Why is it so hard for people to realize that our environment is being depleted at a fast rate?
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.
Not quite true. We have the technology. Anti-environment lobbyists prevent that technology from being implemented.
I would like to see some proof to back up that allegation.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
by sannyasinman 10 years ago
Online news service promotes false climate change study http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … CMP=twt_fd
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
SYNGENTA develops, markets and sells five product-lines for pesticides.1. selective herbicides, 2. non-selective herbicides,3. fungicides, 4. insecticides 5. seed care.Three seed-product lines include corn and soya, other field crops and vegetables. In 2014, sales from crop-protection...
by billchucks 11 years ago
scientist have predicted wat the world is going to experience some 4 yrs time and America is doing nothing abt it. i hope the BP OIL SPILL will teach them one or two lessons
by Raymond D Choiniere 9 years ago
Hey Hubbers,I'm willing to trust some of the folks and their knowledge from past experiences, so please explain to me, so I don't have to go searching through countless websites, just to get an idea?I realize that this article is limited and I also realize that it can be harmful, but what about the...
by JerryTillotson 10 years ago
Why do people get so emotional when global warming is questioned?As a high school social studies teacher, I find it necessary to present oppsoing points of view on all controversial subjects, including global warming. But frequently people become very expressive in their objections to the...
by sannyasinman 7 years ago
Once again, the latest IPCC report makes exaggerated claims of a looming Armageddon, cherry-picking data to support their alarmist propaganda. However, the NIPCC report also from climate scientists (although not on the UN payroll) does not agree with the official UN report....
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|