A matter of Sustainability...

Post-9/11 Era Forum

The system is not sustainable. We are drowning in our own lack of forward thought. The earth IS mortal in the most litteral sense--and if we dont do something soon, it will die. consdier:



"For hundreds of years, cod swarmed in waters off Newfoundland's rugged coast. But by 1992, rampant overfishing had crushed the cod. Price tag to people: tens of thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars spent in job retraining.

Last year, a weather satellite spotted a monster dust cloud over Africa — hard to miss at 5,000 miles wide. Tree-cutting in northern Africa helps nourish such clouds, which cross the Atlantic, settle into U.S. coastal waters, and possibly contribute to toxic algae blooms. Price tag to people: breathing problems for U.S. coastal residents.

Cod depletion and dust clouds seem like pretty different problems. But they each play a role in the overall environmental degradation of the planet — a condition that a new global study says has escalated so quickly over the past 50 years that it outpaces anything experienced by ecosystems in human history. Demands for water, food, fuel, timber, and fiber — all part of global economic expansion -- have driven the change. The result: a big increase in short-term human benefits, less hunger, and more wealth. But this progress has been counterbalanced by a massive loss of diversity of life on Earth.

That's the state of the world, according to the first Millennium Ecosystem Assessment produced by some 1,300 scientists from 95 countries charged with painting a global eco-portrait. The United Nations-sponsored study was funded by the World Bank and several private foundations.

"We've had many reports on environmental degradation, but for the first time we're now able to draw connections between ecosystem services and human well-being," says Cristian Samper, director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington and a chief architect of the study.

Northern Africa's drying Sahel region and Newfoundland's emptier coastal waters, he says, are just two examples in an overall conclusion that 60 percent of the world's ecosystems are being degraded or used unsustainably. Ecosystems being drained or degraded largely in the pursuit of human well-being include:


* Land: More of it has been converted to cropland since 1945 than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined. Cultivated land now covers one-quarter of Earth's land surface.


* Coral reefs: About 20 percent of the world's coral reefs were lost and another 20 percent degraded in the past few decades.


* Rivers and lakes: Despite the fact that the amount of fresh water stored behind dams has quadrupled since 1960, its use for agriculture and other needs has exceeded long-term supplies by 5 to 25 percent.


* Coastal areas: Farmers' increased use of nitrogen fertilizers since 1985 has polluted waterways and coastal ecosystems. About 35 percent of mangrove swamps needed for water filtration in coastal areas have been bulldozed.


* Oceans: Many areas have been overfished, reducing stocks by 90 to 99 percent of preindustrial fishing levels.


"We always have this sense that if we just let up on overfishing for awhile the fish will bounce back," says Tundi Agardy, executive director of Sound Seas, a coastal-planning policy group, who was lead author of the coastal chapter of the millennium assessment. "But what we found is that, many times, the recovery of overexploited species is made impossible by all sorts of things like pollution, habitat loss, and climate change."

The loss of coral, for instance, is often attributed to degraded coastal waters that were harmed over time. Mangrove swamps that filter pollutants were bulldozed for apartment buildings. Combine that with large human populations living seaside and increased agricultural runoff flowing into the oceans. Now add overharvesting of fish that eat algae. Suddenly, you've got algae blooms that overwhelm coral reefs, Dr. Agardy says.

It's not known what changes have kept the cod from rebounding. Some say a change in ocean salinity. Others, including former fishermen, have blamed seals for eating them. Harp seal pups were butchered on the ice this spring for their pelts, but also in the expectation that a smaller seal population would help the cod recover. But in years past, the cod recovered even with seal predators present, Agardy says. "It's pretty clear that cod have been fished down to a point where it will be hard for them to ever recover," she adds.

Yet changes in fishing policy and enforcement of those changes may help oceans recover, she says, adding that the question now is whether the political will exists to create change.

A key element of the U.N. report was to bring together economists and biologists to examine the impact of ecosystem changes on human well-being. In accounting terms, the report says, the loss of an ecosystem can be equated to loss of a capital asset.

For instance, exploitation of nature has benefited the economies of nations like Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Venezuela. But those nations actually experienced a "loss in net savings" when depletion of natural resources (energy and forests) and damage from carbon emissions were factored in, the report found. A key finding was that abrupt, unexpected changes in ecosystems are increasingly likely. Changes are usually gradual in ecosystems, yet once a threshold is crossed, stark and rapid changes are possible.

Susan Minnemeyer spotted one of those changes a few years ago while peering for the first time at sharp satellite photos of Cameroon's dense tropical rain forest. As global information systems manager for Global Forest Watch project at the World Resources Institute in Washington, she noticed tiny lines in the forest, a spider's web criss-crossing the jungle — thousands of miles of illegal logging roads. Losing valuable forest to illegal logging is bad enough, she notes, but another critical hidden cost has emerged: loss of wildlife.

Superficially, the Cameroon forest looks intact even after such logging because the forests aren't clear-cut; just the valuable trees are taken. But the illegal roads have opened up paths for hunters. The growth of the bushmeat trade is rapidly depopulating the forests of all large mammals, Ms. Minnemeyer says. Her finding was just one of many examples of accelerating species loss cited in the study.

"It can look intact from the sky," Ms. Minnemeyer says. "But this is an empty forest — it's actually devoid of wildlife. We think we can change this, and we're working with the government to do that." "

From: Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor.

I have some follow-up questions for any interested:
Why is this problem so quiet? what I mean is, why does it seem to take a back seat in American politics to issues like...Social security? Minnimum wage? Taxes? Am I the only one who finds this just a bit more pressing? It's one thing to be poor (and I know from first hand experience), its quite another thing to live on a ruined planet.




I realize this thread is a bit out of place in "post 9/11 era", but I couldnt find a better place for it. Feel free to move it to a move apt place, oh ye in charge of such things.


Thanks,
Wolf

That's another interesting contribution from you, Wolf-eyes. Reading a lot of scientific articles devoted to these concerns (unfortunately my sources are written ones and in french) I am well aware of these dangers. Furthermore, one can state that on his own by traveling in those endangered areas.
You are not alone to be fully conscious of the seriousness of the situation. Unfortunately, our politicians and other opinion leaders are so preoccupied of their petty own interests and satisfaction of short term greed appetite that these issues are not dealt with as they should be.
We are headed to disaster and that's the main reproach I would adress to the Bush admin, far ahead of their wrongdoings in Iraq, regarding their criminal handling of environmental concerns.

Many right-wing thinkers consider concern for the wellbeing of the planet is nothing more than left-wing propoganda, an agenda to attack the capitalist system.

They also think the capitalist system will always find a solution to all problems if only we let the force of the market work its magic, and maybe it will. Anyone looking forward to the day we start buying coca-cola flavoured bottled fresh air?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/images/300/gas_mask.jpg

Coke adds life, where there isn't any, so breathe!

Isn't it sad...no conservative response to this at all...cant say I'm surprised, but still, it saddens me.

These concerns are very uncomfortable for those people Wolf. Because it is difficult to deny scientific facts in the first place, and on the other hand because they don't have valuable arguments to defend their selfish will to keep what they call their "way of life": this need to drive unuselessly powerful SUVs, to buy cheaper fuel obtained through resources-securing aggressive foreign policies, to fit up their home with wood from protected and endangered south american or african trees species. Hey - why bother, life is good at home.

What you say is true, JY. What I'm remebering is why I left the forum-the conservatives are interested in exchanging insults and propaganda-not debating issues or discussing problems. There is no discourse, there is only resentment. I need to think about this for a while...

I occasionally have a glimmer of hope that actual, prolific and potentially substaintial discourse will happen on this forum, but I am continually dismayed and dissapointed at the lack of response to actual controversial issues such as this one. Sometimes, I think we (we here is humanity in general) are smart enough, resourceful enough, and wise enough to save ourselves, and our dying planet. Other times, and more and more frequently (maybe I'm just gettin older and wiser myself), I am deeply saddened a human beings and thier state of blissful and impotent ignorance. Some of you have chosen to respond here, and I am sincerly grateful. To those who have ignored this, or consider it propaganda, or who simply disagree...can we at least talk about it? Isnt that what this forum is for?

I understand your sadness all the more that I state the same serious lack of awareness around me. I think that some people should be dropped in defavorized areas of this world, without their usual comfort, in order to see on their own what we are talking about. I wish they could see that.
Even so, you would have large numbers of them, once back home, only happy to benefit from their comfort without questionning themselves about the stakes and relations between their situation and the one of the planet.
In fact I think that changes will be undertaken only when it will be crystal clear to a majority that no other solution is left - I mean, when the reservoir of your car is empty, and your car parked on the side of the road, then you have to ask yourself what to do now. Too late unfortunately.
I am rather pessimistic in the sense that our societies are promoting individualism, value material success and encourage social differences. It is all about a question of "gradient" in the physics understanding of it: riches giving example to others, willing to reach that state of wealthyness. Communist societies were even more corrupts and unequal. We are only primates.
That's the Maslov's triangle principle, but one day may come when our basic needs as described in this principle are no longer satisfied, and then and only then the ineptitude of our way of living will be transparent.

I see all the global changes you posted. What's their solution to solve all these climate changes? I don;t see any posting of their recommendations.
Surely the use of fossel fuels isn't the only culprit.
What about volcanic action?
How does the hole in the ozone affect this. This hole opens and closes all the time so, I supect it has always been there before we had technology to detect it.
If the earth didn't change, wouldn't we be overwelmed with animal life with species that never go extinct? Would there still be dinosaurs?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Frankly I don't believe man is capable of changing the earths atmosphere for better or worse.

Wolf, do a bit more homework and read more on the topics suggested. Use the net and realize that the environment we call home is not necessarily dying if it changes not in accordance to what we wish it would be.

You're influenced by the current rage and mass media information about environmental woes. But unfortunately, these ideas are FED on you. You did not give time to think and verify these ideas.

Again, like CJ, you make large, sweeping statements with no factual or logical background, and no supporting arguments. Further, you make bold and assertive statements about me, someone who you know nothing about. Even if your statements about me were correct, you would still be making assumptions, and you know what they say about assumptions, dont you? Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. And, since I am the only person on earth who is qualified to make large, assertive statements about MYSELF, you will just have to take it. I am not influenced by 'the current rage', which is an assinine statement anyway, since environmentalism has been a major player in politics since the industrial age. I am not influenced by the mass media, since I, clearly, take the time to research outside of those sources. Case in point: the article I quoted to begin this thread.

I have no idea what FED stands for, or what it means in the context you provide.

I did, in fact, 'give time to think and verify these ideas' (which is grammatically nonsensical, by the way), since I have been contributing to, and reading about environmental science for over ten years. I would also like to point out that you did not respond with any sort of ideas, information, logic, or discourse, but instead took the opportunity to merely insult me and pretend that you are privvy to my thoughts.

Of course, I refuse to respond in kind, as it seems childish, so.....

check out: http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/
or maybe: http://www.enn.com/
or perhaps: http://www.esemag.com/

All three of which are easy accesible on the internet (which you claim I do not use), and are pro-environment (which you claim is unnessesary), and run by scientists (who, most certainly, do thier 'homework').
Now, what were you saying?


Think about it....

If men were to completely STOP all activities. Do you think the Earth would change your way and became stable?

Environmentalism was concocted by journalists... do your research, man. Brag all you want but it won't change facts. You're just PARROTING what you've read. As for Learning... I do not think you have.

Man would go extinct before the Earth dies... Try to look at how the Earth formed the environment that men have come to call HOME. Let me know how it happened, and if any human decisions were made.


Your global warming is highly disputable... despite the bandwagon.... The present environmental consciousness was really started by journalists, not by scientists. Prove me wrong.

Well said. And I doubt you'll get any reply. Further, his reference to the creation of the earth, and his suggestion that, because man did not participate in the making of this world that they cannot destroy it is nonsensical. I may not have created this computer, but I sure as hell can destroy it (and I may, someday, if it doesnt straighten up).

I simply don't get it. All those scientific studies and articles I am reading must be a load of crap ?
Reading Curley Joe speaking of left wing agenda is just enough for me.
There are irrefutable evidence of mankind's actions impact on environment. Past climates can be traced by scientists, notably through gases concentration in air bubbles trapped in successive ice layers in Antarctica. These concentrations are correlated to warming and glaciation, along with complex Earth movements over long period of time (rotation, equinoxes precession, ...).

What do these data teach us ? Mainly that for two centuries now mankind has been decorrelating natural cycles of glaciation and warming by massive pumping of billions and billions of tons of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxyde and methane in the atmosphere.

This has proven consequences, beyond any kind of agenda. Consequences and related dangers since local climates are expected to be dramatically changed in the coming decades. Droughts here, floodings there, local glaciation here (strange, indeed, but ice melting in one place may (already have in the past history of Earth) lead to oceans streams disruption and local decreasing of temperature)

Dismissing this by resorting to personal political opinions is simply irrelevant.

There is also irrefutable evidence that a metor destroyed most life on this planet. Could it happen again? Yup. Do I worry about it? Nope.
There is also the fact that the earth may be getting warmer (from the inside)but, not that we are contributing to it. As the earth warms up the plates shift more and more. As that happens there are more earthquakes and more volcanic activity. The volcanic activity is a far greater risk to human life than anything and what can we do? Nothing.
As the earth evolves, we are at her mercy.
Billions of cubic feet of toxic gasses are released from the earth everyday, far outwaying anything we could do as humans. Outside of a nuclear holocost that is.

Again USA1 you are posting an opinion here. I for one am talking about established facts.

Volcanic activities have always existed. Huge quantities of gases are indeed exhausted in the atmosphere during such episodes (the cataclysmic Krakatoa indonesian volcano eruption in 1883 for example), but the continuous and significant augmentation of CO2 (carbon dioxyde) and CH4 (methane) in the atmosphere since two centuries is not explained by volcanic activity. This is not an opinion, this is a fact about which you can find all the necessary data on your own by browsing the net.

Yes, these concentrations augmentations are explained by human activities mainly since the beginning of the industrial revolution (recent studies even state that methane concentration has started to rise slowly 5000 years ago, when rice was started to be planted in areas newly flooded by man).
First point.

Second point is that there is a proven correlation between these gases concentrations and the average temperature on the planet.

Third point is that global warning has a direct impact on the level of oceans.

Correlations between these different parameters have been established by scientists of all nationalities collaborating in the frame of multinational programs, controlled by independant boards of other scientists.

So you can post as much opinions that you want - I point to you that you are posting opinions where scientific studies establish facts, period.

As for the Yucatan meteor destroying most life on the planet 65 million years ago - yes this is a theory admitted by a majority of scientists.

So does the slowing rotation of the planet which affects the planets oceans.
As the earth and moon move farther apart, (which they are) will also have an affect on the oceans and therefore the planet temperatures.
DOOOOOOMED!
More like theories. You know, the hole in the ozone.

It's all theroy.

The planet rotation speed decrease is explained by the loss of kinetic energy due to the friction of oceans against the Earth's crust. As a consequence of this loss of energy, the couple Earth - Moon energy decreases itself, so the distance between the Earth and its satellite increase as a consequence of physical laws first described by Newton.
But - this has been lasting for hundreds of billions of years. At the beginning of life on this planet, a year comprised about 400 days. That's a very slow evolution, but that's not a theory: again this is a well documented fact.

As is the correlation between a few gases concentration in the atmosphere, the average temperature at the surface of the Earth, and the level of the oceans. You can post any opinion you want, this is the result of precise measurements over hundreds of thousands years.

To account for these stated data (not ideas, not opinions: data) scientists build models taking into account these interactions. Models are all affected by a bias (statistical bias, not the one conservatives are spinning the discussions with on this board) that can be itself evaluated.

From all of this, scientists can predict with a good accuracy what will be the temperature at the surface of the Earth with given conditions and parameters inputs and that's what allow them to assert that we are heading to big problems with the climate and oceans levels within a few decades ....

Of course, you can tell that meantime we may face meteor destruction, nuclear holocaust .. Indeed, everything is possible in theory.

Except that we are not talking about possibilities from a probabilistic point of view ... but about a MOST PROBABLE future if nothing is done to change the way we are over-consuming fossil fuels, destroying forests ... not ratifying the Kyoto protocole ...

Thanks Bush for endangering the future of your people. What a good example of responsible policy

I have witheld posting for a bit because....well, because JY has pretty much summed it up. Well said, JY.

think about it...

We in Canada enjoy clean water, fresh air, lots of forests, conservation areas, parks, lakes, - anything you want to stop thinking about worsening environment. If it is so bad in your place... move to Canada, the #1 country in the world! While everybody else is boiled due to (non-existant?) global temperature increase, we here are cool like never before. The right climate for beer!

Think about it.....

Thanks for this relevant contribution Mr Jukovette. Indeed, I have never noticed that environment was great in Canada, as it is in France too by the way.
I suppose that when you will have your feet in water because the ocean will have flooded the lowest lands of Canada, there still will be lakes and forests and birds to make you enjoy life in the rest of the country.

Irony, contempt for want of argumentation. Same as it ever was.

And when is that supposed to happen, JY?

Global warming is already stated - by tenths of degrees only now, but enough to relate it to the increased threat of the sea towards low islands in the Pacific or Indian oceans. Not directly because of ice cap melting, but because of the dilatation of water with temperature. Very small effects have proportional consequences .... even though, these consequences are already perceptible.
The dangers we are talking about are likely to be visible in the coming decades, with a maximal danger by the end of the century.
You may say that we won't be on this Earth anymore to see it by ourselves, for most of us .... but rest assured that our children and grand children will see it.

He's right. Even a change as small as 1 C in the global temperature can have a catasrophic effect on the eco-system. When one considers the rise in sea levels, one must also think that around 70% of the world's population lives in coastal areas. When one considers the drastic changes in weather, or shrinking ice caps, or melting glaciers, or a number of other issues, then one must remember that these things are caused by global warming, a process either entirely human caused, or mostly. Listen to JY, and consider the things you do on a daily basis to contribute. And look it up! Read for yourself, and, of course, think about it...

I think its a load. We can't control our environment, predict bad weather, tornadoes or earthquakes. The earth has it's own agenda and we are in it's path with absolutley no control.

So basically what took millions of years to create, man has found a way to destroy it in 150 years? You don't actually believe that do you?

USA1

You wrote: "I think". That's your right. The only problem is that scientists did not "think" the data collected over more than 400000 years of past climate.
They did not "imagine" the correlations between them: statistics did that job for them.
Their models are not software toys devoted to PC games. They picked up the data, the correlations, and predict the future with a certain margin of error. This margin itself is determined, so, again, the (really) MOST PROBABLE scenario is not rejoycing. Unless we start know to incurvate the curb. We can still do something, at least to decrease the seriousness of these predictable consequences.

You want to keep "thinking" on you own ? Just do so.

From that point I can't do anything else to convince you. Oh, maybe, just advise you to read some publications (nature, scientific american).

Funny how you guys like to refer to statistics when it supports your cause and refuse to acknowledge when it goes against you.

So what if i say that all this data CAN not be correct because the mankind lacked the precise tech. to collect it except for recent years, and statistical data does NOT mean anything?

http://www.starproductions.co.nz/sp-images/smog-chch.jpg

http://reports.eea.eu.int/2599XXX/en/acid.gif

face the facts: "modernization," in terms of effects on the environment, is a cancer...

Another definition of global warming is the cult of fearful opinions by non-scientists, lawyers, political activists and non performing citizens to take command of the whole world - their environment - and change it according to their very limited and dangerously over simplified perceptions.

Great thread, wolf eyes!

I see that the anti-environmentalists still don't understand that human activity is destroying earth's natural life sustaining resources. Yes, we have and will continue to adapt to man-made "designer" ecosystems, but is it really natural for human greed and ignorance to speed the process up?

Biodiversity is diminishing. Earth can no longer sustain certain species of plants and animals. I wonder how long it will be before the web of life can no longer sustain human life, too?

Great pictures, Dekka! All that oxygen is going to keep the nay-sayers full of their own hot air.

I suppose people are taking to the global warming/environmental decay debate like they do towards religion.

Let's be honest about what's going on, here, regardless of whether we are watching the news or reading the papers, or even doing our own research (when admittedly, sometimes we are only looking for supporting evidence for our already biased opinions...).

I have felt the effects of the change in the environment. I know what it means first-hand. The city that I live in is known for its drastic change in temperature throughout the course of a year. 4 seasons bring about a swing in regular daily temperature from as low as -40 celcius, to as high as 40 celcius. That's a huge swing, but it's normal in this part of the country. Last year, we had only 1 day that was above 20 celcius, which isn't right. This spring, the ice caps melted so much faster than normal, that areas in Alaska and northern Canada were flooded long before the normal season for that sort of thing.

This isn't a coincidence. It's not normal for pictures like the one Dekka posted, of a city that has so much haze above it that the sunlight barely gets through. Where did the haze come from? C'mon, people. Our opinions on this issue don't matter. What matters is what we see and what we experience, and the reasons for them. If smog is supposed to occur, then why does it only appear over cities? Why not over other areas? If industrial waste is ok, then why are rivers and lakes, as well as seas and oceans, feeling adverse effects because of that very waste?

It might not be caused by us. That is certainly a possibility. It is a possibility that all of the things that ARE happening are pure coincidence, or maybe brought on by a possible shifting of the earth's magnetic poles or some other natural force or cause. That seems to be a rather slim possibility to me, but I do submit that it is a possibility.

I also, by the same reasoning, submit that the trouble could begin with our use of the land and how we "dispose" of our waste materials, be they garbage, industrial waste, exhaust from cars and factories, etc... To me, it would seem like we're more of a cause than any natural force, but that's just my opinion, right?

Very well said, Sierradaddy!

No, it's not just your opinion: It's your imagination.

Composting and recycling is the key to reducing the need for landfills. If every city made composting and recycling mandatory, not only would it reduce the need for landfills in the future, it would save money, create jobs, and require less fuel for trucking garbage long distances.

So, why hasn't every city already adopted these two very simple rules, plus emphasize the importance of, and institute the use of solar and alternative energy sources? Oh yes: because it would take nearly a decade for an average sized city to save billions of dollars and drastically reduce green house gas emissions and conserve natural, free land space. That doesn't exactly line the greedy pockets of politicians today.

Urban Sprawl and its impact on the environment

Thanks for your relevant contributions Sierradaddy and the_way_it_is. Decent people aware of the stakes and dangers of our times.
I am really horrified at the unselfconsciousness and lazy ignorance of some conservatives posting in this board. They wouldn't even see the truth if it bite them.

the unselfcounsciousness and lazy ignorance doesn't bother me so much as the flat out blatant denial.

maybe they are afraid if they actually admit to the facts it makes them some kind of malcontented liberal hippy.

You have a point ... yes that's probably the case. I think that some of our conservatives here have a problem with their rigid psychology - it seems that they see the world as through a prism.
Sorry people - the facts may hurt but once again we are talking about data, not theories. So convenient to believe that's rhetorics in order to reassure oneself ...

The planet's climate cannot be changed by humans in a hundred lifetimes. It's path is it's own not ours.
We are all doomed. Those of you who will be lucky enough to be living in the next million years or so may need either a heavy coat or 1000 sun screen. You better get ready now.

As a Liberal, are YOU really doing ALL you can do?

USA1, how many nuclear plants are there? Nuclear weapons? What do you think would happen to the planet's climate if most of them went off in a relatively short period of time?

We CAN change the climate, even within ONE lifetime, if we do enough of a damaging thing during that period. The way you speak, one would think that you believe that Earth is invincible...

I will say again and again: when scientists collect data and find correlations between them, explaining us what kind of future we are facing in the coming decades ... while some effects start to show up, such as ocean level elevation, threatening some islands ... some conservatives still hold to irrelevant personal opinions and beliefs. They are simply not interested in scientific research, labeling the results left wing agenda, load of crap and so on.

What do you want to do with that ? Apples and oranges don't add up. The only thing that may make them change their mind would be while confronted to the predicted reality - yet I am not sure they would match it with the said scientific work.

The best - or worst in the same time - thing to happen would be their grand children pointing their finger at them and telling: "you were part of those who letted that happen even though you knew". Too late unfortunately.

Adaptation is active, continuous and dynamic. Mankind has been given dominion over the other creatures. There is room for potential enhancement and also, potential destruction of the environment. But learning to adapt is not quite the same as what Earth Day advocates are politically pressuring societies to bitterly undertake. There is clear deception of how things are being managed and who got authority and what must be done.

What if inflexible and self-assuring environmental authority cannot adapt? Someday the false prophesy of the most outspoken environment radicals would be the reason for nuke warfare that Sierradaddy is pointing out. These radicals bend the truth, deny the facts and deliberately avoid correction and dialogue. Environment advocacy has become a science strategically and systematically influencing societies to create new markets for environmental wares and services that add a new kind of “tax” burden to most human activities. Note that environmental science in this regard is more of a social or political science rather than a natural science – which is deceptively deemed as motive for concern only. Environmental power is exercised through instantaneous media noise that projects fearful scenarios and advocacy-publicity stunts that expedite national decision making or portray successful but (useless) expensive ventures that help the cause.

Let us be honest here. A great many environmental concerns dictate and impose on a borderless world a ruthless business agenda rather than genuine care. Many a national leader has succumbed to false prophesy and this is not helping world peace and stability.

I think I will let myself decide, rather than someone else, if it is genuine care for nature that moves me to tears every time I'm surrounded by the purest and most beautiful forms of life on earth. My instinct is to protect it. That doesn't come from politics or a book: That comes from within.

Science, logic and history do offer evidence, but people choose not to accept the evidence provided. That's where perspective falls into the equation. The lack of evidence is solely based on perception, not truth. Evidence is available that supports the claims made by scientists, who conduct research on the environment based on the logic inherent in the scientific method. The only thing that would nullify this evidence is the perspective with which it is viewed. People like you who refute the evidence obviously harbour a different perspective on the matter than do people like me, who accept the possibility that even with the money-grubbing corporations who look to take advantage of the crisis, there could still be truth behind the evidence.

I think we have to take care of our environment, however some if not most measures currently employed by the governments of our countries don't help much and eat a lot of money, both from businesses and the working people. For example, recycling certain materials like plastic bottles - the biggest polluter due to some chemical elements found in them, even with all the restrictions already in place - is very costly to companies producing goods and companies doing the actual recycling. Raising gasoline prices doesn't stop people from driving but effectively empties their bank accounts and credit cards.

Alternative energy is costly and inefficient. A wind power generator costs a million bucks and produces tiny bit of energy. Existing hydro resources are already being used and they also have some adverse effects on the environment. Solar generators, as far as i know, are only good to power calculators. Nuclear reactors are powerfull but have a very big problem of storing used nuclear fuel - recent research on it showed that building an underground storage for used fuel would take 60 years and i dont remember how many billions of dollars to complete, before first "burials" can take place - and they are very costly themselves to operate and dismantle. However, this doesnt stop them to be only real alternative to power stations running on oil.

In the future, there might be the possibility of building a working fusion reactor but we don't even know for sure if the idea of using "Sun reactor" on Earth is realistic.

I want to hear your thoughts on the subject of solutions to environmental problems, no matter how big or small they are.

Explanation

Jah, jah, und half of Caulifonia is going to zink into zee ocean. I've been hearing zat one for at least as long as I've been alive. At least. Particularly if I don't recycle my plastic vasser bottles.

.........it probably is.......

but that has nothing to do with global warming, that has to do with plate tectonics......

and it's not gonna happen for, what, thousands of years or something?

if you had actually paid attention to what people said, Joseph, you might know that.

[edited]

The only problem with your self-correcting market idea is that it doesnt work. SUV's today are the most popular vehicle, and they get horrible gas mileage. Gas mileage in general has actually declined in the past five years, unforgivable. I agree that information and education are key to solving the problem long term, however. The environment is, quite simply, the most important issue to our future. Our children can forgive us if we leave them in debt, as we forgave our fathers, but if we leave them an un-inhabitable world, we codemn them.

Facts are facts, data are what they are, correlations between them are proven.
I am sorry but this is an arbitrator in such a debate. When one would say it doesn't fit with the Scriptures, such other would conveniently dismiss it by labeling it left wing political propaganda crap ... in the end science is here to give the missing elements of TRUTH.
And, sorry people, but these elements do not plead in favor of a natural state of things regarding the alarming degradation of this Earth's environment.

Clearly mankind, and more particularly inhabitants of developed countries, are responsible of an increasing danger threateneing all of us.

Conservatives, I would just ask you to read, listen, get informed through scientific independent sources. You should learn that scientific results do not suppport your views. Definitely.

I don't even think Curley believes in God.

Just because I'm not a warhawk he has labelled me as a liberal (which is absurd) so he immediately disagrees with everything I say.

Nobody has yet answered to my post.

What are the solutions?

I think that overall, we know what we should be directing our society and our resources towards. Cleaner and environmentally safer fuels, new industries to replace the archaic and environmentally dangerous ones, more stability and responsibility in governments and large corporations (therefore, the economy in general), so that intense competition is minimized and the greed factor is held at bay in some form or fashion, a renewed and genuine respect for the planet that sustains us all, and new industrial and commercial methods and standards that offer us the same types of benefits and comforts, with less-damaging effects on our planet and on ourselves.

It's great that we've advanced so far so fast, I think, but at the same time, I think we've advanced in some directions for worse, not for better (although it might initially seem so...).

I guess I didn't really answer much...

I think that we know in general what directions we SHOULD be going in, but we're so entrenched in appreciation for the things that we have, whether they are detrimental to our future or not, that we hold on to them instead of letting them go for the best interests of our planet and our future. I think that it's up to scientists and inventors to make the gadgets that will offer us the alternatives we're hoping for, and it's up to big-ass corporations and governments to not step in and crush the competition, but allow for these innovations to have a chance at taking hold in the marketplace.

But isn't Japan a sheltered economy, in that outside businesses and major corporations are largely kept outside of japan's borders to allow for a stronger interior economy?

If that's true, then can we really use Japan's carmakers as an example, because they have an unfair advantage within their own country, even though they also export and compete outside their own borders? In other words, they aren't fully integrated into the very self-correcting market model that we're generally referring to...

The truth is, in post WW2 Japan, US ideas and companies greatly influenced Japanese production technology that led to major quality improvements. Business books document outstanding support from US educators and professionals who were not even listened to in their home country but highly esteemed by the Japanese.

The Japanese carmakers are in fact participated (capital-wise) by US car manufacturers. Isuzu is partly owned by GM, Mitsubishi, by Chrysler and Mazda by Ford .... if I am not mistaken. The Toyota chairman who was quoted to caution against market change and technology sharing is probably speaking about their hybrid cars that hit the market faster than its competitors. Who knows, eventually such engine technology could be opened up rather than made to become proprietary and then be available in the market in many product forms.

Imagine, a hybrid engine could fit into an SUV that is not even Toyota nor brand new, but available as an upgrade by independent suppliers. That is an interesting consumer environmental development.

The new Lexus 400h which is an SUV running hybrid engine and getting much better gas mileage than other Lexus SUVs, with all the luxuriness you would expect. (Lexus is a division of Toyota producing luxury vehicles; the 400h is derived from RX330)