-
^ I love you too. XX

knock, knock, anybody home? The consumer is the polluter. We drive the goddam machine and we want it cheap and nasty.

Quote:And this STILL does not address the fkn North Pacific Garbage Dump you twat!!...grrrr so angry.going off for a glass of wine

There isn't alot anyone can do about this, just clean up the rubbish you see so it dosen't end up in the ocean.

I don't think most consumers have a coon's idea in hell what exactly they do to the planet.

(November 10, 2011 at 10:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I was still in Florida for that. The ridiculous shit that was reported on the news blew my mind (they did not have the situation handled, it was not just a little bit of crude). Globs of oil were washing up on the shore, the crabs disappeared, everyone cancelled their vacations. It was disastrous. I moved to Kentucky ffs...lol.

I had my dream to swimming through the coral ruffs, semi-crystal clear - but right now I'm afraid in having the chances of swimming through Ocean's dead zones.

Why do we still have this argument? Clearly there isn't a resolution in sight.

Let's, instead bring up a more important issue about human pollution; it's sickening. Pollution obviously degrades the quality of life for the majority of all living things. So let's stop for the sake of health.

Whatever happens with the climate we will have to deal with it but we can do it with clean air in our lungs.



Do not let the government de-fund what the public demands: health.

Don't remember if I read this, saw it on TV,or when ,but it was a few years ago, say 5 at least.



The claim was: We need to reduce our carbon emissions by a MINIMUM of 20% NOW (5 years ago)


I take no comfort from politicians,nor our 'carbon emission trading scheme' which seems like tokenism to me. A 5% reduction seems far too little,far too late.

(November 11, 2011 at 10:12 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I don't think most consumers have a coon's idea in hell what exactly they do to the planet.

You've been in NASCAR land too long chick.

Yeah, I just saw that... Wow... Hmm, I felt uneasy reading that

Some days it feels longer than others.


[waits]

(November 11, 2011 at 3:52 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: Why do we still have this argument? Clearly there isn't a resolution in sight.

Let's, instead bring up a more important issue about human pollution; it's sickening. Pollution obviously degrades the quality of life for the majority of all living things. So let's stop for the sake of health.

Whatever happens with the climate we will have to deal with it but we can do it with clean air in our lungs.

There's a resolution in site. It's been in site since the very early days of the Industrial Revolution.

Simply put, it took from the beginning of time until about 1850 to get the first billion population. Lots of natural things kept people in check - including disease, high infant mortality, high maternal mortality, and average lifespans being very short by today's standards. Life got better. The death rate went down, and the birth rate stayed the same.

Now we've got 7 billion, with more on the way. What's even more of a problem is that many people in 2011 are using hundreds, if not thousands of times the resources that a person in 1800 would have or could have used. Or, residents of wealthy nations use hundreds or thousands of times the resources that a primitive person does today. Lifestyle is improving not only for the wealthy nations, but the historically poor nations like India and China are improving their lifestyle. Not to the level the US is, but some. This further compounds the problem.

Overpopulation is not a problem, it's the problem. All other problems we have can in some way be reduced to population, overpopulation, or exasperated by population.

We've either got to increase death to where it was in the 18th century and earlier, or decrease the birth rate.

Every child you fail to procreate is the same as a lifetime of 100% recycling.

Both sides of this are pretty disingenuous. The Christians with their evident hatred for contraception as well as abortion, and their "quiverfull" movement, shows that they are right on board with overbreeding humankind, while insisting, as their Bible says, they are the stewards of the earth - of God's creation. The green movement, or the ecology movement continues to have children, and are still leaving a huge footprint as compared to our ancestors.

(November 11, 2011 at 10:29 pm)BethK Wrote: We've either got to increase death to where it was in the 18th century and earlier, or decrease the birth rate.

In 18th century, the human population was estimated about 978 million. To decrease the birth rate sounds impossible-

However... Biological weapon like chicken smallpox virus - Its fatality rate can be modified up to 99% - if administered the aftermath will be 1% human survivors [That's about 70k total human survivors of 7 billion.]

Inhumanly cruel but faster solution.