Read! GBR will vanish in your lifetime (most likely)

[Anonymous]

There are probably more options such as:

The threat is not real - and you act to avoid it but actually do more harm: might create disaster.

My point is that we do not have enough data or knowledge to fully understand what is happening let alone pretend we know what will happen if.... 100 years of data is nothing compared to the lifespan of the earth. Just look at SF's analogy of the scientists 'center of the solar system' debate. That took hundreds of years and didn't have data changing every decade. It's hard to know what is really happening when there are so many opposing views and opinions.

Here is a sample: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

It never ceases to amaze me how random unqualified citizens claim to be more informed on climatology than the entire international climate science community and the UN IPCC.

What are the chances that 6.5 billion humans and their industrial activity has changed nothing in a closed ecosystem?

The odds are, we have an impact.
The odds are, reducing our impact is a good thing.

How on earth could reducing the chemical output of the human race possibly do harm to the planetary ecosystem and create disaster? I fail to see that logic.

I simply don't consider everything humans doing to be harming the earth.

You should reconsider and look at the numerous activities that do impact the environment at least on a local level. Remember Love Cannel, Savana River Site?

So does the mean that all human activities harm the environment?

 

[wade1]

What is your definition of harm?

All human activities have environmental impact. It is the degree of impact that is most important. Minimizing consumption of resources means minimizing disturbance to the environment. It isn't really any different than living in one place your whole life. Do you really want to drop your trash in your yard and collect your sewage without a system to modify and reduce that burden? The capacity for natural processes to adapt and compensate for our input is what really matters. If you overcome that balance point, degradation occurs.

 

[Anonymous]

What is your definition of harm?

All human activities have environmental impact. It is the degree of impact that is most important. Minimizing consumption of resources means minimizing disturbance to the environment. It isn't really any different than living in one place your whole life. Do you really want to drop your trash in your yard and collect your sewage without a system to modify and reduce that burden? The capacity for natural processes to adapt and compensate for our input is what really matters. If you overcome that balance point, degradation occurs.

So are you saying that the impact of human behaviour must be minimized?

I am really trying to understand all this environmental impact stuff. To me the earth will continue to exist regardless of what us humans do.

So what is really important is maintaining an environment that is best for humans.

Which requires so much more analysis then simply humans impacted the environment and that impact must be reversed or lessoned.


my .02

 

[wade1]

If you boil it down, you are correct: What we are doing is for the good of the future of humanity. In the interest of improving our own future lives, it will also benefit almost all environments... and the things that live within those environments. Why should the impact of my impunity (whatever the source, be it greed, comfort, apathy...) be directed at your grandchildren (I won't have any of those)? Shouldn't they belong in a world where they can stand outside and breath without 1000x the cancer risk of today? Shouldn't they be able to benefit from natural wonders such as coral reefs?

At our current rate of consumption ("our" = humanity, esp the rich portion), there won't be much left in a couple of generations that resembles today. So why not accept that we are in fact consumers (and always will be) and do what we can to minimize our environmental impacts, where we can, and actually put forward enough brain power to improve or stabilize the environment for the future?

Personally, it would be a major tragedy if everyone couldn't have that "moment" when they walk outside in the spring or fall, crisp clean air and take a deep breath and feel it into their bones.

 

[Anonymous]

Wade answered your question far better than I could. Even with out any kind of study how could cleaning up and using atleast a bit less be a bad idea?

 

[Anonymous]

So are you saying that the impact of human behaviour must be minimized?

I am really trying to understand all this environmental impact stuff. To me the earth will continue to exist regardless of what us humans do.

So what is really important is maintaining an environment that is best for humans.

Which requires so much more analysis then simply humans impacted the environment and that impact must be reversed or lessoned.


my .02

Problem is you're using an argument that is a bit sketchy, you state what is important is maintaining an environment that's best for humans, ok fine I can dig that, then right before you make the broad claim that Earth will continue to exist regardless of what humans do as some sort of premise that makes everything we do ok because the Earth will keep on going... even if the state it's in is not best for humans.

But what exactly does it mean "best for humans"?? We need roads so us humans can drive everywhere? We need to chop down trees so us humans have plenty of lumber/paper/etc? Or can we go simpler and say a forest of redwood trees that are thousands of years old is important? Or even more simple and say coral reefs are important because a majority of the world's fish diversity exists there, and sometimes we need to eat fish.

Now does that definitely mean human impact is the major cause of the reefs demise (assuming it goes that way)? No it doesn't, however if you ignore it with the "It'll grow back" "We really aren't doing anything" "We don't want to make things worse" mentality and shoot down all discussion about it then that's almost as bad as physically destroying the reefs.

Personally, it would be a major tragedy if everyone couldn't have that "moment" when they walk outside in the spring or fall, crisp clean air and take a deep breath and feel it into their bones.

And many very large cities around the world have gone beyond this point, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Taipei, etc. Hell San Francisco has relatively clean air for a urban area with lots of traffic and people, but we still get "Spare the air" days, which alone should say something about how much of a tragedy it already is.

 

[Anonymous]

...

At our current rate of consumption ("our" = humanity, esp the rich portion), there won't be much left in a couple of generations that resembles today.

...

.

thanks you for your reply. So it is about limiting human consumption. The more successful you are the more you have to be limited.

 

[Anonymous]

...

At our current rate of consumption ("our" = humanity, esp the rich portion), there won't be much left in a couple of generations that resembles today.

...

.

thanks you for your reply. So it is about limiting human consumption. The more successful you are the more you have to be limited.

The more you consume the more you have to be limited is more to the point. The poor family who eats McDonalds at least once a day probably does consumes more than the family making $100k+ a year who eats a more balanced meals with healthy foods that are grown in a fashion that's better for the land (i.e. they tend to be more expensive). Why must this be about how "successful" you are, I mean really, is a teacher any less successful than some executive that makes 10x as much money?

But to further add things, the more you limit the harder it will be to limit. For instance if you reduce your water consumption to the bare-minimum and the water company imposes a mandatory 10% water ration for all customers it will be much harder to reduce than someone who waters his lawn every day, lets the kids play in the sprinklers every weekend while washing his car every weekend and takes 45 minute long showers.

But yeah, keep on thinking that this is somehow some attack on those people who are successful :roll:

 

[wade1]

Yeah, not sure success has anything to do with individual conservation. Limitations are designed to minimize impact, no matter who you are. However, consumption rates (gallons of water used, CO2 produced, or whatever basis you choose) coordinate with the wealthy nations far more than the poor nations. Why? Wholly based on the fact that we consume more goods and resources. Is a farmer that lives in a sheet metal and plywood shanty in Belize consuming much in the way of resources? No.

Back on to the major topic here as well... CO2 production. There are multitudes of ways in which to reduce your overall "footprint" while not degrading your quality of life. Buying local, reducing energy consumption (check out how much your television, receiver, etc consume while "off"... its not pretty), reducing water consumption, reducing unnecessary travel, using solar or wind energies (careful on these, some are not really better), buying more conservative stuff... etc etc. Each aspect of daily life has some degree of carbon dioxide associated with its movement and production. Its an issue of identifying those burdens and reducing them while not living like that Belizian farmer (unless you choose to do so).

 

[bfessler]

I came in on this conversation late and only read the last page so I hope my comments are pertinent.

I agree that we should look for ways to conserver our natural resources and find processes that provide as little negative impact on our environment as possible but to think that we can take control of our environment and change its cycles is ridiculous. The earth has gone through temperature changes in the past and will continue to do so despite our efforts to change it. To suggest that if man had no impact on the environment that it would continue in its present state for ever is failing to look at the earths history of changing climate.

There has to be a balance between ravaging the planet and protecting every aspect of it. Face it Species come and go all the time and to think we can or should protect every living thing on the earth won't stop the trend. At the same time I believe we have a responsibility to manage our resources in a way that is responsible and provides the best environment for the Human Race. So both sides of the argument have valid points but it's the extremists on both sides that muck up the works. For example I recently read an article about the central California Farm Lands being cut off from water to grow crops because a small fish, i think it was a smelt or something, was getting stuck in the pumps that divert water to the farms. Because this little fish is endangered the whole economy of the area is at risk. No water means no crops, no crops means no income to everyone involved in farming the area and shortages for the populous. We have to import the food form outside the US which opens us up to pesticides bugs and other things that are not used in our area all to save a tiny little fish. Environmental extremists would have us yield to every living creature. That in itself goes against nature as animals prey on each other all the time.

I am against the indiscriminate use and waste of resources but I am also equally against those who put ridiculous limits on progress because of plants and animals that are of little consequence.

 

[wade1]

I am against the indiscriminate use and waste of resources but I am also equally against those who put ridiculous limits on progress because of plants and animals that are of little consequence.

While in principal I agree... What do you consider "... of little consequence."? There are impacts to the destruction of individual species at all levels that translate into real issues with other species or environments. A great example is the King Salmon in the Pacific NW. A new study just showed up pointing out that most of the Killer Whales in the largest pods are dying due to the lack of that one specific critter. The lack of those whales will set off an imbalance due to the top predator spot going unfilled... and so on. Its very hard to untangle the web. Thats why I propose the generalist approach of reduce what you can, where you can, in order to save as much as you can.

 

[Anonymous]

And the last few posts is the rub.

Do we all have to live in huts collecing nuts and berries just because we want to protect the reefs? Or the redwood forests. Or a species from becoming extinct?

I submit that the human race has already come up with means of handling the ecology.

That is through the standard capitolism already in effect.

After all we did get rid of the steam locomotives for the much cleaner locomotive of today.

We did switch from whale oil to our current energy sources when whale oil became scarce.

We did switch from soft coal home furnaces to much better electric and natural gas back in the 50's.

All based upon economic factors as well as ecological factors.

As the previous posts illustrate it is not about ecology. that is just a front for the real adjenda.

Which is to limit the actions and lives of successful (rich) people because that success in and of itself is bad.

If someone is successful they must not drive that big luxury car.

They must not have a large comfortable house.

That house must not be in the country. wasting all that land and resources.

They must not eat expensive food.

They must not buy that expensive clothing, appliances, furnish the house with that expensive furniture.

Those people must be controlled.

Why?

To protect the ecology and barrier reef.

B.S.

I am not that successful but I strive to be.

And should I ever get there and even if I don't my striving will produce a better planet for humans. And a better life for all humans.


And (I predict) the earth will still have reefs, forests, seas, lakes, clean water, clean air, and so on.

And I will never be ashamed of striving for success nor the limited success I have. And the things that brings.


my .02

 

[bfessler]

I think I am basically in agreement with that idea but it also depends what you mean by reduce what you can and where you can. Some would say we what we can reduce is virtually everything and where we can is everywhere if we just keep our hands off the environment. In the case of the water being cut off form the farmers in California I think thats a big mistake. Perhaps there is a way to design a filter to the pump intake that will protect the smelt. OK lets look into it and replace the pump with a better design if necessary but don't cut off the Farmers till it's done. I guess I am all for finding better ways of doing things but not implementing them until a viable alternative is available. Of course there are some things like toxic waste or other problems that are an immediate danger to both people and the environment and we need to eliminate that quickly as possible. We just need to be reasonable about how policies are implemented.

 

[bfessler]

Beaslbob

I agree with your sentiment to a point. The problem is that unrestrained capitalism won't work because of greed. There are many who don't care who they have to trash or what they have to do to get gain. Just like our founding fathers set up the government with checks and balances we need standards with teeth to watch out for the rights and needs of others. For example a friend of mine is a mortgage broker an he described his job as getting loans for people who had no business getting a loan. Look what that mentality did to our economy recently.

Don't get me wrong I am a big believer in capitalism and being able to achieve all you can but there have to be standards we are held to in striving for success.

I believe that we could destroy our environment, at least to the point that it would not sustain human life. Would that end the planet? No, it would just be rid of us.

 

[Anonymous]

Beaslbob

I agree with your sentiment to a point. The problem is that unrestrained capitalism won't work because of greed. There are many who don't care who they have to trash or what they have to do to get gain. Just like our founding fathers set up the government with checks and balances we need standards with teeth to watch out for the rights and needs of others. For example a friend of mine is a mortgage broker an he described his job as getting loans for people who had no business getting a loan. Look what that mentality did to our economy recently.

that was simply because "unrestrained capitalism" was not allowed to work. People were guaranteed of making a profit when giving out loans they would not have otherwise been given out. Freddie and fannie we expressedly setup up to do exactly that.

Greed is what makes capatolism work. The seller greedily wants to get a higher price and sell more goods at the price. The buyer greedily wants to play less. So they get together and goods are produced to meet the market demands. All without government interference.

Don't get me wrong I am a big believer in capitalism and being able to achieve all you can but there have to be standards we are held to in striving for success.

I think profits are a pretty good standard

I believe that we could destroy our environment, at least to the point that it would not sustain human life. Would that end the planet? No, it would just be rid of us.

And I believe that people will not do that. With or without governments people find it profitable to have clean air, water plus food and shelter.

 

[bfessler]

Profit cannot be the only driving force in a society. Greed is responsible for most every vice, child exploitation, illegal drugs, organized crime to name a few. While the desire to obtain wealth can be a good thing it is a two edged sword and must be kept in check by certain standards and decency. The unfortunate truth is that if greed is the guiding force in a persons life then bad things are virtually unavoidable. You see it everywhere. People will exploit whatever and whomever they wish to achieve their desires.

There have to be checks and balances to assure that people behave responsibly.

I consider myself a moderate capitalist. I don't think anything should be taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor, but I also don't think the rich should be able to prevent the poor from achieving their dreams either. I believe in hard work and an honest return on your investment. Again I say that the extremists on both the left and right cause the problems and it is the checks and balances that keep us grounded and on the right path. Too much restriction is a bad thing. No restriction is just as bad.

 

[Anonymous]

I think what you're talking about is criminal activity. So in that sense you do have to limit capatolism.

But I am not talking about say holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to buy or do something. that's what we have police forces for along with criminal and civil courts.

What I am saying is that one does not have to be embarrassed by becomeing filthy rich beyond anyone's dreams. It is those dreams, greed, that profit motive whatever that encourages the capatolist to provide goods and services that consumers desire.

 

[Anonymous]

At one time there were no laws to stop people from increasing their profit margin by just throwing wastes (toxic and other wise) anywhere they damn well pleased, child exploitation and drugs were also not illegal at one point as well, yet laws were made to make things better. Yet some people want rules passed that severely limit CO2 output, and knee jerk reaction is this is an attack on the rich or "successful".

I'm sure some Southern land owners thought the same way when their supply of cheap, already protected against the sun, labor force were deemed illegal to own.

 

[bfessler]

Reductions of greenhouse gasses may be a good thin but legislating reductions when no viable alternatives are available is a knee-jerk reaction by the other side. This is what I am talking about by extremists on both sides causing the problems. When we identify a problem be it in the environment or elsewhere rather than ignoring (business interest) or forcing change with no alternatives (environmental extremists) we should develop viable alternatives and then implement them in a manner that will improve the situation and promote industry as well.

Who can argue that the air quality in major cities doesn't cause health risks to the population. Yet business extremists resist change and environmental extremists want to shut everything down. Both sides need to work together to find and implement solutions. The public isn't served by stopping progress and industry, neither is it served by damning the environment and business as usual.

If society is ruled by greed then business will maximize profits at the expense of all else. If society is ruled completely by ideals progress stops because perfect processes don't exist. Business working with environmentalists to find real, cost effective solutions is what has to happen. Once the cost effective solutions are found then they should be required but not before. It would be nice if we could trust business to voluntarily implement these solutions but there is that greed thing that gets in the way.

 

[Anonymous]

Reductions of greenhouse gasses may be a good thin but legislating reductions when no viable alternatives are available is a knee-jerk reaction by the other side. This is what I am talking about by extremists on both sides causing the problems. When we identify a problem be it in the environment or elsewhere rather than ignoring (business interest) or forcing change with no alternatives (environmental extremists) we should develop viable alternatives and then implement them in a manner that will improve the situation and promote industry as well.

Who can argue that the air quality in major cities doesn't cause health risks to the population. Yet business extremists resist change and environmental extremists want to shut everything down. Both sides need to work together to find and implement solutions. The public isn't served by stopping progress and industry, neither is it served by damning the environment and business as usual.

If society is ruled by greed then business will maximize profits at the expense of all else. If society is ruled completely by ideals progress stops because perfect processes don't exist. Business working with environmentalists to find real, cost effective solutions is what has to happen. Once the cost effective solutions are found then they should be required but not before. It would be nice if we could trust business to voluntarily implement these solutions but there is that greed thing that gets in the way.

Burt,

I don’t think it’s that black and white. Most of the things we do as humans are driven by hormones. The urge to join a group, to have children, to be successful and to look down on others unlike yourself are all survival traits. This competitive nature and rapid breeding pattern has overpopulated our world, while greed and idealism were but sub-plots.
If this world only had to support 3 billion humans, living in extreme luxury, with education and jobs for everybody, we could co-exist nicely with the world and other species. But no, our urges dictate that we grow exponentially. We will kill most other species and then we will die. Our quality of life continues to decline but we take no action. How much greed and idealism will effect that, I don’t know.