Why is it so hard for people to realize that our environment is being depleted a

1. 52

   brianmananaposted 11 years ago

   Why is it so hard for people to realize that our environment is being depleted at a fast rate?

   replyreport
2. 59

   Evan Gillposted 11 years ago

   Countries like the united states don't want to believe it because we don't have enough technology, so our standard of living would go way down.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not quite true. We have the technology. Anti-environment lobbyists prevent that technology from being implemented.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I would like to see some proof to back up that allegation.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      Evan Gillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What I meant is that we would have to conserve because it would cost too much to be self sustained on wind, air, and other clean renewable sources at the amount we're using right now,  so we would have to cut back on consumption.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      2010...Solar energy funding stopped by the GOP using Solyndra as their basis. CA and NJ lead the nation in solar energy. Check out Trinity Solar in NJ with nearly half a million customers. $14 billion to Big Oil and zip to alternative energy.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Most alternative fuel initiatives get subsidies from the gov'tt.The loss revenue is expected to be provided by the oil & gas industry. It is unfair and  to expect 1 industry to do that. Oil cos. have spent more on alt. fuel research than any one

      replyreport
   6. 59

      Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Big Oil is funded in 2014 with $14 billion tax dollars handed to them in 2013. Big Oil subsidizes no other industries. That's a fallacy propagated by Oil Industry Big Daddies who live in mortal terror of an end to the Black Gold era.

      replyreport
3. 39

   Borsiaposted 11 years ago

   Basic denial. First it would mean admitting overpopulation, something the religious want to deny at all costs. Secondly it would mean admitting the need to dramatically cut consumption of almost everything, something unpopular with both consumers and industry.
   Sadly we live on a crashing planet and the damage is so extensive that there is little to no chance of reversing things before the breakdown. The current population is over 7 Billion on a planet that, if healthy, might support 3-4 Billion. By 2030 the population will be pushing 11 Billion.
   Nature has a way of equalizing and there is little doubt that either by our own hands or by natural calamity the population will be cut back to whatever the sustainable level is one day. But the world will never return to that wonderful place we knew even a few decades ago.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You mention over population and the religious would deny. Do you want the government telling you how many children you can have and if you did not comply would their be a penalty -- sounds like "1984"

      replyreport
   2. 39

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It would be better if religions preached responsible family planning and birth control, but one way or the other it is going to happen eventually. I chose not to have any children so it doesn't affect me but the day will come when only the rich will

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My wife and I are Catholic. We have one child. He is adopted. Could not have any children. You cannot legislate morality--that has been proved many times.

      replyreport
4. 85

   peachpurpleposted 11 years ago

   actually, everyone knows about the global warming and the air / water pollution but nobody cares about them or thoughts of recycling either. Everybody is selfish.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My city has a recycling program and we participate in it actively--finding better ways of disposals would be better. People buying less would help. Everyone does not accept Global warming as it is presented here. There is a lot we do not know.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

   Not to disagree with others, but we as a people have done a lot of damage. We try to control the course of rivers to suit our needs. In my home state of Louisiana, building levees along the Mississippi, to protect people from flooding, sends all the silt needed to rebuild the marsh land out into the Gulf of Mexico. This is not unique. We put concrete over all grassy areas, which reflects heat. There are climatic changes over which we have no control, such as the varying number of hurricanes each year and we are trying to compare apples and oranges when we compare data accumulated 100 years ago with what we have today. There is plenty of room on the earth for all the people, but we all want to live in the same few places. The world may come to an end someday. I do not think any of us, our children or grandchildren will be around when that happens. It is also my believe that science will find a way to correct the errors we have made--not soon, but in time.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Evan Gillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I was thinking that we will end our existence more so from too much pollution in oceans, freshwater, clean air, forests, and other things, reducing the amount of renewable/necessary resources we have.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think we are learning. The Great Lakes were restored to a healthy state years ago, we can apply the same approach to other areas, just takes time and money.

      replyreport
6. 59

   Ewentposted 11 years ago

   I don't think it's a matter of people not realizing our environment is being depleted at a fast rate. I worked for 24 years in an environmental engineering company that's 4 decades old. What I learned in those decades is just how money can influence respect for the environment.
   
   For example, there's a significant difference today in how environmental compliance laws are viewed and how they "were" viewed, when viewed at all. All of us recall the days when ocean, soil and air dumping was considered the best way to get rid of unwanted and oftentimes hazardous wastes. Then came Love Canal, the Exxon Valdez Spill and more recently, the Horizon Deepwater spill.
   
   Copious amounts of money are spent on lobbyists to prevent stricter compliance regulations. Here's one example: In 1974, the Clean Air Act was passed. In 2001, lobbyists fought to allow emission "credits" of the largest polluters to sell unused credits to smaller polluters. The result was zero change to the amount of contaminants emitted into the air we breathe. By 2006, the CDC reported an 11% increase in lung related illnesses across the country.
   
   The other part of the problem is that although the EPA is the federal regulatory agency that mandates environmental regulations, states with the largest polluting industries counter these regulations with state regulations that favor industry and not human life.
   
   Sadly, it all comes down to money being more important than all life on this planet. The environment is being depleted at a fast rate. It isn't possible for the earth to replenish the loss of vast amounts of coal, oil or natural gas. Once it's gone, it's gone. That's the reality big money in the US hastens to ignore at their own rapid rate.
   
   Unfortunately, the detractors and anti-environmentalists who value money more than human life will inevitably also refuse to see the link between depletion of natural resources, continued pollution, increasing illnesses related to contaminated air, soil and water and the delicate balance the environment demands in order to survive.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I will not disagree with you, but federal regulations always trump state regulations. One point you miss is convenience.  My state was mandated to use reformulated fuel--cost more--the environmental activists wanted to sue the EPA to stop the order.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The problem is the EPA regs which are deliberately misinterpreted by each individual state. NJ has state regs stricter than the EPAs. Not all states do this.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree states can have stricter regulations, but they cannot have regs that are less strict. I use to have to read the rules Louisiana adopted each month to bring state regs into compliance. More is being done, in some areas, than you think..

      replyreport
7. 73

   chinmayXdasposted 11 years ago

   I think everyone is so much involved in earning a living and working in their everyday life that they don't really what goes on with the environment.The questions about the depletion of the environment are raised by non-governmental organizations and some rare activists.The governments consider all their other policies a huge necessity and the problem about the degrading environment remains to be solved.
   People will eventually realize it, but it might be too late till then.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Evan Gillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you, it will probably be too late until we do something, and we will end up facing huge consequences because of it.

      replyreport
8. 78

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 11 years ago

   Our consumer driven economy in the Keynesian model is a cyclical consumption monster of planned obsolescence fashion of the week products.
   
   Success in business is seem by nearly all as a steady growth in personal wealth.  So long as people are more concerned about being fashionable with their prized toys than having been wise; and so long as the same people forever believe more wealth is the direction best for themselves...there's not going to be time to worry about things like the only home we humans are likely to ever have.  On the upside, we can hope future generations are more intelligent than the ones currently above the terra firma.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Over the years we learned the advantage of rotating crops, refrigeration, using natural gas and electricity instead of firewood and so on. A lot of the good things we do now is the result of past experience. We will move forward and learn to survive.

      replyreport
9. 71

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   Mother earth has a history of being adaptable and man has a history of inventing things that improve our existence on the planet. It's been said: "Necessity is the mother of all invention."
   Simply put; it's unnatural for most people to think in terms of doomsday, lack, or a dismal future. If people really (believed) "the end" was around the corner no one would choose to have children. It's human nature to believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Ewentposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That doomsday mantra has already proven to be fatal for some Gloomy Goth types. I agree that those who want children or have them should not have to raise kids as they did in the Cold War Era..air raid practices and bomb shelters.

      replyreport