Topic awaiting preservation: America eats itself (and us)

Interesting article on environmental damage in the States (which as it is the most important country in the world affects us all):

quote:

---

America produces a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, the population has risen by 100 million since 1970 and when an area three times the size of Britain was recently opened up for mining, drilling, logging and road building, no one took much notice. What does the Bush administration do? It ignores all attempts to curb environmental damage. In a major investigation that took him from the Salton Sea in California to Crooked Creek in Florida, Matthew Engel reports on how America is ravaging the planet.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1069883,00.html

There are also a set of investigations into specific areas linked to from the bottom of the article.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Yes....yes. Somethings do get 'shoved into the background'...such as the Environment, when danger hits close to home.

*shrugs*

Personally, I think the damage being done to the World's Oceans are far, far more serious a matter...but as long as the Oceans are not lobbing bombs, I hardly think it will get the attention it deserves, until it is too late.

WS:

quote:

---

but as long as the Oceans are not lobbing bombs

---

Ever read 'The Kraken Wakes' by John Wyndham?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

"America produces a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions.

[...]

This brings us to the third factor: the Bush administration, the first government in modern history which has systematically disavowed the systems of checks and controls that have governed environmental policy since it burst into western political consciousness a generation ago. It would be ludicrous to suggest that Bush is responsible for what is happening to the American environment. The crisis is far more deep-seated than that, and the federal government is too far removed from the minutiae of daily life.

[...]

Earlier this year, just before he was fired as environment minister, Michael Meacher gave a speech in Newcastle, saying: "There is a lot wrong with our world. But it is not as bad as people think. It is actually worse." He listed five threats to the survival of the planet: lack of fresh water, destruction of forest and crop land, global warming, overuse of natural resources and the continuing rise in the population. What Meacher could not say, or he would have been booted out more quickly, was that the US is a world leader in hastening each of these five crises, bringing its gargantuan appetite to the business of ravaging the planet. American politicians do not talk this way. Even Al Gore, supposedly the most committed environmentalist in world politics, kept quiet about the subject when chasing the presidency in 2000.

[...]

The attitude of the White House to global warming was summed up by the online journalist Mickey Kaus as: "It's not true! It's not true! And we can't do anything about it!"

---

... Yes, it isn't very brilliant, is it ? Nowadays, America is indeed, for a good part, polluting the world. But there is no need to stigmatize America though, it's an human problem, not an American one. Not even a "rich countries" problem. In twenty year, when China will be richer, one billion people will own cars. All the polution America is producing nowadays will be a fart of fly next to it. But this is not an excuse for Mr Bush's policy. I guess the USA want to stay competitive, to the detriment of nature. Forcing indutries to use particle filters would save 50% of the CO2 emited, but they would loose some benefits. Financing a lasting develoment would be cleaner, but not as interesting economically. In fact, almost nothing is done nowadays about ecology because it would reduce elsewhere the benefits. Do you have the feeling that something is done for our world ? No, simply because nothing is done. Oh yes, sometimes we can hear about a governement subsidising the planting of a few thousands trees... And the advertising about this "ecologic measure" cost more paper than it will ever create. Etc, etc... This lack of concern for our planet, this lack of concern for the future generations, this everlasting greedy quest for money is utterly disgusting me, because it shows what is really inside each human : selfishness.

I agree wholeheartedly with MS. America happens to be the bad guy at the moment because a combination of factors including technology/population/lifestyle. Call it an American problem and you deny the reality that this could, in fact, be anyone's work. It is, as MS said, a human problem.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

I am going to admit a major bias I have. When I was younger I bought in to the environmentalist agenda almost completely. I am almost like one of those ex-Catholics who has fallen far from the tree as a form of backlash. I feel the environmental movement are far too willing to twist the facts to achieve their goals and I feel betrayed by that.

What I should do is base my opinions on sound scientific information and come to an informed position. I admit I am not up on all that info. What I have read has me thinking the warnings are exagerrated and politically motivated and I don't trust them.

Does global warming exist? The consensus says yes but there is no clear data that I am aware of that proves it is primarily or even close to primarily caused by human action. I'm sure we contribute... but how much? Why don't I ever hear the benefits of global warming? There are some, you know. Wouldn't a balanced unbiased view provide more of a presentation like that?

I have also expressed a concern about the effects of cutting back energy consumption. I want to hear an analysis as to how a global depression resulting in massive human suffering compares to the effects of continued energy consumption. I rarely hear that mentioned by environmentalist propoganda. If it is mentioned, it is simply dismissed as not likely to happen but that seems incredibly not well thought out.

So if you are basing your views on sound scientific data, Emps, then more power to you and I will be open to reading it and trying to digest it fairly.

. . : slicePuzzle

MoonShadow, I totally agree with what you said.

Bugs:

What exactly do you think is the "political motivation" behind "environmentalist propaganda"? This is difficult to see for me. I understand how you can think the environmentalists are wrong about several things, but what could be their motivation to deliberately spread misinformation?

And second, if you say that the human influence on global warming is not known well enough to do something about it, I´d like to see a lot of proof for your theory that cutting back energy consumption would lead to a worldwide depression.

In the US especially, disinformation policies are the "in thing" these days for accomplishing any goal, no matter how sanctimonious. The thought that environmental concerns might be jumping on that bandwagon doesn't surprise me in the least. I take everything I hear with a grain of salt.

It's not just the global warming trend, but air quality, water quality, longevity of our farmlands... all of these things are suffering. Yet because the big violators fund the right campaigns, these things are ignored more and more frequently. I'd exagerrate the dangers too if it would get someone's attention!


Cell 617

MW, bodhi23 really says it well. Take the anti-smoking lobby here in the US for instance. They have embarked on a very misleading campaign about second hand smoking to the point where I would say they are actually lying with the statistics... BUT it's for a good cause... right? So I assume they think it's justified to bend the figures if they can get people to cut back on smoking.

I am very much opposed to that sort of campaign. I value truth and honesty far more than I value fewer people choosing to smoke.

In a similar way, I believe many enviornmental groups put up a skewed view of the facts as they are known. But like I told Emps, I am really not up on this topic and so I am willing to listen and learn. But I am very reluctant to assume that just because someone is part of the Green Party, for example, that they are above any twisting of the truth to get me to agree with their position.

I do not have proof positive that we would be looking at a global depression but I believe that the economy is a very fragile thing. I also believe that much of the world's economy is tied to the US economy. Just take 9/11 as an example. It hit just after we were already dealing with the slow down of the economy from the bursting of the dotCom bubble. Our economy has been suffering ever since and it is just now starting to show a real pick up.

I am also reminded of hearing excerpts a few years ago from Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, juxtaposed to excerpts from the Unabomber's manifesto. It was virtually impossible to tell the difference. So here you have a left wing extremist willing to blow people up with mail bombs spouting very similar views as do some of the country's leading environmental advocates.

There are other groups, such as Earth First (I think it was them), who would place steel rods into trunks of trees in order to break the chain saws of the loggers which was potentially very dangerous for the loggers. And just recently, we had a few Hummer dealerships firebombed here in Southern California by an environemtalist group opposed to us driving SUVs.

Now I know that the actions of some extremists don't mean that all environmentalists are like that. I'm not suggesting that. I am far more concerned about the "well meaning" types who think that the issue is so important they can "bend" things slightly here and there to get more people to follow.

I hope that helps explain some of my concerns better.

. . : slicePuzzle