Big Decline in Insects: 'Ecological Armaggedon'

#51
#51
LouderVol said:
so subsidies over regulation?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Or tax breaks.


Or one thing i could tolerate if we want to add certain types of regulation, we need to remove some existing and less necessary regulations to offset the economic harm.
 
#52
#52
LSU-SIU said:
Lower emissions of what?



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

That's a tough stretch for people who build on river banks and see them as fixed - or shorelines that apparently never change. Or the ones who build on panoramic mountain views without thought as to how the mountain came to be or the forces that make the Smokies look different from the Rockies. Somehow land bridges explaining population movement work in the human mind without deeper connotation, but the thought of a little sea level change around a city is catastrophic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
n_huffhines said:
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).
Click to expand...

Encourage what? I keep asking these simple question because until they are answered, anything that follows doesn't really mean much. Okay, so we are saying solar and wind, are you talking independent system, are you talking grid with solar/wind. What do you mean by encourage?

As far as my own opinion, nuclear power is one of the craziest freaking ideas ever - meltdowns which could effect huge amounts of land mass/people plus nuclear waste with no idea what to do with it. I am not sure I have a plan to get rid of nuclear but it would probably take a huge effort over 50+ years and probably the only realistic idea is more fossil fuel.
 
#54
#54
FLVOL_79 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If environmentalists REALLY cared about the planet they’d stop using resources and kill themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#55
#55
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

The next Obama is going to steal a Trumpism and build a fence to keep out pollution to show that Dims are more concerned with environmental matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
LSU-SIU said:
Encourage what? I keep asking these simple question because until they are answered, anything that follows doesn't really mean much. Okay, so we are saying solar and wind, are you talking independent system, are you talking grid with solar/wind. What do you mean by encourage?
Click to expand...

You're thinking too narrowly. You're looking specifically for a solution pertaining to the supply of energy when the solution could be something else entirely....like instead of raising cattle for meat, we could just make meat in a Petri dish. That would solve the methane problem.

I don't pretend to have answers. I am saying research can help provide us with the answer(s).

As far as my own opinion, nuclear power is one of the craziest freaking ideas ever - meltdowns which could effect huge amounts of land mass/people plus nuclear waste with no idea what to do with it. I am not sure I have a plan to get rid of nuclear but it would probably take a huge effort over 50+ years and probably the only realistic idea is more fossil fuel.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is probably the best option, TBH. It sounds scary but the science says otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#57
#57
n_huffhines said:
That would solve the methane problem.
Click to expand...

What methane problem?

Nuclear is probably the best option, TBH. It sounds scary but the science says otherwise.
Click to expand...

I see in your science books Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. don't exist.

So all those spent nuclear rods, we can just drop off those at your house?

Now I do admit, it would probably take 30-50 years to get rid of nuclear power in this country, it would take a fairly big effort but it is possible. I certainly think its a more immediate issue than some made up carbon story. The carbon stuff came up because they had to somehow find a problem which was not solvable - so that tax credit could be used for control.
 
Last edited:
#59
#59
AM64 said:
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 ...
Click to expand...

Abortion clinics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
LSU-SIU said:
I see in your science books Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. don't exist.
Click to expand...

31 people died at Chernobyl. 573 at Fukushima. 0 Died at Three Mile Island.

20,000 Chinese coal miners die each year....

About 20 American coal miners each year...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#61
#61
I bet some of you eco nerds that use doggie bags to scoop up from your dog or cats dispose them in the garbage. That's not helping the environment at all so what's the point?
 
#62
#62
LouderVol said:
Abortion clinics?
Click to expand...

Something way before that point, but nobody's going to tackle the issue. Just imagine, for starters, any free world government taking the Catholic church to task over birth control. And consider the mess that attitude has made of all of this hemisphere south of the US.
 
#63
#63
LSU-SIU said:
What methane problem?



I see in your science books Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. don't exist.

So all those spent nuclear rods, we can just drop off those at your house?

Now I do admit, it would probably take 30-50 years to get rid of nuclear power in this country, it would take a fairly big effort but it is possible. I certainly think its a more immediate issue than some made up carbon story. The carbon stuff came up because they had to somehow find a problem which was not solvable - so that tax credit could be used for control.
Click to expand...

Three Mile Island? You serious?

and they can reuse spent fuel rods, it just takes another huge capital investment. some numbers I have read is 2x the cost of the plant itself.

and just turning off nuclear doesn't solve your issue.
 
#64
#64
n_huffhines said:
31 people died at Chernobyl. 573 at Fukushima. 0 Died at Three Mile Island.

20,000 Chinese coal miners die each year....

About 200 American coal miners each year...
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily have to do with immediate death. You literally have square miles which humans can't live in.. furthermore exposure to long-term radiation is also deadly which can impact people around the globe. Again, can we just drop off the spent nuclear rods at your house?

Ruined Chernobyl nuclear plant will remain a threat for 3,000 years | Miami Herald

I believe they will probably have to build another 10 containment vessels by the time it MIGHT be somewhat safe. The current one will only last 100 years. Yeah, real safe.

Fukushima is going to be a much bigger problem and all the time radioactive material is going out to sea.
 
#65
#65
Last edited:
#66
#66
LSU-SIU said:
It doesn't necessarily have to do with immediate death. You literally have square miles which humans can't live in.. furthermore exposure to long-term radiation is also deadly which can impact people around the globe. Again, can we just drop off the spent nuclear rods at your house?

Ruined Chernobyl nuclear plant will remain a threat for 3,000 years | Miami Herald

I believe they will probably have to build another 10 containment vessels by the time it MIGHT be somewhat safe. The current one will only last 100 years. Yeah, real safe.

Fukushima is going to be a much bigger problem and all the time radioactive material is going out to sea.
Click to expand...

If we're counting indirect deaths, there is loads of research linking anywhere from 200k to 6m deaths per year to air pollution, so let's factor that.

Here is what the wildlife in Chernobyl looks like. If you're expecting 3-eyed monsters, you'll be sadly disappointed. The animal population is thriving there.

news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#67
#67
AM64 said:
Something way before that point, but nobody's going to tackle the issue. Just imagine, for starters, any free world government taking the Catholic church to task over birth control. And consider the mess that attitude has made of all of this hemisphere south of the US.
Click to expand...

Has the free world struggled with extramarital sex, lgtbqyz or anything else the Catholic Church doesn't like? seems like if the church had its way population problems wouldn't be the same. or at least there would be a family to take care of the children.
 
#68
#68
#69
#69
And this from today:

Global pollution kills millions and threatens 'survival of human societies' | Environment | The Guardian

World population growth is slowing pretty significantly--but still there are some 7 billion people on the planet now (I think I said 9 billion above) and it is projected that there will be 8.4 billion heads on Mother Earth by 2030. Seven to nine billion people do a lot of damage to the planet---especially in developing countries but also in developed countries, and yet we have conservative/GOP pols who pretend pollution and environmental degradation is not a problem--because, well, keeping their cushy job in congress with the help of campaign donations from big corporations that pollute--is very more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
LouderVol said:
Not if we start recycling them. we get that half life down to about 500 years. and thats tech right now. Fusion might also be an answer for the fission problem, not just replacing but also using the fuel fission can't.
Click to expand...

Who is "we", and no there is no technology to help when these things implode. Wow, 500 years - I feel better.
 
#71
#71
armchair said:
And this from today:

Global pollution kills millions and threatens 'survival of human societies' | Environment | The Guardian

World population growth is slowing pretty significantly--but still there are some 7 billion people on the planet now (I think I said 9 billion above) and it is projected that there will be 8.4 billion heads on Mother Earth by 2030. Seven to nine billion people do a lot of damage to the planet---especially in developing countries but also in developed countries, and yet we have conservative/GOP pols who pretend pollution and environmental degradation is not a problem--because, well, keeping their cushy job in congress with the help of campaign donations from big corporations that pollute--is very more important.
Click to expand...

Why are you on the internet - shouldn't you be living in a hut in the woods or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#72
#72
The UN needs to hold another one of it's famous summits to discuss humankind's impact on the environment. Geneva is always a good place to host such a summit. That way, the attendees, who arrive on jets, can stay in the finest 5-star hotels, toodle around town in armored SUV's, eat fine food and throw tons of it away, and have meetings and seminars about how the US isn't doing enough to stop climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#73
#73
armchair said:
And this from today:

Global pollution kills millions and threatens 'survival of human societies' | Environment | The Guardian

World population growth is slowing pretty significantly--but still there are some 7 billion people on the planet now (I think I said 9 billion above) and it is projected that there will be 8.4 billion heads on Mother Earth by 2030. Seven to nine billion people do a lot of damage to the planet---especially in developing countries but also in developed countries, and yet we have conservative/GOP pols who pretend pollution and environmental degradation is not a problem--because, well, keeping their cushy job in congress with the help of campaign donations from big corporations that pollute--is very more important.
Click to expand...

Communism still has a higher death count.
 
#75
#75
LSU-SIU said:
Who is "we", and no there is no technology to help when these things implode. Wow, 500 years - I feel better.
Click to expand...

I see you took your full dose of obtuse pills today.

We are a couple developed nations. US, France, & UK that I know specifically of. Look up Breeder Reactors. Fusion (different than breeder reactors) won't melt down and doesn't create radioactive particles. they might blow up and destroy everything around them but no lasting damage. and considering we went from a couple hundred thousand years half life to 500 years in the space of your ignorance I would think you could accept that things aren't as bad as you make them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top