Why do people not want to help the environment?

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

22 hours ago, Chevy_Monsenhor said:

Because Diesel, because Duramax, nuff said

 

 

[Coaxialgamer]

13 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I get scared with that argument.  I think there is enough to provide energy for decades upon decades to come.  I would rather we try to move away from it anyways.

Well current reserves won't last for ever. Nuclear fission is far cleaner than other fossil fuels and might extend the amount of time we have, but even our supply of uranium isn't infinite. Current estimates give us around a century worth of resources left, assuming energy  demands stop altogether. But you can bet that humanity's energy consumption will continue to grow. 

 

And if we have no viable way to meet those demands when we run out, then all bets are off. 

Wars, mass panic and starvation , fall of entire governments, the entire worldwide economy would collapse. It would be total chaos, the return to the dark ages. 

 

So no pressure, everything's cool.

 

[yathis]

Actually cities like Victoria BC dump untreated sewage into the ocean.

Quote

The bulk of the region's sewage - the waste of about 210,000 residents as well as businesses - is only screened to remove solids larger than six millimetres and floatable objects like tampon applicators and condoms. It's then pumped through two outfall pipes running more than 60 m deep and a kilometre into the swirling currents of the strait. There, it diffuses "without causing environmental harm," says the regional district. Or, as critics claim, it makes an ominous return up the food chain - starting as a buffet for fat colonies of sea worms and swimming scallops congregating at the outfalls, and ending in the frightening toxic load carried by resident pods of killer whales.

Quote

Toronto, while still plagued with sewage overflows into Lake Ontario

 

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/many-cities-still-dump-raw-sewage/

This is how important the enviroment is to paid off government officials. They do just enough to get votes by outright lying to us, then snicker and laugh behind our backs.

 

Oh and dont forget the oil sands, and fracking.

 

 

And all the 3rd world countries do too, look at India and Pakistan and their rivers

Ganges River, India

Citarum River, Indonesia

Mantanza-Riachuelo River, Argentina

Buriganga River, Bangladesh

Yamuna River, India

Yellow River, China

Marilao River, Philippines

Sarno River, Italy

You think USA is ammune, look at the BP's oil in the Gulf, or the Mississippi River.

 

 

[Cool Guy]

I hate to be so horrible here, but the honest and most effective solution would be if they were dead.  It's true, the earth has a natural system of revival and recovery, like our blood clots and develops a scab over a wound the earth will slowly start to recover from the damage over centuries of mistreatment.  But they did not know, the people that know and yet refuse to change are like leeches, getting fat off of the blood of the earth and giving nothing back.  

 

I don't deny that Global warming exists, but I also accept the reality that the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles, which can be determined from the soil underneath Antarctica, and here in New Zealand, the earth that has risen over a long period of time due to volcanic activity.  We can determine the temperatures of the air by the amount of different molecules entrapped in the soil.   (I know this from a couple documentaries). 

 

And the earth does indeed go through cycles. HOWEVER because of our stupidity C02 levels are insane and could mean even greater heating than previously occurred.  Which of course means that WHOLE countries such as the Netherlands or New Zealand could go totally underwater.  With ignorant idiots living among us we are doomed to live on a destroyed and overheated earth. 

 

I've accepted it, and try what I can to be good to the earth, but many don't.  One day our grandchildren will despise them, possibly as some of the greatest idiots to have ever roamed the earth.  Ignorant to the impending doom that was apparent all the time on a constant basis, surrounding them.  

 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

14 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Even if all cars on the road were electric, moving around thousands of pounds of metal is hardly insignificant in regards to energy required to do so.

This is where a shift in behavior is needed.  Move closer to work, find a job closer to your home or work from home whenever you can.  Shop in nearby stores instead of driving 50 miles to go to the nearest mall, etc etc. 

 

I've been legally allowed to drive for more than a decade and I've never even entertained the idea of buying a car.  Instead I set up my life so I wouldn't need one.  Much more environmentally friendly than any electric car will ever be. 

Sure, it takes me longer to get everywhere, but I ran the numbers back in the day and found that I could work so much less for the same disposable income that I actually had 15 hours more free time every month by working part-time and walking/cycling compared to if I were to work full-time and have a (average modern) car.  With the prices of cars, maintenance and fuel/gasoline rising and traffic getting more stuck with each passing year, I wouldn't be surprised if it's 20 or even 25 hours now. 

 

Being eco-friendly doesn't necessarily have to mean you're making a sacrifice.  And if it does, you can be getting something in return (in my case all that extra free time and better physical condition). 

[dizmo]

Well that was an interesting read.

There are people that will always want to do what they enjoy regardless of its impact on the environment.
Do you have a gaming PC? You're pulling much more power than you need out of the wall, you hypocrite!

Where do we draw the line? Where do we tell people that their leisure activity is too harmful?

Throwing water into the trash is harmless.

If the general populous refuses to recycle, it's simple. Put the burden on the government/city. Here you put everything into the same bin, and it gets sorted later. Problem solved.

 

On 2017-03-10 at 9:57 PM, GreenToxon said:

-snip-

Also, most pollution and damage is caused by industry and big corporations. It costs a lot of money to be "green" so why would they do it?  

It can cost a lot of those companies a lot more money not to, if their tax credits run out.

It's all about checks and balances. It's not hard to force corporations to be green.

22 hours ago, spwath said:

Whats wrong with throwing water in the trash?

I throw water in the trash all the time. I'm pretty sure it still evaporates...

12 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Not everyone even believes global warming is a thing. Also let's say it is 100% true getting America to be more green won't help as China is using more and more resources and they don't care about the environment at all so weather or not we do anything in the states or the EU it will likely happen anyway if it's happening at all. Not my thoughts on it just giving the other side of the coin so to speak. I don't really like giving my personal opinion on things just give both sides of the argument.

So, if your house is on fire, instead of putting water on part of it, we should add more fire?

53 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

The question is can renewable sources sustain our current demand for energy?  Even if all cars on the road were electric, moving around thousands of pounds of metal is hardly insignificant in regards to energy required to do so. 

Plus in a lot of areas that extra drain on the electrical grid isn't really sustainable either.

I think what has to happen is for solar roofs like the ones Musk has made to become standard fare. Force all new homes in areas where they're most effective to install them. A new roof? Sorry, solar panels are your only option.

There's loads of wasted space just sitting there, waiting to be put to use.

41 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

What exactly constitutes "clean manufacturing"? Is it the recycling of materials, which is already being done? Using renewable energy sources in manufacturing, which is not insignificant as metal requires some 1k Celsius to actually melt and refine, not to mention the quantity involved. 

I'd imagine it's something similar to what Musk has talked about. Building everything in the same facility. At least, when it comes to automobiles, and I'm sure it's the same for many other manufactured goods as well. Why ship parts across the world to be assembled, wasting huge amounts of fuel to do so?

[Zodiark1593]

1 minute ago, Captain Chaos said:

This is where a shift in behavior is needed.  Move closer to work, find a job closer to your home or work from home whenever you can.  Shop in nearby stores instead of driving 50 miles to go to the nearest mall, etc etc. 

 

I've been legally allowed to drive for more than a decade and I've never even entertained the idea of buying a car.  Instead I set up my life so I wouldn't need one.  Much more environmentally friendly than any electric car will ever be. 

Sure, it takes me longer to get everywhere, but I ran the numbers back in the day and found that I could work so much less for the same disposable income that I actually had 15 hours more free time every month by working part-time and walking/cycling compared to if I were to work full-time and have a (average modern) car.  With the prices of cars, maintenance and fuel/gasoline rising and traffic getting more stuck with each passing year, I wouldn't be surprised if it's 20 or even 25 hours now. 

 

Being eco-friendly doesn't necessarily have to mean you're making a sacrifice.  And if it does, you can be getting something in return (in my case all that extra free time and better physical condition). 

I live in a rural area with fast moving traffic (50+ mph average on 40 MPH speed limit roads). One would take their life in their hands when they bike here, though the place itself is quite worth it for me as I tend to despise big cities. Unlike many people, I prefer some solitude.

 

 

I place quite a high value on my capability to drive, so much so that I liken my car as an extension of myself (or another limb) than merely an appliance. Though for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to play Devil's Advocate.

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Well that was an interesting read.

There are people that will always want to do what they enjoy regardless of its impact on the environment.
Do you have a gaming PC? You're pulling much more power than you need out of the wall, you hypocrite!

Where do we draw the line? Where do we tell people that their leisure activity is too harmful?

Throwing water into the trash is harmless.

If the general populous refuses to recycle, it's simple. Put the burden on the government/city. Here you put everything into the same bin, and it gets sorted later. Problem solved.

 

It can cost a lot of those companies a lot more money not to, if their tax credits run out.

It's all about checks and balances. It's not hard to force corporations to be green.

I throw water in the trash all the time. I'm pretty sure it still evaporates...

So, if your house is on fire, instead of putting water on part of it, we should add more fire?

Plus in a lot of areas that extra drain on the electrical grid isn't really sustainable either.

I think what has to happen is for solar roofs like the ones Musk has made to become standard fare. Force all new homes in areas where they're most effective to install them. A new roof? Sorry, solar panels are your only option.

There's loads of wasted space just sitting there, waiting to be put to use.

I'd imagine it's something similar to what Musk has talked about. Building everything in the same facility. At least, when it comes to automobiles, and I'm sure it's the same for many other manufactured goods as well. Why ship parts across the world to be assembled, wasting huge amounts of fuel to do so?

Except in this case you don't know if your house is on fire or not. It's more of you have a BBQ going and the fire place going and you smell smoke. Your house could be on fire or it could not be. I would say everything collected has been correlational at best hence why I don't really have an opinion on the matter. 

[Zodiark1593]

One idea that might apply to the US's sprawled infrastructure would be to implement, and encourage a class of slow (maybe 40-50 MPH top speed), smaller, cheap, electric vehicles for inter-city travel. These vehicles can be classed in a way that is easy to obtain a license for, but are not permitted for use on certain stretches of highway. Smaller, slower vehicles can allow for smaller dedicated lanes, allowing bikes (e-bikes) to co-exist.

 

The current array of vehicles are permitted on all highways, but will require much greater driver training to obtain a license. In return however, highway speed limits can be raised, or even derestricted to allow for faster travel within the States, which is facilitated by better driver training, and less traffic on the highways. High speed bus transit can be developed to bridge the towns for those that do not regularly require high speed travel.

 

Just a random idea that is probably one of the worst ever, though decided to post it before I forgot.

[stconquest]

13 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

One idea that might apply to the US's sprawled infrastructure would be to implement, and encourage a class of slow (maybe 40-50 MPH top speed), smaller, cheap, electric vehicles for inter-city travel. These vehicles can be classed in a way that is easy to obtain a license for, but are not permitted for use on certain stretches of highway. Smaller, slower vehicles can allow for smaller dedicated lanes, allowing bikes (e-bikes) to co-exist.

 

The current array of vehicles are permitted on all highways, but will require much greater driver training to obtain a license. In return however, highway speed limits can be raised, or even derestricted to allow for faster travel within the States, which is facilitated by better driver training, and less traffic on the highways. High speed bus transit can be developed to bridge the towns for those that do not regularly require high speed travel.

 

Just a random idea that is probably one of the worst ever, though decided to post it before I forgot.

Everyone gets a Fiat!  http://www.fiatusa.com/500e.html

 

I like these little things, IDK why.  They are so tiny, but not Smart Car tiny.

[yathis]

Do you realize that for every pound of beef you use up something like 100 liters of water, but I just googled it and its more like 2500 gallons of water for every pound of beef. Industry states 441g/lb, but most likely that is a lie.

[Misanthrope]

It's deceptively simple: Political lobbying of conservatives by oil interest groups. We can clearly see who funds the climate denier agenda which is the people who stand to lose the most cash due to it, oil companies.

 

Big problem is that the US is basically set up to allow and encourage institutionalized corruption like this with "lobbying" and think tanks. After that it's simple a matter of having a few sciency-sounding studies attacking the legitimacy of a study because it was corrected to get tons of conservatives to repeat the same lines ad nauseum: There is no scientific community consensus (Consensus is not necessary when you have evidence and the other side has disagreement, not legitimate evidence based facts and just attacks at methodology that were already addressed) or "Correlation does not equal causation" (We also have factual evidence of causation) or "Why is it cold? Why did we name it global cooling then warning" (No scientists ever named in anything, sensationalist laymen running news misused this terms and it spreads as if true) etc.

[Speedyv]

People (companies) will want to help the environment when it's profitable. 

[straight_stewie]

On 3/10/2017 at 10:53 PM, v0nn_toaster said:

So, it seems like when you mention the worlds "Global warming" anyone over the age of 50 they would tell you its a myth..its not..

And these same redneck idiots have very efficient chevy diesel 4x4 that look something like this

  Hide contents

Firstly, that's not even a diesel truck, or rather, it wasn't when it left the factory (which is where your "more efficient..." argument came from). Secondly, if you want to tell me how horrible of a person I am because I drive and repair diesel trucks and equipment, then come out and tell me that you think I'm an evil person.


Now on to your actual arguments:

On 3/10/2017 at 10:53 PM, v0nn_toaster said:

And those same people do bullshit like this

1. Thow WATER in the trash

2. Dont use recycle

3. throw trash in the recycle

4. Modify there fucking septic tank to output to a lake (this actually happened)

First let me start by rebutting your first sentence: You cannot know that someone is an ass just because of the kind of vehicle they drive, or where they drive it. In fact, if you knew those kind of people at all, you'd realize that most of them stay on "groomed" (or otherwise planned and intended) trails and take care of their trash and attempt to "leave no trace" outside of the maintained trail.

 

Your numbered arguments:

1. So what, it's a renewable resource. Even if you throw water in the trash, it eventually gets back to the ground. They are called aquifers, look them up.
2. There's no argument here. Recycling is easy. The only thing I could say is that in many areas it's either not an offered service or prohibitively expensive to recycle your daily refuse.
3. There's really no rebuttal to that. if you're going to recycle, don't throw non recyclables in there. And if you walk by a recycling bin, there's usually a trash bin right next to it.
4. This has probably only happened only in very, very few cases and since we know about it we can only assume that the individuals were caught, publicized, and punished.

 

But if you learn anything from my reply, please learn this: Stop judging books by their cover, especially when that "cover" represents me.

[ZothOmmog]

I've tried to make a small impact by not flying and that is linked to the fact that I'm really scared of being in an aircraft/airplane + I'm afraid of heights and I might be claustrophobic as well.

 

And I honestly thought that my parents would have seen this is as a positive thing, but instead they started nagging about it because they saw that I restricted myself from taking trips to certain places.

 

But then again my parents are right now going about with the mindset that they shouldn't eat red meat because it has such a negative impact on the world and we should all work for a better tomorrow, but then they took a flight from Helsinki to Vietnam and back. And I'm just like, how does that work?

[yathis]

Don't diesels run cleaner?

Propane runs clean I know that.

Save a whale, save a dolphin but will the consumer want to spend more money? Nope

 

Government officials are corrupt even if they dont look like they are. Look at Sunrun in Nevada, just saw them on David Lettermans new show.

 

 

 

[arbellason55]

On 3/11/2017 at 6:36 AM, Monkey Dust said:

The adjustments to the average westerners needed to live sustainably would be massive, and adjustments very few would be willing to make. Sure plenty of people make token gestures, they recycle, buy a hybrid or full EV, but are still miles off living sustainably. Probably the only ones who do are the Amish.

 

 

The Amish still burn wood though so even they are not either. Cows are a big contributor to the problem as well because of the sheer amount of methane they release.

[Dylanc1500]

On March 13, 2017 at 0:40 AM, yathis said:

Do you realize that for every pound of beef you use up something like 100 liters of water, but I just googled it and its more like 2500 gallons of water for every pound of beef. Industry states 441g/lb, but most likely that is a lie.

Use water in which way? I ask because I'm just curious how they got that amount.

[gcubed]

On 3/11/2017 at 9:44 AM, dalekphalm said:

 

Yes, you can hold and throw water.

Yes indeed, temperature fluctuations happen over global history.

 

The problem is not the change, it's the rate of change. Something that would normally happen over the course of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, has happened in around 200 years. There's no time for the ecosystem to properly adapt to the changes.

 

What temperature should it be? I recently watched a video of Bill Nye where he stated that it "should" be around the same climate as the 1700's. Things like growing Wine grade grapes in the UK should not be possible, but are. That might sound "good", but there are plenty of downsides to the change in the climate.

Here is the problem with citing growing wine grade grape in the UK.

 

It is true that you can now. It is true that you could not during the 1700's (smack dab in the center of the Little Ice Age). It is true that you could grow wine grade grapes there BEFORE the Little Ice Age in a period called the Medieval Warm Period. Now understand, the climate in the North Atlantic went from warm to cold to warm again over the space of 1000 years, not tens or hundreds of thousand years.

 

Am I saying that human induced climate change is not happening? No, I am not. I am saying the Bill Nye is an idiot for using vineyards in England since they DID exist before the Industrial Revolution.

[yathis]

3 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Use water in which way? I ask because I'm just curious how they got that amount.

Probably in what the animals eat needs water, like what they graze on. But now that you got me thinking about it, that water number must include rain. Makes perfect sense to me that cows require a shit ton of water, just makes me as a consumer more likely to eat chicken.

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wulv.html

 

http://www.vrg.org/environment/water_brochure.php

 

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/facts-on-animal-farming-and-the-environment/

Quote

25 gallons to produce one pound of wheat

 

 

 

 

Its like using corn for gas, very backwards.

 

 

[Ithanul]

3 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Use water in which way? I ask because I'm just curious how they got that amount.

The animals require water to drink, and the plants that they eat require water.

 

Here a sheet showing liters per day based on livestock.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/07-023.htm

 

This a good read on water usage.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/54/10/909/230205/Water-Resources-Agricultural-and-Environmental

[yathis]

So lets say 100 L/day for drinking, then they are slaughtered at what year for burgers?

I see a random search of 14 months, so lets say 1.5 years is 18 months . 500 days (rounded down) x 100 = 5000L = 1300G

Add to the water they drink, all the water that is required for their food, then the

[Dylanc1500]

44 minutes ago, yathis said:

Probably in what the animals eat needs water, like what they graze on. But now that you got me thinking about it, that water number must include rain. Makes perfect sense to me that cows require a shit ton of water, just makes me as a consumer more likely to eat chicken.

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wulv.html

 

http://www.vrg.org/environment/water_brochure.php

 

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/facts-on-animal-farming-and-the-environment/

 

 

 

 

Its like using corn for gas, very backwards.

 

 

My family owns cattle that's why I ask where they got the number from. We have close to 2,500 head of cattle on roughly 7,500 acres. I know exactly how much cattle use. However, that amount sounds like a lot, and it is (to us), but it really isn't that much. Most cattle live of pond water. We have no active water supply for our cattle at all. If we need more water, you make more ponds. It seems that people are trying over sensationalize the amount as if it is a large deal. 

 

Also most cattle are not butchered at 14 months. There may be a exception for large commercial ranches.

[Thunderpup]

On 3/12/2017 at 4:16 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

What exactly constitutes "clean manufacturing"?

Problem with going "all electric" is that it those vehicles require a lot of batteries to have any sort of meaningful range.  The materials necessary for those batteries require a lot of effort to mine and refine into a usable product.  So while there may not be any exhaust coming from the vehicle they still have a very large carbon foot print.  Whether its less or more on average compared to a gas vehicle has yet to be determined. 

On 3/12/2017 at 4:16 PM, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - here's the thing that "climate skeptics" seem to not understand:
-Snip-

I agree with the majority of your post, though i will admit to being biased as i work in the nuclear industry here in the states.

 

That all being said there are some items that "environmentalist" also seem to not understand. 
Renewable energy does not live up to the hype they give it.  Energy output from Wind/Air is not consistent or reliable as it is very reliant on favorable weather conditions.  Geothermal and Hydro are the exceptions, but those have very limited applications.  

I also find it irksome that most of the folks who speak about how people should go solar, or go green have zero solar panels on their roof or wind turbines in their yard.  If they are that big of a believer they should be using it themselves.  Celebrities who do this are particularly loathsome as they have the money to overcome the financial barrier to entry. 

Not saying you are like this, as i've never seen you harp on others for not going green, but it is a pet peeve of mine when it comes to this sort of topic. 
 

On 3/12/2017 at 4:46 PM, Coaxialgamer said:

 but even our supply of uranium isn't infinite.

There is always thorium based reactors.  Thorium is way more abundant, and is often discarded during mining as a waste product. 

Thorium reactors are safer, much harder to weaponize, and the waste is only radioactive for 300 years instead of 10,000.  At one point they were a competing reactor technology, but Uranium ultimately won because it was A.  easier to weaponize and B. easier to use on a sub for energy.

On 3/12/2017 at 5:04 PM, Captain Chaos said:

This is where a shift in behavior is needed.  Move closer to work

As someone who lives close enough to walk to work when the weather is amenable i agree with you, but that isn't always an option.  

First sometimes there aren't any affordable housing, or housing in general, near where someone works.  Also if you have children the schools for the area near your work is located may suck compared to other places.  Then there's the issue if you work in an area that is higher in crime.

in my case i got lucky as i found a house that i really liked that happened to be very close to my job. If i had kids then i may not have gotten my house as the schools suck. 

On 3/13/2017 at 2:57 AM, Speedyv said:

People (companies) will want to help the environment when it's profitable. 

I concur.  People think its a conspiracy that the electric companies do not go solar/wind because then they wouldn't yield a profit from something that is "free".  That defies all logic as if solar/wind were indeed cheap and provided a meaningful amount of energy then the power companies would flock to it as it would guarantee a much higher profit margin.  Right now Natural gas is the fuel of choice only because it is dirt cheap.

As a result of the cheap Gas the nuclear industry has made it a point to cut operating cost by a minimum of 30%.  

9 hours ago, arbellason55 said:

The Amish still burn wood though so even they are not either. Cows are a big contributor to the problem as well because of the sheer amount of methane they release.

This applies to any livestock that has a four chambered stomach; which include cows and sheep.  Animals with single stomachs don't emit nearly as much.  

[WindirBear]

Who cares, if anything were to happen science would fix it!