environment

[xAWOLx]

i am finding it very dissapoining to see how apathetic people are about our home. i would like to give a shout out to the author of aquafia and other authors of political movies here at newgrounds.com.
i wish i had the ability to use mediums like flash to get a message out, but i can't really.
so i would like to ask any other people out there if they care about our earth. we only have 1. for those of you who do care, but don't want to be the only one active about. don't worry, there are hundreds of thousands of people being active about our home across the states, and earth.
i guess i just am trying to encourage people to at least try and think about earth with a clean atmosphere, and clean lakes and streams.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

Fact: It has been said that Bush is the worst presient to deal with the environment ever!

[Freakapotimus]

While I am all for fresh air and clean water, stopping pollution and keeping the forests safe, I feel it's pretty arogant of some humans to think that we're going to be the species to ruin and destroy the Earth. It's been here for much much longer than we have, and it'll still be here after we're gone.

[reddeadrevolver]

At 6/28/01 09:39 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Fact: It has been said that Bush is the worst presient to deal with the environment ever!

Fact: Texas was ranked 49th in environmental spending. And guess who was govenor of Texas? Our wonderful president!

[Slizor]

Fact: Texas was ranked 49th in environmental spending. And guess who was govenor of Texas? Our wonderful president!

Isn't there only 51 states?

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 6/28/01 09:57 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: While I am all for fresh air and clean water, stopping pollution and keeping the forests safe, I feel it's pretty arogant of some humans to think that we're going to be the species to ruin and destroy the Earth. It's been here for much much longer than we have, and it'll still be here after we're gone.

True the earth will be inhabitable after we are gone but still, Humans fuck this planet up more than any other living thing, Elephants are the only creature other than humans that is an environmental disaster in the habitat it belongs in, other animals that are environmental disasters are only distasters because they aren't where they should be.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 6/28/01 11:45 AM, Slizor wrote:

Fact: Texas was ranked 49th in environmental spending. And guess who was govenor of Texas? Our wonderful president!

Isn't there only 51 states?

There's actually only 50. Although Peurto Rico has been trying to become a state. I saw a magazine cover where Peuto Rico was itself the 51st state. Easy Mistake to make.

Any way, Tyrant Nero just proved my point (thanks, dude!). Realisticly, if one state doesn't give any money to environment causes, Bush could give a nickel to environmental spending and get to the 49th position. And yes, the govenor of Texas is our "wonder" (*cough cough*) president.

Who is that...?

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 6/28/01 12:42 PM, I wrote: Who is that...?
That's my Bush!

Is it just me, or am I becoming more of an asshole every day. If I've pissed anybody off, I'm sorry, it's just the thought of four years with a guy who can't read being the head of the U.S.! Life sucks!

Don't blame because I hate Bush, blame me for my overkill of graphics!

[shorbe]

It's one thing to talk about saving the environment, but it's another to actually do it.

Whilst it is admirable to want to do so, it's a little naive and hypocritical also.

Given that with only 6% of the earth's population, America uses 25% of the earth's energy, to bring themselves into line with the rest of the world, the average American would have to use about one quarter of what they do now. That's just to solve America's problems, and that probably wouldn't even be enough.

It's not possible in a heavy industrialised nation such as the US. Think of all the water, gas and electricity used on a daily basis. Think of all the food eaten. Think of all the goods consumed. Now think of all the water, gas and electricity used to create that food and those goods, as well as package and distribute them, and then collect and destroy them.

Basically, the American way of life as we know it would have to cease to exist, and that's just not going to happen. People won't do that.

In the meantime, recycling your soft drink cans or whatever you do does about three fifths of five eighths of fuck all.

The average greenie is full of crap anyway, since I bet they still use almost the same amount of energy as everyone else. Unless they live out in the forest, chop their own wood, grow their own food, and sew their own clothes, then they're just hypocrites.

Nice sentiment. Now welcome to reality.

shorbe

[pyroarchy]

At 6/29/01 09:57 AM, shorbe wrote: It's one thing to talk about saving the environment, but it's another to actually do it.

Whilst it is admirable to want to do so, it's a little naive and hypocritical also.

Given that with only 6% of the earth's population, America uses 25% of the earth's energy, to bring themselves into line with the rest of the world, the average American would have to use about one quarter of what they do now. That's just to solve America's problems, and that probably wouldn't even be enough.

It's not possible in a heavy industrialised nation such as the US. Think of all the water, gas and electricity used on a daily basis. Think of all the food eaten. Think of all the goods consumed. Now think of all the water, gas and electricity used to create that food and those goods, as well as package and distribute them, and then collect and destroy them.

Basically, the American way of life as we know it would have to cease to exist, and that's just not going to happen. People won't do that.

In the meantime, recycling your soft drink cans or whatever you do does about three fifths of five eighths of fuck all.

The average greenie is full of crap anyway, since I bet they still use almost the same amount of energy as everyone else. Unless they live out in the forest, chop their own wood, grow their own food, and sew their own clothes, then they're just hypocrites.

Nice sentiment. Now welcome to reality.

shorbe

Yeah my Uncle is starting to "live off the land", he's not a hippie of with saving the earth but his wife went crazy and left him and she tried killing herself in his car to get him into trouble, so I helped him build a log cabin in the woods and this and that. I think he's had enough of this country, he once ran for congress man of north carolina and received 49% votes, but he's seen this state turn from shit to shittier, so he's left the big city and politics.

[Freakapotimus]

At 6/29/01 09:57 AM, shorbe wrote: The average greenie is full of crap anyway, since I bet they still use almost the same amount of energy as everyone else. Unless they live out in the forest, chop their own wood, grow their own food, and sew their own clothes, then they're just hypocrites.

I know people who are like that, many of the pagans in the area. They protest Bush being president because of his history with environmental causes, they eat their vegatarian dishes (meat? Goddess forbid!) and turn off the water when they brush their teech so they don't waste anything and make the Goddess cry. They they drive their cars home and sit in the air conditioned house and watch their cable TV.

Like I already said, the planet's fucked, whether we do something or not, but I'm not suggesting we go out and spill oil tankers.

[xAWOLx]

not entirely true, to help save the envronment, earth, your own ass, it doesn't take living out in the woods. a cut back on the population growth, and just doing little things that make a difference, i.e., don't litter, by recycled products, fair trade.
one of america's biggest problems is the fact that our administration isn't willing to try and find viable alternatives. denmark has started creating jobs and cut back on admissions (thats crap going into the atmosphere) by producing wind generators.
to say that its arrogant for people to spout out crap about politics and not do crap about them seems somewhat elitist, and even worst, is a defeatist attitiude. Humans have every reason to do the right thing, and few to do the wrong. its to easy to be a realist if you ask me. so i guess the question is, what are you going to do about it, contact your senator, go to a protest, or even pick up the trash.

[shorbe]

No, it would take something as drastic as living out in the woods. Recycling or planting a tree once a year or some other feel good shit isn't going to do shit. It's a drop in the ocean. The entire western lifestyle as we know it would have to come to an end. Every single action and step in the chain of events would need to be changed.

Even in Europe, where they're doing all these "nice" things, it's still not going to make a huge difference. If anything, it's going to slow the inevitable. Furthermore, it's easy to do in a country such as Denmark because it has a tiny population, has high standards of living, and a highly technological society. It wouldn't work on a large scale.

Population growth isn't the problem in the west. Most western nations have growth rates of under 5% p.a.

The problems are even worse in the third world. They have rapidly expanding populations and are causing environmental destruction on a wide rate. They don't have the means to do otherwise though. Also, I don't think it's our place to tell them to cut their population or population growth.

I don't know what the solutions are. That is fairly defeatist, but current proposals are fairly naive. Basically, at least in the west, there are only two possible ways to overcome this problem- go pre-industrial revolution, or go ultra futuristic with clean fuels, etc.

Even those wind generators of which you speak aren't very effective. At the present, alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, or hydro are very inefficient. In fact, I heard on some documentary that to power the world by wind power, one third of the world's land surface would need to be covered with windmills. Of course, that would probably entail a lot of environmental destruction.

I think the only possible solution, if there is one (short of widespread war or some other means of knocking out a large number of people), involves a lot of investment in r & d, cause we simply don't have the means right now.

shorbe

[xAWOLx]

A drastic change is not what it would necessarily take to make a difference. Like Shorbe said, it would slow things down, but it would more than likely slow things down to the point of halting. The Earth is quite capable of cleaning itself over the years, but the amount of emissions we are putting out would have to slow down a lot. The U.S. could follow through with the Kyoto treaty, if we started this year. One of the things it would take, is people starting to by more economically and look at things like hybrid cars, not SUVs. I personnally don't think thats asking for to much. As far as out current energy situation is going, we have loads of options other than nuclear and coal. Bush walked away from the Kyoto summit with the excuses of cutting back would create a loss of jobs, and have no real effect. He also said that the world's poorest countries wouldn't be able to follow through becuase they are devloping. Oddly enough, the nomadic tribes of Mongolia, the Middle East, and Africa are now carrying sloar panels with their caravans. Reason being they are lighter, cheaper, and smell better. IF countries would look at things on the small scale, then maybe we could do the right thing in the big picture.
WInd power wouldn't cause deforestation or cause any other environment problems, maybe the occasional retarded seagull, because the positioning of the generators would be thought out. There are vast stretches of land where few animals would be affected by them, the midwest and south western deserts would be very good places for the generators, just as long as we studied up on our placing of them. As time would go by, our technology would be getting better and becoming more efficient, so fewer generators would be needed.
As far as poor countries go, Greenpeace and the Body Shop (yes, the fruity soaps) heading a project that is going to get developing countries technology for extracting renewable energy. Check it out at wwww.greenpeace.org

[shorbe]

The Kyoto Agreement still wouldn't be enough. From my understanding, it wanted to cut greenhouse emisions to pre-1990 levels. That's obviously better than now, but it still wouldn't be enough. Any one of these things is still only a band aid solution.

Current solar technology still wouldn't be practical in most places in the US and Europe because they don't get consistent sunshine that would be enough to make them feasible. Of course, they could be used in conjunction with other things, and that would help somewhat.

I'm not saying we can't slow down the inevitable or make some difference. What I am saying though is that right now, it's still not going to change things drastically. I think if we invested a lot more in r & d, we might have a chance. Otherwise, we might just delay the inevitable by a further fifty years.

shorbe

[xAWOLx]

i wasn't saying a drastic change, because that would take to much from americans. one thing that would be good is if everyone would help out a little. like not throwing shit out the windows, put glass in the recycling bins, just those little things.
for knowing so much, shorbe, i am surprised you have a relatively pessimistic attitude.
you make it sound as if it were our destiny to die from our own devices.that sucks, i say we choose our own paths, fuck destiny. save the earth.

[IamJacksalias]

I think that the environment is way overblown by the liberals.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/1/01 12:31 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: I think that the environment is way overblown by the liberals.

That's true I mean, Why should we try to protect the place where we live? Might as well deystroy it so that we can live in a shit hole.

[IamJacksalias]

At 7/1/01 01:02 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 7/1/01 12:31 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: I think that the environment is way overblown by the liberals.

That's true I mean, Why should we try to protect the place where we live? Might as well deystroy it so that we can live in a shit hole.

Did I say that it wasn't problem? No. I simply stated that the issue at hand is overblown by liberals. We have a problem, but your are forgetting one of the most basic laws of science. Things degenerate over time. This world will one day be gone no matter what do, if you are a Christian you know what will eventually happen. While we should do things to protect the environment, we need to keep in mind that statistics are merely a way of stating your opinion. You can make them say whatevery you want. So think for yourselves and don't be controlled by the Media in anyway. next time someone brings up the issue, rasie hell by asking some hard hitting questions. If they can't answer them or don't answer them think about everything else that individual has said and how true can it be.
Simply put THINK!

[reddeadrevolver]

At 7/1/01 12:08 AM, xAWOLx wrote: you make it sound as if it were our destiny to die from our own devices.that sucks, i say we choose our own paths, fuck destiny. save the earth.

We are the victims of our own design. Humans made the earth into what it is today. People are so worried about luxuries and themselves, that they forget to remember that there are other things more important. But when the sun dies, and our solar system is destroyed, it wont matter much will it?

[shorbe]

XAWOLX: Yeah, I'm very pessimistic. I really don't know what's going to become of this planet. Well, I think it will keep rolling along without us. I guess I mean what will happen to civilisation.

Short of a lot of people dying, or us colonising some other planet, I can't see it letting up.

The west uses far more than it should. That's a given. That's not going to change markedly though.

Then, there is the very troubling thought that certain nations such as China and India may very well become developed (perhaps not to the same degree as the west, but still developed) in the near future. Everyone wants the creature comforts in life, and I believe the worldwide trend will be in the destructive direction, because everyone wants to be like America. Imagine if China or India only got half as bad as America currently is with their populations?!

I think there are a whole lot of other issues at stake too, such as the collapse of the USA, which I see as inevitable within the next fifty years. I see America as very similar to the Roman empire. By the time of the Empire, Rome was still expanding (the last expansion was into Dacia, or modern day Romania/Bulgaria, by the sixteenth emperor, Marcus Aurelius) in military, economic and colonial terms. It was already into its moral decay though, and the seeds were sewn.

I could go into the collapse of the USA more (I think it's essentially morally bankrupt, and has a sensationalistic, escapist, apathetic and divided population), but that might be for another post. It's rotten at its core, and I think it's also a tinderbox waiting to go off.

The political vacuum would be interesting though.

I do think we're living in a pre-apocalyptic time, in much the same way as Europe was pre-Dark Ages. We are fucking the environment, and I think that is going to come back to haunt us in a big way. It may be already, although the natural disasters around the world may also be co-incidental.

Basically though, I think we're getting way too big for ourselves, and it won't take much to really knock us on our heads. That might be from disease. That might be from natural disaster. Who knows.

Imagine just would have happened if that whole Y2K thing had occurred.

I watched a documentary on an ice storm in Quebec a couple of years ago. People were without power for a few weeks, and they were fucked. Imagine that on a national or even global scale. Even if it were restricted to the USA, everyone else would go down with them.

It wouldn't take much to fuck us. Maybe widespread crop failures for one season or something of the like. Perhaps a loss of central government (through either man made or natural causes).

I don't know what the solutions are, and I don't even think there are any right now. I'm hoping like fuck that some guys a lot more clever than me come up with some pretty good ideas soon, and we have the good sense to act upon them.

Otherwise, I want front row seats to the apocalypse :)

shorbe

[shorbe]

My pessimism shouldn't come as a surprise though. Maybe if I were so locked into a work-shop-watch television pattern, I would be all pleased as punch with the state of the world. I'm not though, and I can see major shit brewing on several fronts.

In a perverse turn of logic though, I'm the most optimistic person you'll ever meet. Because I'm so pessimistic, things can only get better :)

shorbe