Do you think the computer hurts or helps the environment? How about the internet where intelligent conversations can be had with substantive information exchanged on a click of button, increasing the number of people with knowledge? How about the technology that allows governments to better study the problem and find solutions? I do not think government can hold a candle to technology considering it needs technology to do the "great job" its doing.

Should some charts of environmental problems and technology be looked up? Steam engine, gas engine, oil extraction, chemical industries....

And as far as the internet and environmental protection go, sure, but most of that legislation I was talking about was from the early 70's.

However, technological solutions is a good topic.

Solar, electric cars, mass transit, non-mono culture farming (some old tech is good tech), recycled materials....

Should we revert back to the stone age to protect the planet? Progress typically presents new challenges to adapt too. The discovery of the gas engine has unintended consequences as with any innovation, this does not mean the innovation is bad or harmful, the nuke being a one of the few exceptions to this.

that's certainly what the folks who consider us in the sixth mass extinction event think

Dunno, but what's the difference? It's not happening voluntarily. I'd rather think about solar, electric cars, and laws which will really cut back on environmental impacts.

The utilization of fossil fuel for energy was probably the greatest boon in human history. The benefits have vastly exceeded the costs, and continue to do so. Most of us wouldn't even be able to be alive today if it weren't for it. Recognizing the truth of this doesn't mean ignoring the environmental impact of its use, but the solutions need to begin with saying "well we have this indispensible-however-dirty resource that has propelled our race into the modern age, and that's that, so let's set about moving on to constructive solutions."

War is obviously a huge one, but your example of government leasing territory to oil companies is more what I am referring to. A lot of crony-capitalistic policy props up obsolescent technology or sanctions environmental harm to take place on public land. The government does a decent job of protecting land that it deems worthy of protections, as in national parks. It does a horrific job of protecting the vast majority of the other land/space that it owns, like roads, the crust, the atmosphere, and bodies of water. It isn't really the governments' faults, its merely the concept of public land.

Someone already brought up the overfishing problem and the Great Pacific garbage Patch. Those problems solely have the concept of international waters to thank. The responsibility to care for the oceans is simply too dispersed for any one government, corporation, or person to be invested enough to take actual responsibility. Basically the oceans have no owner, and resources with no owner are bound to get squandered and abused. Nobody gives a **** about these problems except scientists, pretty much. I don't know a good solution to this, as obviously it would be a practical challenge to sell off discrete plots of fishing waters to the private sector. At the very least, the responsibility and authority to care for the oceans should be divided between the states.

i would vastly prefer cars that run on the tears of unrepentant racists, but yeah, if the false dichotomy is either we get rid of all technology and the human race survives or we carry on as we are and the entire species dies out in a few hundred years, that is a 'tough' decision.

I'm 100% with you on this and I'm all about being practical. No solution for environmental problems that causes a large decrease in the standard of living is even possible. Any law that would theoretically cause that would be repealed or ignored. It's not even worth discussing imo.

Also imo, a LOT can be done without harming the standard of living; even improving it.

Renton,

If you're getting at an AC angle for this, the concept that all the commons should be private would stop a lot of pollution if you didn't have the right to put your carbon dioxide or whatever in my air or your nitrogen runoff in my ocean.

Crony capitalism is I think a big part of why emission trading is so hard. So far anyway, I think the best government actions have been the ones from the 70's that were based on strict regulations. And now, with things like The Halliburton loophole, mega companies are working to undo those.

Totally agreed micro.

I find it very disturbing that people would rather argue about MMGW than do something to save the environment. If GW was not caused by FF, who cares, we are still destroying the planet at record speed.

You cannot call yourself an environmentalist and live in ****ing nyc. One of the most energy consuming cities. If you really care as much as these people say they do, you move out of the city and go green by yourself.

that's gotta be the silliest argument i've ever heard

it's like saying you can't call yourself an atheist if you live in the midwest

We can try to do something to fix this and look on the bright side but it's not going to change, the damage has been done. The earth's temp and oceans are even by moderate estimates going to rise significantly to put many of the biggest cities in the world below sea level by 2050. Even if we did something the entire developing world, no matter what we do will continue on cheap fossil fuels for a long time so it's all just wishful thinking imo. Not to mention we've already created a positive feedback loop from permafrost melting (not exactly sure the magnitude of this)

That's a terrible analogy

NYC is very low in energy consumption per capita.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/greenes...ou_think/2203/

i'm glad you're at least admitting you made an awful argument

This, and other sources of methane release, and melting ice and less sun reflected are scary.

But, the earth has been much colder and much warmer. It could be wishful thinking, but I think there's some strong feedback that keeps climate from running away in either direction, at least in the very long run.

It has nothing to do with per capita emission because it's still a hugely consuming city that demands insane amounts of fossil fuels. If you are a big environmentalist why would you continue to be apart of that. It's very contradicting which is the point I was making

I do not want to get off on an ACist derail in this thread because it wades too far into theory-land, and also because like 99.5% of the people in this forum have no interest in exploring that. I will say that the argument of private > public critically hinges on the enforcement of property rights, including the right not to be polluted by your next door neighbor, and the right to sue them for damages in the event that they do.

That said, you don't have to be an anarcho-capitalist to understand that a situation where each country has responsibility over a part of the oceans is a hell of a lot more amenable to environmental accountability than an impotent trans-national committee that tries to look after all of the oceans.

Guess I'll have to look into this. Another thing I've become a pessimist about is the maintaining of our large wild animal species. I just think no matter what we try our impact directly and indirectly on them will be too great as our population and the need for agricultural land increases. It's ironic that they just released that study saying we are in the midst of the 6th great extinction because I think I lost hope only a few months ago. Not quite sure why I did

NYC is the most productive city in the world. If you're gainfully employed and living there I think that it's fairly safe to say that you're doing enough good for others to justify practically any amount of energy use.

The city consumes a lot because there are a lot of people. New Yorkers disappearing would lower energy consumption, but how would moving to a rural area help?

bigger carbon footprint to travel to work and get food to your house, so yeah, kinda like renton's solution only somehow more idiotic on its face

I don't think you meant renton there.

And I wouldn't say the nyc idea is totally totally off base. One could live net zero energy outside the city. In practice though, city life is more energy efficient.

no, i did