignoring the fact that we are a small island surrounded by sea which unlike wind never stops moving.

      I strongly disagree with your statement that there is not one green technology that is commercially viable.

      1. readytoescape profile image61
        readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well you can disagree as much as you would like, or “think” what you will, but it doesn’t change the fact that Green ENERGY is not yet a commercially viable option.

        Perhaps you should enlighten your self a bit more rather than recite the canon of the Flower Power Generation.

        Apparently I have to prove my point.

        Why Glycol? Propylene Glycol (Glycol) is used in solar thermal systems because it is a liquid that attain and retain heat faster and longer than water. Glycol transfers heat faster and more efficiently than water. Glycol attains and sustains higher temperatures (280 degrees) than water a fact that provides efficiency for heating without equipment related pressure issues and failures caused by boiling water. Glycol also doesn’t freeze like water, which can create catastrophic equipment failure and other property damage as a result. Glycol is also an organic compound also used as a food additive not a dangerous chemical.

        Hum? Average Quality Solar thermal  water heating systems (Shuco or equivalent) installed cost roughly $11,000.00 (plus financing costs). The Average new 40-50 gallon electric water heater costs about $300.00, cost to operate depending upon your electricity rates are $350.00 to $450.00 per year. At the higher rate it will take 23.77 YEARS to equal just the initial solar thermal system expense excluding financing.

        I would say it is pretty conclusive that even the best solar power system available, which is thermal, as above, is not exactly financially viable. Solar electricity is anywhere from 8 to 12 times more expensive and much less efficient. The largest residential solar electric system I have seen was priced over $112,000 and would only provide enough stand-alone electricity to operate a home’s 110 volt consumption for 6 to12 hours. That means nothing larger than your refrigerator will operate without dramatically reducing the storage capacity.

        Walking? How about a twenty-mile one-way commute to work? Let see avg. person walks at 3.1 mph, hum, 12.9 hours walking, 8 hours working, that leaves 3.1 hours in the 24 hour day to eat, sleep, live. NO Thanks.

        Bike riding? Average 8-12 mph (though unsustainable for long periods by the average person) drops to 5 mph over time duration. Adds 3-5 more hours to “free time” NO Thanks.

        Oh and please quote in context, as below. My initial post addressed Green Energy, not other methods or concepts.

        “At the moment, given the current level of technology or lack thereof, simply put going energy Green will make you Blue by putting you in the Red.”

        1. junkseller profile image89
          junksellerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If green energy was not viable, people would not buy it. Even if it is more expensive that doesn't make it unviable. People make those sorts of choices all the time.

          Your $11,000 complex glycol solar water heating system is one end of the spectrum. A passive system in a region with high insolation can be installed for 2-3k and give you a return on investment in years. I just priced an active system for Austin with Rheem and it gave me a return on investment in 5 years. Their calculator is probably a little advantageous, but Austin does have high rebates/tax incentives, relatively high energy costs, and good insolation, so they could be right.

          A $112,000 dollar solar panel system somehow being inadequate is ridiculous. Was it a flying house or something? That large of a system should have put out about 14kW. They should have been able to run half the neighborhood.

          There is a wide spectrum of variables in which these systems operate. High insolation areas, well designed efficient houses, rebate and incentive programs, as well as high local energy costs can all reduce the return on investment. The opposite of those variables can make a system economically prohibitive. It is important to recognize these differences to appropriately apply technological solutions.

    2. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "At the moment, given the current level of technology or lack thereof, simply put going energy Green will make you Blue by putting you in the Red."

      Maybe, but you could say the same for oil.

      Can you truthfully say the oil industry is "commercially viable" when it receives tens of billions of dollars annually in government subsidies, incentives, and tax breaks, not including billions more in indirect subsidies such as investing in new roads rather than mass transit?

      Europeans, who also subsidize oil companies but much less than the US, have routinely paid $8-10 per gallon for years. As a result, they have invested much more in alternative energy, mass transit, and other efforts to reduce their dependence on foreign oil and use only about half the oil per capita that Americans do, yet have almost identical standards of living.

  14. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    Perhaps you should enlighten your self a bit more than just recite the anti alternative lobby creed.

  15. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    Lol typical

    Can’t win the discussion, try to change the argument
    Can’t defeat or refute the message, so attack the messenger.

    In the immortal words of Ron White “You can’t fix stupid”

    I really hope this doesn’t apply to you.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well unfortunately, I was looking for a discussion, not to win or lose but to learn. You however saw it as a challenge and opportunity to prove your superiority.

      Therefore, no play. Go prove your superiority to yourself.

  16. superwags profile image79
    superwagsposted 6 years ago

    No, we are not becoming too green. There's a way further we could go. Being green is about more than just emitted carbon too, remember.

    There are plenty of things which need to be debated on this point; I'm not someone who thiinks that the best way of addressing emissions is Kyoto/ Copenhagen, for instance - but that something needs to change in our collective attitudes is not really up for debate.

    1. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi super,

      You wrote, "There are plenty of things which need to be debated on this point; I'm not someone who thiinks that the best way of addressing emissions is Kyoto/ Copenhagen, for instance - but that something needs to change in our collective attitudes is not really up for debate."


      Just live your life. Enjoy it. All too soon it will be over. And the Earth will be just fine.

  17. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 6 years ago

    To Green...only if you stay to long in the woods and let the cudzu overtake you!.....just kiddin

    I honestly do not think we can be to Green, the Earth is all we have, we loose it- we do not exhist. We have no choice but to protect it.

    1. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am always impressed by the weaklings who believe we have it within our power to destroy the Earth. I often wonder if this illusion of grandeur is to compensate for a certain lack in other areas.

      1. recommend1 profile image66
        recommend1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Impotence of many forms is usually displayed by the need to always include an insult in posts, you seem to have this issue.

        If you have not been out much then I guess you will not have seen the wholesale destruction of vast areas of our planet. 

        Working underwater for many years I have seen the seabed in whole 'seas' go from an abundance of life of all kinds to bare mud filled deserts over just two decades, vast areas of agricultural land supporting generations of people engulfed by desert.

        I guess you won't have understood that the increasingly rapid mass extinction of species has been seen as a normal precursor to every major event that has seen the dominant species disappear.

        I guess you think that because an inept politician screwed up it means that it all just goes away as your masters want.  But hten I guess you don't care anyway because it is your kids who will have to deal with it, not you ?

        1. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Let me just say I do not believe you.

          1. recommend1 profile image66
            recommend1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That is what I said, you should get out more and look for yourself.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hi recommend1,

              Let us agree to disagree. For me the environmental movement is just the newest home for people who want to limit growth through the power of greater state tyranny.

              We cannot destroy the earth. We cannot even make it unlivable, save for brief periods, and then only with limited results.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So it's OK to make the planet unlivable for a few years!
                Exactly how many years would that be?
                Even if only for one year that wouldn't matter to us because we wouldn't be around to see it recover.
                I actually want my grand children to live

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The only way to make portions of the planet unlivable is to implement socialism's policies. That works every time it is tried. Consider the worst examples and you will see they all occur under communism which is the political arm of the socialist economic model.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Total bunkum!
                    So you think socialism is responsible for the massive consumption of oil?

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image72
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    BP's gulf oil spill was due to socialism? Likewise the Japanese nuclear disaster? Natural gas fracking polluting well water and streams another case of socialism? How about pre-EPA Los Angeles smog? Socialism again? I've heard it leads to erectile dysfunction as well.

              2. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You should look at science more and political propaganda less. Scientific facts are not political in nature.  My understanding of the environment is based in science.  Yours is firmly based in politics - yet you claim environmentalists are politically motivated? 

                Try to maintain a logically consistent position.

                1. DannyMaio profile image56
                  DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Does it bother anyone else that two of the authors of this study wrote an Op/Ed piece for philly dot com where they stated:

                  “the conclusion we take away from our study is that the United States needs to focus on developing alternative, renewable energy resources that are greener and safer.”

                  ?? That is a political policy position and it’s not possible to conclude this from this study. Are scientists really supposed to be stating that their studies cause an arrival at a public policy position – especially when the study wasn’t even about that and has no data that is even relevant to such a conclusion?

                  Also doesn’t it seem obvious that this was a political belief these guys held before they did this study, and that it’s it’s untrue that this study is what led them to that belief? And this:

                  “Instead of just safer, though, we would like to see shale gas become largely unnecessary, along with coal and oil. The faster we develop and adopt renewable energy technologies, the less we will have to worry about whether it’s safe for people to drink their water. We should all be able to raise our glasses to that.”

                  You see, this is again, not a scientific conclusion, but a political position. And it’s one that couldn’t possibly be derived from the study in question. Again, it’s obvious that these guys have believed this for a long time and that has nothing to do with this study. Also doesn’t it say they don’t really want to fix any problems with gas drilling, they just want it to die?

                  Does that bother anyone else?

                  I guess you should practice what you preach.

                  1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi sockpuppet. 

                    There are many valid reasons to oppose hydrofracking besides the methane intrusion into drinking water supplies.  It's a profoundly stupid technology that poisons millions of gallons of water, requires millions of gallons of deadly chemicals, thousands of acres of land, and releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with an effect that is worse than coal. 

                    Having a political position based on a scientific understanding of the facts is one thing.  Approaching scientific facts based on your political position is quite different.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We will not destroy the earth, but it is not unimaginable that we could make it uninhabitable for our own species.  The earth will be in existence long after we have left it.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this
          1. profile image0
            Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            uncorrectedvision, do you believe we are becoming "too green"?

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes.

          2. kerryg profile image86
            kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Um, the effects of most of the "unimaginable cataclysms" listed on those two links were pretty localized, and the exceptions mostly happened before we were human.

            There is some pretty strong evidence that humans nearly died out about 70,000 years ago (possibly due to massive droughts and/or a supervolcano), but that's our closest known brush with extinction since becoming biologically modern humans about 200,000 years ago.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, I had to cup my hand to my ear to hear the internal contradiction - 70,000 years ago you say?

              I also was unaware that you had prohibited catastrophic events following in close("civilizationally" speaking) sequence or even simultaneously.  Let me know how you did that.

  18. Info Bucket profile image69
    Info Bucketposted 6 years ago

    No matter how much we become green, it'll take a long period to re-establish the destroyed natural resources@

  19. Evan G Rogers profile image79
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    I just want to put a few things in perspective.

    The amount of pollution and greenhouse gases released by transportation-methods BEFORE cars was likely HIGHER than the fleet of today. -- Those horses and other animals crapped and whizzed wherever they felt like it, and they farted out a lot of methane. I have no stats to back this up, and perhaps we put out more GH gasses now, but the "per mile" number is MUCH lower.

    The gasses emitted by cars etc has been on a steady decline without much government intervention.

    anyway, just a few things to ponder over.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evan,

      Not really.  The horses are simply taking solar energy in, in the form of plants, and processing it into kinetic energy, then creating waste in the form of methane or whatever else comes when they fart.  It's basically a carbon neutral cycle.

      The problem with coal and natural gas is that we are taking solar energy that was stored up over millions of years, buried underground, and we are releasing it all over the course of a few decades.

      In the natural carbon cycle, CO2 and other gases are produced by biological processes which are ultimately powered by one single input, the sun.  The amount of energy the sun inputs into the system changes minimally from day to day.  The CO2 and other gases produced by biological processes is recaptured:  absorbed by the oceans or by plants.  In a normal situation the carbon level stays basically the same, unless something changes.  Over the past few hundred thousand years we've seen a fluctuation of atmospheric carbon from around 180 to 280 ppm.  For most of human history the level has stayed around 280, which is why humans have enjoyed a relatively stable, mild climate.  That level is now 380 ppm, and that's all due to industrial inputs from burning fossil fuels.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        good point.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          See, socialists aren't all bad.

          1. profile image0
            Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That's awesome. Lolz.

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But they do eat babies lol

            1. profile image0
              Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And you know that based on what?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry Phoebe, entirely tongue in cheek - I am a socialist.

                1. profile image0
                  Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I was hoping for a more witty response than that. :p Lolz

  20. thisisoli profile image55
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    I would say we should be using caution. Trying to countarct natural earth cycles really could end in disaster.

    There are also plenty of examples of 'Green' initiatives causign more damage than they saved.

    I think the best thing anyone can do is make the small difference yourself cut down on overall pollution, recycle, plant a few plants in your garden, if you have enough space, grow a tree smile

    Altering nature and making big changes can have unintended concequences, but the little changes can sometimes help.  Also, don't dontate to the latest craze charities, definitely do not donate to groups like PETA.  Organizations like the WWF do MUCH more to save endangered species and preserve their habitat. 

    I avoid any association with 'Green' but I do think there are plenty of things that each of can do to help make teh world a better place smile

  21. fit2day profile image78
    fit2dayposted 6 years ago

    The purpose for environmental efforts should be to make the world a more sustainable place for us all, but when trees and animals become more important than people, that's when it's taken too far.

    I think for the most part, many efforts are in vain and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon. There are large companies that bottle water for instance, stamping environmental logos on the package, when they do more to harm the environment than we could ever imagine.

 
working