Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmental Issues

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Environmental Issues

    It is something that is not discussed much here on the forum, but I thought I would ask you in a poll: how much concerned are you with environmental issues? What I mean by environmental issues is anything that endanger the quality of life of human beings such as water, air, or ground pollution, abuse and mismanagement of natural resources, lack of recycling initiatives, lack of environmental consciousness among citizens, and incapacity of our political leaders of making the tough compromises between economic growth and environment protection.
    30
    Very Concerned
    30.00%
    9
    Concerned
    56.67%
    17
    Rather Indifferent
    6.67%
    2
    Not Concerned
    6.67%
    2
    Not Concerned At All
    0.00%
    0

  • #2
    positivist vs post-positivist?
    Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

    Comment


    • #3
      Hello,

      Yes, I am very deeply concerned about the tree-huggers wanting to choke America economically for the sake of a few animals and non-talking trees...

      I'm all for enivronmental protection, but how far should we go? Do we really need to stop the oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness? Somehow that seemed to be something of an overreaction on part of tree-huggers.

      Dan
      Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

      "Aim small, miss small."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cheetah772
        Hello,

        Yes, I am very deeply concerned about the tree-huggers wanting to choke America economically for the sake of a few animals and non-talking trees...

        I'm all for enivronmental protection, but how far should we go? Do we really need to stop the oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness? Somehow that seemed to be something of an overreaction on part of tree-huggers.

        Dan
        Well if you read what the bloke posted it says:

        'What I mean by environmental issues is anything that endanger the quality of life of human beings such as water, air, or ground pollution, abuse and...'

        So you prefer capitalists to make a quick buck at the expense of the health of Americans? I thought you loved Americans!
        Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

        Comment


        • #5
          Somewhat concerned, I'll wait for more data before becoming hysterical.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Temujin
            Well if you read what the bloke posted it says:

            'What I mean by environmental issues is anything that endanger the quality of life of human beings such as water, air, or ground pollution, abuse and...'

            So you prefer capitalists to make a quick buck at the expense of the health of Americans? I thought you loved Americans!
            And please re-read my post...

            ....

            I'm all for enivronmental protection, but how far should we go?

            ....
            We need to have a line drawn somewhere to prevent the tree-huggers from destroying the economic capacity of any country.

            Dan
            Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

            "Aim small, miss small."

            Comment


            • #7
              As a top of the line pro fission (as we didn't have economically working fusion yet) guy, I am concerned about the environment and i try to protect whenever I can --> so I don't drink canned beer but only the beer filled into bottles...
              "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
              which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
              The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
              returned to its home base."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Priest
                Somewhat concerned, I'll wait for more data before becoming hysterical.
                Well put.
                "You can't change the rules in the middle of the game."
                "Hey, you just made that rule up."


                Heil Dicke Bertha!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cheetah772
                  Hello,

                  Yes, I am very deeply concerned about the tree-huggers wanting to choke America economically for the sake of a few animals and non-talking trees...

                  I'm all for enivronmental protection, but how far should we go? Do we really need to stop the oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness? Somehow that seemed to be something of an overreaction on part of tree-huggers.

                  Dan
                  By the way you are referring to these people as "tree-huggers" who want to protect "non-talking trees", I decipher that the environment is not a great concern to you The fact that the trees are not talking does not mean trees are unimportant in our world

                  In any case, what you are referring to with these tree huggers is protection of the wilderness. Although this is important, it is of secondary importance to me. What I am really concerned with is pollution, which is already reducing our quality of life as human beings - whether it be through smog which causes asthma and other respiratory ailments, pervasive chemical pollutants which are provoking more and more allergies among children, etc.

                  I believe that these issues of pollution affecting our quality of life is not enough taken seriously, and that our living environment will continue to degrade. Although we might be preoccupied with WMD, terrorism, conservatism, liberalism and all these other "isms", the real great threat to mankind during the course of the 21st century might well be the degradation of our environment.

                  As a living species, we are not immune to everything and we can't adapt to everything. We are not immortals too. Other living species have disappeared before, we would only be another one.

                  I find it hard to believe some people are not concerned with this.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tzar
                    By the way you are referring to these people as "tree-huggers" who want to protect "non-talking trees", I decipher that the environment is not a great concern to you The fact that the trees are not talking does not mean trees are unimportant in our world
                    Sorry for my harsh tone. It's just that I often feel the protection of environment is often a hidden disguise for liberalism to urge more changes on global scale.

                    In any case, what you are referring to with these tree huggers is protection of the wilderness. Although this is important, it is of secondary importance to me. What I am really concerned with is pollution, which is already reducing our quality of life as human beings - whether it be through smog which causes asthma and other respiratory ailments, pervasive chemical pollutants which are provoking more and more allergies among children, etc.
                    Here is a paradox, many people want technological advances to continue, but they come at a huge price, i.e., the degradation of enivronment.

                    I believe it can't be stopped entirely. The key really lies not in how we use fuel resources, but energy conversion processes. Right now, the energy conservion is really low, for example, are you aware that our gasoline's energy conversion, if I remember correctly from my chemical class is just 20 to 30%?

                    The majority of pollution comes not from industrial plants, but our automobiles (at least in America). If our automobiles changed from gasoline to fuel cells, the levels of pollution would drop drastically. This is what President Bush advocates right now.

                    I believe that these issues of pollution affecting our quality of life is not enough taken seriously, and that our living environment will continue to degrade. Although we might be preoccupied with WMD, terrorism, conservatism, liberalism and all these other "isms", the real great threat to mankind during the course of the 21st century might well be the degradation of our environment.
                    The biggest problem is that it's hard to get real raw data on the levels of pollution. The second biggest problem is that the really most severe polluted areas aren't in Western world, but in Third world countries. Many countries do not have the same kind of strict industrial safety regulations that Western world take for granted.

                    We just can't force Third world countries to adopt more stringent regulations. We could throw more money at them, but that would not necessarily solve the pollution problems.

                    As a living species, we are not immune to everything and we can't adapt to everything. We are not immortals too. Other living species have disappeared before, we would only be another one.
                    The best alternative isn't in developing more regulations, but how we use the fuel resources. I believe the secret to at least alleviating the problem is in energy conversion. If we could produce more energy out of any resources, like fuel cells which have 80% conversion rate, or nuclear power (that produces relatively little waste, but the waste disposal is a big issue), we would have a much cleaner environment.

                    Mind you, I believe our environment in some ways is actually better than 20 or 40 years ago. It all depends on what kind of enivronment you envisage or desire to be.

                    Dan
                    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                    "Aim small, miss small."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cheetah772
                      Sorry for my harsh tone. It's just that I often feel the protection of environment is often a hidden disguise for liberalism to urge more changes on global scale.

                      Here is a paradox, many people want technological advances to continue, but they come at a huge price, i.e., the degradation of enivronment.
                      You have a point. I believe a good part of the solution (reducing our levels of pollution) will come through technological advances that will enable us to do the same things we are doing, but in a more efficient and clean way. I believe in human and scientific progress.

                      I myself don't want to stop the ongoing progress of the human race, so the solution to pollution really resides in more research and ingeniosity in cleaning our production processes.

                      The fuel cells are indeed VERY important in that regard. It is urgent that these fuel cells gets massively implemented as soon as possible since all the emanations made by cars will stay in Earth's atmosphere as global warming gases for about 100 years AFTER they are emitted. So even if tomorrow we would not produce any more of these gases, they will linger on for 100 years more and we will have to continue to endure their effects for all this time. Not a good perspective.

                      The other source of pollution comes from our modern consumerist society. We thrash a lot of things, too much in fact, and we don't recycle enough of our limited resources. This also needs to be adressed. When you see that societies such as Japan manage to recycle most of what they throw to the garbage, it shows that we are definetely lacking in this regard.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tzar
                        You have a point. I believe a good part of the solution (reducing our levels of pollution) will come through technological advances that will enable us to do the same things we are doing, but in a more efficient and clean way. I believe in human and scientific progress.
                        I agree. I know this sounds strange coming from a conservative, but there is one thing I am very concerned about: raw mineral resources. I know they don't cause pollution, but we need them to produce some of technology we have taken for granted. They aren't going to last forever, you know.

                        You would not believe how much plastic and metal is required to produce a car. There are a lot of numbers to crunch...

                        It's too bad we can't have Star trek replicating technology.

                        Yes, I am a fan of Star Trek universe.

                        I know...one step at a time...

                        I myself don't want to stop the ongoing progress of the human race, so the solution to pollution really resides in more research and ingeniosity in cleaning our production processes.
                        Agreed.

                        The fuel cells are indeed VERY important in that regard. It is urgent that these fuel cells gets massively implemented as soon as possible since all the emanations made by cars will stay in Earth's atmosphere as global warming gases for about 100 years AFTER they are emitted. So even if tomorrow we would not produce any more of these gases, they will linger on for 100 years more and we will have to continue to endure their effects for all this time. Not a good perspective.
                        Be sure to tell that to oil companies and a whole lot more in the other sectors. I don't think they will be very pleased to hear that. In fact, this environmental issue is really more of a political than economic concern.

                        The other source of pollution comes from our modern consumerist society. We thrash a lot of things, too much in fact, and we don't recycle enough of our limited resources. This also needs to be adressed. When you see that societies such as Japan manage to recycle most of what they throw to the garbage, it shows that we are definetely lacking in this regard.
                        True. But here's the catch, the recycling process itself is actually very expensive and strangely enough uses up a lot of energy to recycle the products. After all, products can't recycle themselves!

                        Also, often the recycling process requires a product to be broke down in pieces and can't be mixed with other certain products. This could be more of a headache than anything else.

                        Sure...the recycling process has its own benefits, but we need to be aware of negative effects as well.

                        Dan
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Personally Im not to concered about the enviornment. Yes I do admit there are some problems with waste and pollution that need to be fix. I think we need to a better job conserving our resources and keeping our enviornment clean by doing the little things but the people who chaining themselves to trees and such should be sent to the loony bin The needless destruction of the enviornment should be put to a stop but as was posted previously by Priest

                          ...I'll wait for more data before becoming hysterical.
                          Im not going to lose any sleep over it but will try and do my part to keep my enviornment clean from needless pollution and litering.

                          Thanks for looking!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            There are only two things scare me! And one of them is nuclear war!
                            --------- Austin "Danger" Power

                            ...

                            "And what is the other?"

                            well, for me, that is enviornmental problems ... ER Chaser
                            Attn to ALL my opponents:

                            If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

                            Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If you want my opinion the legislature should just make some very basic changes that over time could have a big effect, like telling the petrochemical companies not to dump hundreds of gallons of congealed I donít even want to know what into rivers and instead just dump it into a bunch of old jerry cans. Stuff like that, which would not hurt the environment, nor any company significantly.
                              "the only reason tanks were effective during WWI was that the troops were too busy laughing to fight back"

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X