Big Decline in Insects: 'Ecological Armaggedon'

[theFallGuy]

These nutjobs are actually hurting environmental causes. imo So, if someone wants clean streams, rivers, lakes and oceans - they have to worry about these nutjobs and their carbon crap polluting the real problems.

If you ever notice, they really don't have any plan for anything either - its about carbon credits and control of the global economy. And most of them have no problem driving around or flying around in their carbon vehicles like Al Gore. Al Gore, if he really cared would go live out in the woods. Hey, I give him credit, its made him rich.

The evil people are the ones who get rich running a business and not paying their fair share.

 

[AirVol]

I feel like burning some old tires today. Pyromaniac and whiskey is a great combo.

 

[roosterjbh]

Armchair, good luck getting anybody here to take you seriously on any of this stuff, especially when you say nonsense like "regulation doesn't hamper the economy".

The scary thing is the research comes from Germany, not the US. Europeans seem to be more environmentally conscious. What can be done if "ecological Armageddon" exists there?

Huff, curious on how most Libertarians feel on climate change. What I gather is most feel it is real and potential issue, but not worth the financial impact/regulations needed at least in the immediate.

 

[n_huffhines]

Huff, curious on how most Libertarians feel on climate change. What I gather is most feel it is real and potential issue, but not worth the financial impact/regulations needed at least in the immediate.

This is probably one of the few issues where libertarian opinions vary widely. Some think it's a hoax and aren't worried about it at all. Most probably just want the government to leave it alone and allow for markets and charities to solve it.

I'll speak for myself and say that I am concerned about it, while simultaneously I have a healthy skepticism of the projections we see from the scientific community. I have a hard time believing we know what the climate will do when there are so many unknown factors at play. Most of all, I am skeptical that the government can solve this problem.

All that being said, I think a good compromise for libertarians and environmentalists would be to have the federal government fund research and subsidize green activity, while agreeing not to implement controls on the marketplace. I think it's foolish to try to regulate top down (anymore than we already do) when we don't even know if it will make a difference.

 

[LSU-SIU]

subsidize green activity, while agreeing not to implement controls on the marketplace

What is a "green activity"?

This is the problem is the words "climate change" by themselves really don't mean much without a solid definition. Pick a definition and the problems will easily be shown. Pollution on the other hand, generally can be measured.

 

[n_huffhines]

What is a "green activity"?

For example, having lower emissions than your industry standard.

This is the problem is the words "climate change" by themselves really don't mean much without a solid definition. Pick a definition and the problems will easily be shown. Pollution on the other hand, generally can be measured.

WTF

 

[roosterjbh]

What is a "green activity"?

This is the problem is the words "climate change" by themselves really don't mean much without a solid definition. Pick a definition and the problems will easily be shown. Pollution on the other hand, generally can be measured.

I assume he means renewable/green energy. Appreciate it Huff, generally agree with your last paragraph on some things that can be done.

 

[LSU-SIU]

For example, having lower emissions than your industry standard.

Lower emissions of what?

WTF

Well, its pretty simply, "climate change" define it. I mean the climate has been changing since the Earth was formed in theory.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I assume he means renewable/green energy.

There is nothing green about energy - I know building a solar panel system right now, brother has had one for nearly a decade. The amount of pollution and energy to build such a system far outweigh the benefits generally, especially when we get into batteries.

Of course, most of the welfare for "green energy" just really goes to the millionaire/billionaires of the world - there really is no plan to get rid of fossil fuel products.

 

[n_huffhines]

Lower emissions of what?

pollutants

Well, its pretty simply, "climate change" define it. I mean the climate has been changing since the Earth was formed in theory.

Despite your horrendous grammar, I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is why you are saying this to me? It doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

 

[roosterjbh]

There is nothing green about energy - I know building a solar panel system right now, brother has had one for nearly a decade. The amount of pollution and energy to build such a system far outweigh the benefits generally, especially when we get into batteries.

Of course, most of the welfare for "green energy" just really goes to the millionaire/billionaires of the world - there really is no plan to get rid of fossil fuel products.

Lol alrighty bud

 

[LSU-SIU]

pollutants

Which ones?

 

[n_huffhines]

Which ones?

kick rocks, time waster

 

[LSU-SIU]

Lol alrighty bud

You have a plan, I will show you why it won't work as intended.

Most of the "green energy" in this country is still hydro from dams built 80-100 years ago. Solar and wind have been around for 40-50 years and get huge tax incentives and it doesn't matter.

Natural gas = 33.8%
Coal = 30.4%
Nuclear = 19.7%
Renewables (total) = 14.9%
Hydropower = 6.5%
Wind = 5.6%
Biomass = 1.5%
Solar = 0.9%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Petroleum = 0.6%
Other gases = 0.3%
Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%
Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4

There is no plan in anyone's lifetime on this forum and probably even their children's children.

 

[LSU-SIU]

kick rocks, time waster

I think you are just saying something you heard from some other source but you didn't even know what it means.

 

[n_huffhines]

I think you are just saying something you heard from some other source but you didn't even know what it means.

Right, I don't know what "pollutants" and "emissions" mean. You act like these are difficult concepts. You might as well ask me what the sky is or what a factory is. I just learned about these fancy words that grade school kids know in a sciencey article thingy.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Right, I don't know what "pollutants" and "emissions" mean.

I must assume you don't because I have had to ask a few times now.

Hint: the reason I asked is because they had to move to "carbon" emissions because now other pollutants have been greatly reduced whether from your car or from a coal power plant.

Your lawn mower probably puts out 20 times of any type of emissions compared to your car.

 

[n_huffhines]

I must assume you don't because I have had to ask a few times now.

Technically, you haven't asked one time. You asked me "which" pollutants I'm talking about. I'm talking about a broad concept with rooster, so it doesn't really matter. You can quibble in your own head over which pollutants we would like to less of. You're trying to get me to be more specific until you can find something to disagree with. You're an exceptional troll.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Technically, you haven't asked one time. You asked me "which" pollutants I'm talking about. I'm talking about a broad concept with rooster, so it doesn't really matter. You can quibble in your own head over which pollutants we would like to less of. You're trying to get me to be more specific until you can find something to disagree with. You're an exceptional troll.

I think you are a person that doesn't think for himself and not because you disagree with me - you are kind of like those NFL players. Oh, we kneel this week, okay boss, oh, we sit this week, okay boss, oh, we hide in the toilet, okay boss, oh, we mancuddle on the 50 yard line, okay boss.

 

[hndog609]

Technically, you haven't asked one time. You asked me "which" pollutants I'm talking about. I'm talking about a broad concept with rooster, so it doesn't really matter. You can quibble in your own head over which pollutants we would like to less of. You're trying to get me to be more specific until you can find something to disagree with. You're an exceptional troll.

Not wanting to get in between something else but what do you think are the priorities? Personally I'm pretty big on clean water being #1.

 

[LouderVol]

For example, having lower emissions than your industry standard.



WTF

Interesting hearing this coming from you, how much should the government step in on this? I know you said no top down regulations, but how else do you control it? The market wants cheap, cheap is not clean.

I can tell you right now pretty everything that goes into the built world in the US creates lower emissions than the worldwide industry standard. A lot of times it isn't even close. Especially when it comes to tree/wood products, Europe comes to us, specifically in the South East.

So is this standard applied to just US companies industry standard or not? If it is world wide do you try and keep out the harmful products from elsewhere?

does it apply to shipping as well? does that get taken into your consideration?

trying to figure out how far you will lean as a staunch libertarian.

 

[n_huffhines]

Interesting hearing this coming from you, how much should the government step in on this? I know you said no top down regulations, but how else do you control it? The market wants cheap, cheap is not clean.

I'm saying don't try to "control" it. I'm saying if the government is going to act, do it in non-invasive ways, like encouraging/funding the scientific community to solve it and reward good behavior (as opposed to punishing industry).

 

[FLVOL_79]

Here's a story from today. Rivers, lakes and oceans are under enormous pressure from pollution (wastewater runoff), overpopulation and over-fishing, etc. It is of course well documented that there are massive quantities of plastic in the oceans. All of the wildlife in these bodies of water are equally under threat. The Great Barrier Reef is rapidly dying. Polar bears are in dire shape now because of the melting ice caps and could disappear altogether. It goes on and on and on....drought and general climate warming seem to get worse by the year.

We in the United States should be environmental leaders--and we have been--but when Republicans are in office we go backwards. I cannot fathom how any person could not be a rabid environmentalist--could not want to protect our precious planet. But, let's be candid, Republicans/conservatives the biggest, most narrow-minded tools on the Earth--always waving off environmental protection in their zeal to throw up another cheap housing development on what was once farmland; always eager to roll back water- and air-quality and other environmental regulations so some industry won't be inconvenienced. Trump has installed staunch anti-environmentalist as head of the EPA--an utterly disgusting move. In the near future--sooner than we think--extreme measures will have to be taken to literally save this planet for humanity because the ignorance and short-sightedness and corruption of people like Scott Pruitt. Trump's Interior Secretary wants to open more land in national parks and national monuments to drilling.

The conservatives who are always yodeling about how environmental regulations hamper the economy are wrong. And even if it were true, we should all be fine with it as, in my view, there is nothing more important than protecting the environment and the planet. Think how much the planet has been degraded in just, say, the last 100 years--massively degraded. Think of what the situation will be like 100 or even 200 years from now. We should be the global leader in environmental protection--but conservatives would rather make a buck, and thus we have the president of China taking a shot at Trump in his speech two days ago on the issue of global warming.

World's deepest lake crippled by putrid algae, poaching and pollution | World news | The Guardian

Everytime you post on this message board you are helping to kill the planet. You do realize that right? Your A/C? Killing the planet. Your Toyota Yaris? Killing the planet. Eating food from the grocery store? Killing the planet. Hot water heater? Killing the planet.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm saying don't try to "control" it. I'm saying if the government is going to act, do it in non-invasive ways, like encouraging/funding the scientific community to solve it and reward good behavior (as opposed to punishing industry).

so subsidies over regulation?

 

[AM64]

So what's your solution to overpopulation.

It's absolutely incredible that when anything environmental comes up the root cause - overpopulation and exponentially increasing population - are completely ignored.

Clearing forested lands apparently has to do with some primal human urge to kill and destroy and nothing to do with timber, population expansion, or food. Increasing trash has to do with packaging but not more people using products. Power usage has to do with waste not larger populations. Traffic congestion and associated fuel inefficiencies somehow have to do with improperly designed infrastructure and poor personal habits/choices rather than the increase in cars using the roads ... the offshoot of increasing population. It's really pretty amazing the human capacity to ignore the elephant sitting next to us, and to avoid anything approximating critical reasoning.

Now if there was money or political gain to be made in population control or even studies ...