Save the Planet. Eat your Pet.

[phil harold]

Capitalism can be defined as an economic system based on private ownership of capital

Democracy can be defined as a doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

So there is the conflict a majority/public vs. private profit

Just take it like your statement "humans are part of nature..............so in the grand scheme of things...what we do might be what was meant to be or just part of the "natural" evolution of the planet earth and the species. "

So the capitalistic human finds a way to make more money by going to a lesser economic country and makes money until that country notices that capitalism has major environmental impact and legislates laws to protect the majority

Remember when products were made all in Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, India, Korea, Thailand, and now China? Each country made things until environmental concerns and laws determined the bottom line and the capitalist moved to the next country to maximize profit. Then we sit here in the States and wonder why they don’t make cabinet saws in the USofA like we used to.

In time, when the whole world has been naturally polluted by humans the manufacturing can come back to the United States…
(at that time we may be in an ice age)



blaa blaa blaa

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Phil,

You are talking theory.

In theory, theory and reality are the same, in reality they aren't.

Manufacturing didn't leave this country because of environmental laws. They left because of workers benefits, state, federal and local taxes, greed on the part of the stockholder and environmental concerns.

Capitalism.....in theory perfect until you inject man the X factor

Democracy....an theory perfect....until you inject man....with special interests and an agenda.....and tunnel vision...

If you have your head in a paper bag, the whole world looks brown......

If you only surround yourself with those with whom you naturally and normally agree....you can believe the whole world agrees with you......

I suggest the world isn't totally brown.....

and the answers to the world's problems aren't black and white like some extremists would portray.

[Eric Larsen]

Remember when products were made all in Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, India, Korea, Thailand, and now China? Each country made things until environmental concerns and laws determined the bottom line and the capitalist moved to the next country to maximize profit. Then we sit here in the States and wonder why they don’t make cabinet saws in the USofA like we used to.

My wife is from Taiwan.

The Taiwanese people got sick of living under martial law and turned their country into a fairly decent democracy.

They got sick of living in a trash heap, and mandated two things:

1) A mandatory national recycling program.

2) A mandate that plastic bags now cost one Taiwan dollar -- about 1/30 of a US dollar.

Guess what?

Their trash production went down by two thirds. That's a vast improvement. The island is a lot greener, prettier and a lot less smelly. I don't see a down side, and it didn't cost a thing to implement. The costs were mitigated by a decrease in health problems and a boost in productivity. And best of all, a boost in fishery production. You can eat the fish in the rivers again. You couldn't before.

Debate global warming and climate change all you want. But there are some things that really can't be argued:

1) There is an island of plastic trash about the size of Texas floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Fish are eating the tiny pieces of plastic. Humans are eating the fish. Some humans are getting sick.

2) Rich nations are exporting their garbage to poor nations -- simply moving the problem "out of sight, out of mind."

3) Recycling saves a huge amount of energy, and decreases landfill growth tremendously.


Why the heck aren't we pushing recycling? Only two families out of 40 on my street recycle. What's it like in your area?

I don't see any reason why we as a people should not demand a cleaner environment. There are many things we could be doing that are either zero net cost, or negative net cost that would help. Yet, we do nothing. And some people seem to be all for filth. I don't see how that is an arguable position.

[Dan Friedrichs]

Why the heck aren't we pushing recycling? Only two families out of 40 on my street recycle. What's it like in your area?

I don't recycle. Mostly because in order to participate in my local recycling program, I'd have to pay additional money for collection. If the stuff I was recycling had any value, the garbage company would pay ME to pick it up, not the other way around.

I used to live in Iowa, where there was a 5c deposit on cans and bottles. I recycled them there. Now I live in Colorado, where there isn't a deposit. I throw cans in the trash (and I cringe every time I do - but what's the alternative? PAY someone to come pick up my valuable scrap metal??!)

I feel bad, because I know what I'm doing is bad for the environment. But the cost of recylcing seems to be more than the value of the recyclables.

[Greg Peterson]

Eric, I am of the opinion that after 150 years of belching tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, 24/7/365, to suggest that human activity can have absolutely no influence on our ecosystem flies in the face of reason.

Of course the climate on earth is changing. It always has and always will. But to deny that human activity hasn't contributed is to suggest this ecosystem is so vast that virtually nothing short of a 100 meter space rock is capable of influencing the atmosphere. The planets capacity to absorb the pollutants we emit is not infinite.

Volcanoes are frequently cited by deniers are influencing the climate. They then mockingly suggest we should regulate volcano emissions. Yet they fail to recognize that they just proved that it takes virtually very little to impact our climate.

China is bringing coal fired power plants on line weekly. Developing nations rightfully expect the same lax regulations or absence of regulations that we enjoyed when we were developing into a first world nation.

There is money, big, silly piles of money, to be made in green these days. We need a new power grid. We need a diversified energy base.

Plenty of deniers see the problems. But where they see problems, I see opportunities. I prefer to look forward, recognize the opportunities that exist, and let the flat earth community become further isolated.

[Eric Larsen]

I feel bad, because I know what I'm doing is bad for the environment. But the cost of recylcing seems to be more than the value of the recyclables.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...b176c9e9b48866

Why not drop off your cans at the very least at a recycling center? There seems to be plenty of them in your area.

Not to pick on you personally, but the "it costs more" argument doesn't wash with me.

Demand that your municipality institute a recycling program. Call your assemblymen, selectmen, or town council. Have your like-minded neighbors do so, too. (But don't try to convince anyone who's not in favor of recycling -- they'll think you're a "drank the Kool-Aid" environmental lunatic if you do. Seriously. There's no reasoning with the "drill-baby-drill, pave the planet" crowd.) Keep calling, especially around mid-October.

Ask the people at your recycling center why there isn't curbside pickup. They'll likely have a better answer for you than the politicans.


It drives me nuts when I hear things like, "I'm not going to 'go solar' because it costs a little more."

I place value on not digging perfectly-good coal out of the ground and burning it. More than I place on a kilowatt of electricity.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

I'll agree about the belching but I'd suggest that one MT. St. Helen's will up your 150 years of belching in just one or two blasts over time.

Anyone who believes man can not or has not effected the environment has his head in a paper sack.

Anyone who thinks we should spend an unlimited amount of money and do it today and we'll worry about how we will pay for it in the future.....well they have their head in that same paper sack.

Both forms of denial are irresponsible.

[Greg Peterson]

Ken, I agree that the extreme perspectives are just that, extreme. And as such only serve as anchors for those that are unable or unwilling to navigate the calmer waters that comprise the happy medium.

We have choices and options. Each passing generation will likely have fewer choices and options.

I am of the mind that things are changing and it is in my best interests to operate from this assumption. Fresh water will become less abundant (already is) and temperatures will continue to rise. Oregon will be the new southwest, and the southwest will be largely uninhabitable. This may take a century or more to occur, and well past my life span, but I am convinced the die has been cast and we can only act now to minimize future changes.

The planets climate is one big and complex system. Change use to be slow, gradual and organic. Meeting the demands of 7 billion people can not be without consequences.

[Eric Larsen]

Greg,

I'll agree about the belching but I'd suggest that one MT. St. Helen's will up your 150 years of belching in just one or two blasts over time.

Anyone who believes man can not or has not effected the environment has his head in a paper sack.

Anyone who thinks we should spend an unlimited amount of money and do it today and we'll worry about how we will pay for it in the future.....well they have their head in that same paper sack.

Both forms of denial are irresponsible.

If we were spending unlimited amounts of money, that would be one thing. We're spending next to nothing. And anytime someone suggests we spend SOMETHING, there is a huge backlash of "Ow! My wallet! My wallet!"

What's it going to take until we start taking this seriously? Water rationing?
Category 6 hurricanes? Starvation from crop failures?

I think future generations are going to look back at us and say, "What in hell were they thinking? Were they thinking at all?"

[Dan Friedrichs]

Why not drop off your cans at the very least at a recycling center?

Because then I have to save them, wash them, and drive them somewhere (all activities which cost energy, which is what we're supposedly saving by recycling). If the net energy or work or money output was greater through recycling, then the garbage haulers would pay me to come to my house and pick up the cans (or at least do it for free), rather than asking me to pay for it.

Once mining new material becomes more expensive than recycling old, people will start recycling, because there will be an economic benefit to it. Why not just let the market take care of the problem, rather than regulating?

[Eric Larsen]

Once mining new material becomes more expensive than recycling old, people will start recycling, because there will be an economic benefit to it. Why not just let the market take care of the problem, rather than regulating?

Because the market doesn't do anything based on "what's best for everyone" only on "what's best for me."

EDIT -- Besides, unless you drive your cans to the center in an Abrams tank, recycling will be a net energy savings. And a big pollution reducer.

http://shiftyourhabit.com/truth-or-t...e-rose-parade/

"Each time you toss your empty soda can into a recycling bin instead of into the trash, you help save about 585 watts of energy—enough to watch a three-hour event on a 40-inch LCD flat screen TV."

"Bauxite mining involves blasting and bulldozing 5.9 tons of earth for every one ton of aluminum produced."

"Making aluminum cans from recycled materials eliminates these raw material steps and, therefore, achieves huge energy savings. Indeed, aluminum can recycling saves 25 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year—enough to power a television in every household through the first half of the Rose Bowl."

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Eric,

I don't know where you live but local business have spent 10's of millions to reduce the pollution from the local paper mill.

Keep in mind,

businesses have to make a profit or they either go out of business or take it elsewhere.

Then you 'll complain about the lack of jobs or products made in the USA.

You can't have it both ways......profit or gone....elsewhere or out of business.

[Eric Larsen]

You can't have it both ways......profit or gone....elsewhere or out of business.

Why does business INSIST that it's "pollute or perish?" They've been saying that for decades. And it's simply not true.

We're smart enough to send men to the moon. We stopped a hole in the ozone layer as big as the United States.

Are you suggesting that we're not smart enough to reduce pollution significantly, and still turn a profit doing it?

I think we have the capability. I think we have a willpower problem. (Oh no! It's inconvenient! Five minutes to prepare recycling is too much out of my busy life. I have "So You Think You Can Dance" to watch!)

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

I agree to a certain extent and I"ll explain.

I have had some discussion with a friend who is a retired teacher with a Masters in Biology and Counseling. In 1964 he walked into a university geology class for the first time where the professor stated "The earth is now entering an ice age of which it has gone through several." The point being that some geologists believe the earth may have gone through several warmings and several ice ages.

I personally don't think man has the proven scientic data to say without a doubt whether or not we are beginning a catasrtophic warming or an ice age. I place little credibility in the science presented on the subjects because of two reasons. One...the persons performing the studies and analysis may have already had a personal bias before performing the study and just looked for evidence to prove their preconcieved theory. The other argument against the data is financial. The person financing the study predetermined what the results would be when they paid for the study.

Frankly, I am quite skeptical in this rush-to-print/post/release society that we live in today.

I don't watch much news on television any more. One of the reasons, too often the results of a study are released and a couple of weeks, months or years later another study is released countering what the previous study found. Another of the reasons I don't watch is there are NO UNBIASED reporting going on anywhere...tv or cable....newpapers... They have to editorialize for the "dumb" public. I find the attitude of the news industry insulting.

That said, my wife ordered our 2nd recylce bin on Friday.....Eric

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Eric,

Businesses or state governments cannot spend more than they take in for any lengthy period of time before they go bankrupt.

Take a look at the states that have implemented strict ecological standards.....businesses are leaving....high tech, high paying jobs are leaving....... and those same states are on the verge of bankruptsy.

I don't think it's a matter of willpower, it's a matter of a change of mindset.


There has to be reasonable ways of implementing and paying for the changes required. There has to be as much money in resolving these issues from a business standpoint as there is in creating these issues.

One thing is for sure. Caustic, in-your-face attacks by either side of the argument is not winning the support of the public. And thus both combatants remain minorities and nothing is happening.