|
Post by Semi-Charmed.Life on Jun 25, 2002 22:47:43 GMT -5
I find it really shocking that most people don’t really care about the environment. Recently, I have become involved in environmental issues and I have tried to spread the concern of our deteriorating environment to the public but all I get is a cold shoulder. I ask people to avoid littering and their response is “Why should I? The Earth is already ruined.” I find this both sickening and sad. How can people not care about something that affects us all? My prediction is that we, including the generations to come, will greatly regret the fact that we have failed to save our environment.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jun 25, 2002 23:00:25 GMT -5
I really tend not to care about things such as global warming, because I have not even seen convincing evidence that it exists. I mean I do not litter or anything, but the enviroment is not at the top of my priority list. I think some on the left blow the issue way out of proportion. There are much more important things going on in the world right now.
|
|
|
Post by Semi-Charmed.Life on Jun 25, 2002 23:06:07 GMT -5
^ I'm not really talking about global warming because I'm not really concerned about that.
<<There are much more important things going on in the world right now.>>
People tend to care too much about the present and the past and they forget about the future. If this lack of care about our environment continues, future generations will certainly be doomed.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jun 25, 2002 23:38:11 GMT -5
I agree with the global warming issue (that there really isn't much to it), but people who litter are just idiots. How hard is it to put something in a trash can? I respect the earth and everything, but we can't let certain things get in the way of progress. When factories first came out, do you know how much extra pollution was created in that amount of time? The earth knows how to care for itself, it will wipe us out if we are a detriment to it, although that doesn't mean we shouldn't help out or anything. I just think that many people blow it out of proportion (for example, there is more forest now than there was... I believe 30 years ago, another example, for every tree that a logger cuts down, 1-3 more are planted, etc. etc.)... I hope this post makes some sense at least. I'm kind of tired. LOL
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Jun 29, 2002 15:11:16 GMT -5
I think the environment is very important... Personally, I donate 12 euro every 3 months to greenpeace (hey... I'm only 15), and I do some 'free-donate' things on internet. I go to these sites: www.therainforestsite.com (you only have to click on a button to help, you don't have to pay anything) passport.panda.org (it's a WWF-site, you can sign online petitions and send e-mails (they write the e-mails for you ) to 'important people' about a lot of different subjects). I suggest you all go there! >>I respect the earth and everything, but we can't let certain things get in the way of progress.<< If you want future generations to be able to have any 'progress', I think the first thing you need to do is take care of the environment... what do you think the Earth will look like once almost every specie of plants and animals is extinct and once there's no soil or water left that isn't polluted etc. etc. etc.? And I really wonder why you think there is more forest now than 30 years ago... and even if that would be true... each second more than one acre of rainforest disappears. How could there be *more* rainforest in the future if that continues? ~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jun 29, 2002 15:23:45 GMT -5
If you want future generations to be able to have any 'progress', I think the first thing you need to do is take care of the environment... what do you think the Earth will look like once almost every specie of plants and animals is extinct and once there's no soil or water left that isn't polluted etc. etc. etc.?
There have been species dying out even before we started polluting the earth heavily. It's nature, nature kills off her own species, it's not necessarily our fault. Now when we move into another species' territory and start diminshing their area, then yes, it is our fault. But otherwise, it is a natural occurance to have species die out.
And I really wonder why you think there is more forest now than 30 years ago... and even if that would be true... each second more than one acre of rainforest disappears. How could there be *more* rainforest in the future if that continues?
I'll try and find a link, but the rainforest can replenish itself. I remember watching something in history class and at home about how even though we may destroy some rainforest, it does grow back. Nature isn't as helpless as many people think.
Personally, I would not donate money to Greenpeace or any other organization like that. My mom stopped donating when they pretty much told her that she had a "responsibility" to donate her money to them.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jun 29, 2002 17:52:50 GMT -5
<<each second more than one acre of rainforest disappears. How could there be *more* rainforest in the future if that continues?>>
And just what can we do about that? I mean were not just going to roll in and force them to stop cutting down their rainforests.
|
|
|
Post by Semi-Charmed.Life on Jun 30, 2002 23:28:41 GMT -5
Donating is great but there are many other effective ways in which we can save our environment. Just be aware of your actions such as littering and using the ever so famouse 'three Rs':reduce,reuse,recycle.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jul 22, 2002 8:22:28 GMT -5
I think this goes way beyond not caring or just picking up a few bits of paper here and there. Nature pollutes just as much as man, and global warming has yet to be proven as a real problem. Scientists are not sure if global warming is caused by pollutants in the air, or natural occurances. Siberia in Russia has gone from -38 degrees F to -36 degrees F. Is that really that bad?
We use alot of paper, but the companies that make paper replace trees by the millions, replacing the trees we use. There are More trees now than when this started.
Sometimes environmental organizations do more harm than good. It was by their advise to keep the undergrowth and old growth in the forests. Now, after 100 years of this stuff collecting, and no real good rains for the last four years, this has turned to fuel for wild fires which have burned up millions of acres.
As for the rain forests being depleted, how do you tell financially strapped farmers that they cannot cut trees down to improve thier lives when they see people in Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, and parts of Asia, living like kings? They see that on TV and they want some of that. What are we going to say? "Sorry, but if you cut those down to feed your livestock, we won't have any chocolate."
Greenpeace wants us to stop using nuclear power because of the build up of waste. However, this waste generated in the past 50 years or so would fill up ONE large sports arena. To use coal or gas, one 75 watt light bulb puts seven TONS of ash into the air in one year. Now multiply that by millions.
And even if say, the United States improved the formulation of gasoline/petrol, and other measures. This would raise the cost of fuel at the cost of about a trillion dollars. This would only reduce global warming temperatures to half a degree. Not worth it.
I think it's a great idea to reuse and recycle, but they make it impossible to do. "We don't pick that stuff up, we don't take that, we don't use those." No wonder people get frustrated with the process.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Aug 10, 2002 11:03:58 GMT -5
>>There have been species dying out even before we started polluting the earth heavily. It's nature, nature kills off her own species, it's not necessarily our fault. Now when we move into another species' territory and start diminshing their area, then yes, it is our fault. But otherwise, it is a natural occurance to have species die out.<< Yes, that's right, but in the case of most species that are about to extinct it has been our fault. >>Personally, I would not donate money to Greenpeace or any other organization like that. My mom stopped donating when they pretty much told her that she had a "responsibility" to donate her money to them.<< Just because there's one dumbass working for Greenpeace doesn't mean they don't do good things. >>And just what can we do about that? I mean were not just going to roll in and force them to stop cutting down their rainforests.<< There are a lot of projects going on to protect the rainforest that could show a lot of result, as long as enough people care about it. >>As for the rain forests being depleted, how do you tell financially strapped farmers that they cannot cut trees down to improve thier lives when they see people in Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, and parts of Asia, living like kings? They see that on TV and they want some of that. What are we going to say? "Sorry, but if you cut those down to feed your livestock, we won't have any chocolate."<< As I said, there are also a lot of projects that focus on giving these people alternative things to do. >>We use alot of paper, but the companies that make paper replace trees by the millions, replacing the trees we use. There are More trees now than when this started.<< where did you hear that??? >>I think this goes way beyond not caring or just picking up a few bits of paper here and there. Nature pollutes just as much as man, and global warming has yet to be proven as a real problem. Scientists are not sure if global warming is caused by pollutants in the air, or natural occurances. Siberia in Russia has gone from -38 degrees F to -36 degrees F. Is that really that bad?<< Yes, because it does mean that the polar caps are melting and that parts of the continents could be vanished under water in a while, including half of the country I live in. ~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Aug 10, 2002 17:47:00 GMT -5
>>Yes, because it does mean that the polar caps are melting and that parts of the continents could be vanished under water in a while, including half of the country I live in.<<
Um, that is physically impossible. The mass of water on earth remains consistant, despite its molecular state. Iceburgs and polar caps are already displacing an amount of seawater equal to the the amount of water they contain. To be more precise, 90% of the polar caps are below sea level to begin with. But the density of the ice is also *less* than the density of the seawater, so that extra 10% doesn't really make a difference because the only reason the ice is more voluminous is because it expands when frozen (water is the only substance that expands when it freezes). So there would be the same amount of water. It would just have a different molecular state. Even if they all did melt, the effect on the sea level would be zero.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Aug 11, 2002 4:09:53 GMT -5
^ Even if that would be true, glaciers all over the world are melting. Sometimes 155 meters a year melt away. Billions of people depend on these glaciers for drinking water, water for irrigation, industry, transport etc. etc.
Besides, this isn't the only effect climate changes have. It's not just the temperature being a few degrees higher. Dry areas get dryer, wet areas get more precipitation, there will be more extreme weather circumstances like storms and hurricanes and the sealevel will rise.
I hope that makes it important enough to you to at least be conscious about it.
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Aug 11, 2002 12:05:04 GMT -5
I'm very skeptical about this "global warming" thing. We have only been keeping weather records for 100 years. The earth has been around for 4 billion years. Do you think that the temperature of the earth is supposed to remain 100% constant? Of course it's not. Yes, the net temperature of the earth has risen like 2 degrees over the last century. Now, how do we know that 500 year ago (for an example) the world wasn't hotter than it is now? We don't know; it's as simple as that. The temperature of our planet is going to rise and fall over time.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Aug 11, 2002 14:32:37 GMT -5
I know that there are other things that can cause global warming, like the fact that we're currently in an interglacial (?) period... BUT it's still a fact that parts of the ozon layer are disappearing because of the pollution that we are causing. And that does cause the temperature on earth to rise. The ozon layer can recover itself, but only if it gets the chance to do so.
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Aug 12, 2002 11:42:22 GMT -5
I've always wondered why the holes in the ozone layer are centered over Earth's poles and not over the cities pumping all the pollutants supposedly eating away at the ozone layer. Why are there not holes over Detroit, New York, and Los Angeles for example? Even allowing for the Earth's rotation, the holes wouldn't shift that far north and south.
>>We use alot of paper, but the companies that make paper replace trees by the millions, replacing the trees we use. There are More trees now than when this started.<<==>> where did you hear that>>
The paper companies do this. And if they didn't, they would quickly go out of business from lack of raw material.
<<Siberia in Russia has gone from -38 degrees F to -36 degrees F. Is that really that bad?<<==> Yes, because it does mean that the polar caps are melting and that parts of the continents could be vanished under water in a while, including half of the country I live in.
-36 degrees F is somewhere around -3 C. The freezing point of water is 32°F / 0°F. I still don't see an issue.
|
|