Question by Army Dirt mover: Do environmentalist believe that the only way to save the planet is to pull the plug on the US economy?
The arguments of many is that the US is responsible for global warming which implies that Americans should stop living. Their arguments also imply that in order to save the endangered species of the world, a major reduction of the worlds human population would also be a good start. I’m wondering who they have in mind.
Best answer:
Answer by regenetech123
yes
Add your own answer in the comments!
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m an environmentalist, and I don’t believe either of those two points.
On your first point – stop living? No, seriously. Please. Try this:
1) Walk to the store if it’s less than half a mile. It won’t kill anyone to do that.
2) Buy a more efficient car. Did you know that the ford model T got about 30 miles to the gallon? The average american car today gets about 25. And don’t drive an SUV – nobody, NOBODY, needs a 3-ton car when they could buy a station wagon, minivan, or even a chevy HHR.
3) Invest more in cellulosic ethanol. Ethanol is a cleaner burn than gasoline, is more efficient per unit of volume, and will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Corn-based ethanol is a bad idea.
4) Somewhat on the subject of general environmentally-friendly behavior: If you live in the desert, don’t water your lawn. In fact, don’t HAVE a lawn. Just saying. IT’S THE FREAKING DESERT!! YOU DO NOT NEED TO HAVE A LAWN THAT LOOKS LIKE A GOLF COURSE IN GEORGIA.
5) Wind power is a good thing. It’s renewable and the turbines pay for themselves in just a couple of years. People who say they don’t want them in their backyards need to stop complaining and come to grips with the fact that wind power should be here to stay.
A side point worth noting is that improving, say, the cleanliness of power plants costs money, because the power companies have to buy equipment to do that. This money has to go to someone – like, say, someone whose company makes scrubbing equipment for power plants. This person needs employees, who will have to be paid. Environmentally-friendly initiatives actually create jobs, rather than hurting them.
And no, nobody who isn’t a lunatic believes that reducing the earth’s population is a good idea.
It is not an either/or kind of thing.
For example, enviros want better fuel economy standards in the US. This will cost American car makers a bit to comply with, but will benefit the overall American economy more by reducing transport cost inside America.
Most enviro type projects have a payback period of less than 10yrs(sometimes less than 5). So any negative effects on the American economy will be short lived.
Additionally, all these enviro suggestions will result in cleaner air for you to breath. Clean air=less health problems=reduced health care cost for the whole US economy.
Add to this the fact that America will be less dependent on ME oil. And you can start to see that the overall effect on the American economy in the long run will be positive.
As for the reduction in world population, I think the main problem here is not America, but China and India.
America’s population would actually be decreasing if not for immigration.
America should focus on maintaining it’s current population levels without any increase or decrease.
Environmentalists concern to save Earth is nothing to do with US economy, Their main concern is US is consuming more fossilised fuels than any country, because of its money and military power, they are just pumping all oil reserve, And use it. This angers the environments.
Not so much the environmentalists as the European politicians and the neo-Luddites
When the only solution to “stop global warming” for them is a reduction in energy use, one has to wonder.
They do not want to convert to nuclear energy. It has been proven to be a clean, safe and reliable source of energy. Chernobyl was an example of a third world and poorly funded country mismanaging a nuclear power plant.
A scientist came up with the idea of adding an additive to jet fuel so it can become lighter and get dispersed into space, they rejected the idea outright without even studying it.
Cheap and reliable energy is the key to economic growth and a high standard of living. despite all of the rhetoric, “if all do our small part we can clean up this world” the only way to reduce energy is to drive up the prices. According to many economists that will have an effect on the economies.
I believe you will find that the following is the actual argument for protecting the planet:
Ways a harmed earth hurts the US economy and its people (and a few examples to get you started):
Health:
water pollution (estrogen mimics come from plastic production), air pollution (asthma and lung caner rates have increased- really, sucking on tailpipes all day is just not that good for folks), toxic chemicals (cancers, neurological damage from lead and others)
Habitat destruction/loss of native habitats such as wetlands:
Higher flood damage (ever seen a wetland flood? no- they naturally mop up flood waters), higher storm damage (Katrina would not have been as bad if the coastal wetlands had been left in place), higher pollution in our drinking water and crops (natural habitats filter out pollutants for us, for free)
Water and nutrient cycling:
yes, we need these to live and breath and eat- without intact ecosystems (all animals and plants there) they just don’t happen like they shoud.
Soil production:
Life produces soil for us- we can’t do it very well or on a large enough scale on our own
Food production:
Healthy oceans = food and $ . Unhealthy oceans = no food and economic collapse. Food pollination (yes, a majority of crops in the US need to be pollinated by bees or other insects/birds)- this occurs naturally and for free (or at least until recently when bees globally started declining and now farmers are having to pay for bee keepers to bring bees to their crops- look it up on Google news)
I could go on for another book or so…. but you get the picture, right?
How do you think the US would fair if we had a collapse of our natural services? Not very well- I don’t want our country to be in the position where we have to ask other nations for all of our goods- what would that do to our national security?!!??! What would a sick population do for our national security? this is a moral issue where we have to attend to the earth so it can support us (and our children and grandchildren).
America happens to be the biggest contributor to industrial ,and social polution,including the motor car and they promised to bring back carbon emissions by only 25%
at a meeting in Kopenhagen in 1998 it was suggested to bring the world population down by 60%,one cannot help but wonder at how this would be archieved and it was Kisinger who said it
Maybe that is why America is threatening the world with a nuclear war for supremacy of the world to make some population cuts in other areas
Humanity as a whole has an influence with global warming ,it is not any one country
ggg