Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Wow. Just wow.

I mean, there it all is in a nutshell.

I can't think of anything else in the world that would have proven my point better than that, so I thank you.

Given that you have to feed livestock vast amounts of food, and if you remember the energy pyramid from junior high science class you would also remember that you need to feed the livestock far more plant materials than what energy you gain from the livestock. But that really wasn't what your post was about was it. It was about calling me a hypocrite. By following my own ethos, you took that as an insult to your own morality and your gut reaction was to tear me down. Which is exactly what right wingers do with all environmentalists... We say "conserve" and the right wingers say "well hold your breath so you don't use any oxygen".

right..anyways continue to live in your misinformed world...
not sure where that political stuff came from....but i guess that says it all

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

right..anyways continue to live in your misinformed world...

That's it? That's all you got? "You're misinformed". Back in high school did you punch people and then run away?

I think the object here is to discuss things. So if one says "you are misinformed" you at least need to give some kind of hint about what....

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

That's it? That's all you got? "You're misinformed". Back in high school did you punch people and then run away?

I think the object here is to discuss things. So if one says "you are misinformed" you at least need to give some kind of hint about what....

Just a reponse to all those assumptions you made in your retort...

i was just poking fun at the untreated animal waste comment, thought that was funny....


then you went on some weird tirade of overreaction....

strange days indeed

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, this is an issue that bothers the bejebus out of me.

I don't have a car for environmental reasons.
I am a vegetarian for environmental reasons.
I have had my home evaluated to reduce electrical and gas consumption.

And I know that anything I do will be for nought because there are way too many politicians who are ignoring the problem.

And the people who are ignoring the problem will be long dead before the major consequences are felt.

I can plant failsafe bombs set to go off in 2208 and be fairly certain that I won't be up on murder charges. Because the people I kill will only be dead long after I am. I haven't read that "is time travel possible" thread cause I think we really need it.

For the monkeys that we are, we really can't be expected to think about consequences that will happen 100 years from now. That monkey inside of us is far too concerned with hookers and blow.

And I am labelled a fear-mongerer?

It is incredible the amount of resources - energy, water, land - required for a meat-based diet.

Better hunt down and extinguish every carnivore then...because all those do the exact same thing. Damn Great Whites!!!

Im gonna go eat a big old steak...and contribute even more to global warming than I already do!!!


Hilarious.

[Azure]

Lets not even go towards the 'heath' side of the issue. You know, meat has protein, human beings need protein to grow properly and fuel our muscles.

But hey....each to their own. Just don't force that vegetarian crap on me.

[sadora]

Originally Posted by Table 5

don't listen to al gore. do listen to the scientists who study this for a living and agree with him.

So don't listen to Al Gore because he's talking about the same thing most scientists agree on. I know Al Gore has got a bad rep around here but this statement just makes me giggle.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Better hunt down and extinguish every carnivore then...

now that would require some energy
and be vary vary bad for the enviroment

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Table 5

and yet somehow politicians and lobbyists are more informed on a matter than a scientist who has been working with this subject all his life?

Did I say that? I don't think so. Odd though how a politician got a Nobel Prize for his "contribution"

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't have a car for environmental reasons.
I am a vegetarian for environmental reasons.
I have had my home evaluated to reduce electrical and gas consumption

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy
I cant tell if this post is serious. Youre a vegetarian for the environment? Wowzas.

Absolutely.

It is incredible the amount of resources - energy, water, land - required for a meat-based diet. Add to that the incredible amount of animal waste that goes untreated into the environment, the amount of methane being produced by cattle, the amount of forest being cleared....

Cough, cough, cough, choke, you can't be serious. So you are a vegetarian, you eat grain products right, and you grow all of them just on your little windowsill in your house right? You don't buy any that might have grown on a farm? Have you actually ever been on a farm?

Maybe you should actually visit a farm that grows lentils, peas, corn, beans, etc, and actually see that clearings of land are required for those operations. I know, you probably fell off your chair from the shock of hearing that, but it is true. You need cleared land to grow the vegetable products you live on.

And fasten your seat belts because I am about to shock you again. I don't want you falling off your chair yet again and hurting yourself. Ready? Animal waste products are used to fertilize the clearings of land that vegetable products are grown on. My God, I heard your gasp from here. Take a deep breath, you will be ok.

I think one thing is 100% certain, our climate is changing. I won't even try to dispute that. I think another thing that is 100% certain is that the climate changed in the past as well. No one can deny these facts.

Where it gets dicey and touchy is answering these type of questions.

1. Is climate change solely the result of mankind? Is climate change a natural process?
2. If mankind has contributed to climate change, what portion of the change can be attributed to mankind?
3. If mankind makes changes to reduce pollution and waste, will it be sufficient to stop climate change?
4. What balance does mankind decide on - make changes at what cost?

I do as much as I can. I grew up on a small farm in Saskatchewan, I know how to use and reuse and recycle, I know how to grow a lot of my own food products, I know not to waste, I know not to pollute. And you know what else I know? I bet if times got real bad and push came to shove, I could go back to the land and survive probably better than you could.

[RougeUnderoos]

Okay so I'm no expert or a vegetarian, but I'm pretty confident that I know that growing a cows and chickens and pigs is more "resource intensive" and "environmentally destructive" than growing vegetables.

Am I wrong? I don't think so, but I'm all ears for anyone willing to convince me that a pound of beef and it's equivalent value in vegetables took the same amount of food/water/steroids/pesticides to get to my plate.

So, being confident in that, I'm also confident enough to say that a strangely boastful meat-eater telling a vegetarian that "plants use resources too you know" is much the same thing as a Hummer-driver saying "your SmartCar drives on gas too you know".

It's a pretty clever thing to say.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

That's why I like your posts Rouge. You always step in and smack around those who are using the butts as hats in such a polite and clever way!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Half? He's getting better.

I'm going to dump a litre of oil down the storm drain in his "honour"...

Originally Posted by Dan02

half?? only half??

This guy is a absolute loon, he may make some good points about climate change and the environment but usually i miss them because i am still stunned by the absolutely ######ed statement he made 30 seconds before. Just like this.

Does anyone remember anything about what he was saying except for the fact he wants politicians jailed?

Alright, alright, I'll go to 4/5ths but no further!

Essentially my point was:

His message has merit, but it gets lost behind his madness, and that dis-credits the message itself.

Whenever someone references points, statements and research done by Suzuki its immediately dismissed as drivel because people have determined that the dude is a complete nutcase!

He is actually hurting his own cause.

[photon]

I'm totally on-board for the pour-oil protest.

We should totally do this, get a 4L thing of oil, refill it with Corn Syrup or something that's biodegradable but looks like oil, and pour it down a sewer. Video tape the whole thing, post it on youtube, and say every time Suzuki gets the crazies we'll do it again.

It'd be fun just to see what kind of media coverage it would get, and see what he'd say about it.

[flamey_mcflame]

You see where Suzuki is going with this. Basically, politicians(local and world leaders) have a duty and stewardship to protect the environment(earth, water,air) from shortsighted economical and generational gains. If you agree with the IPCC on climate change. Then you basically agree that the earth is being poisoned by humans and how we consume resources and release their byproducts into the atmosphere is an ethical and legal issue.

Essentially, if a parent(s) allows his 10 yr old to smoke crack, is that legally and ethically wrong. More than likely. Now, if politicians and corporations keep allowing for the world to be poisoned, is that also legally and ethically wrong. It is not black and white but there is logical reasoning behind it.

Alas, I think most people have it wrong anyways. The environment is important. But the biggest problem that is gonna be facing this world in the next 100 years is gonna be overpopulation. But no one seems to want to address that. Al Gore in his summaries from his documentary refused to even mention the most obvious conclusion from his data. Too many people. But you have to keep ignoring the big white elephant in the room. It would hurt too many people's feelings.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Alas, I think most people have it wrong anyways. The environment is important. But the biggest problem that is gonna be facing this world in the next 100 years is gonna be overpopulation. But no one seems to want to address that. Al Gore in his summaries from his documentary refused to even mention the most obvious conclusion from his data. Too many people. But you have to keep ignoring the big white elephant in the room. It would hurt too many people's feelings.

Oddly enough HOZ and Suzuki are on the same wavelength on that one.
Overpopulation is a very small problem compared to overconsumption. Here:
http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/img/nat...-consummap.gif
The coming issue will not be overpopulation, but rather the China's and India's moving their per capita resource consumption up to that of the other countries. One simple tiny example is that the chinese used to use handkerchiefs when they had a runny nose and now they are using tissues. This has caused a paper shortage in China.

HOZ's sig: "Fretting about overpopulation is a perfect guilt-free—indeed, sanctimonious—way for “progressives” to be racists."
Suzuki at a Halifax speech I attended: "Those who go around blaming the problems of the world on "overpopulation" are shifting blame from the Western people at fault for overconsumption onto the black and brown people of the world so they don't have to feel guilty about causing environmental destruction".

Never thought those two would be on the same side about anything....

[worth]

Environmentalism has become a new religion.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by redforever

Perhaps we should jail environmentalists who fear monger?

That would be awesome!

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Overpopulation is a very small problem compared to overconsumption.

Seems to me they're one and the same problem, the world can either support a smaller population with a greater level of consumption or a large population with a smaller level of consumption.

The reason we consume as much as we do is because we enjoy the quality of life that it brings.

We're at the point now where China will probably pass the US in total resource consumption soon, yes the per captia amount is way less, but it is ignorant to say that resource over consumption doesn't have anything to do with over population.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by worth

Environmentalism has become a new religion.

Wow, that's a ice little sound bite. Where'd you dig that one up? FoxNews? The Alberta Report? Talk radio? Because they've been parrotting that for the past year. It's amazing how stupid little sound bites, based on zero fact, like that take root in the zeitgeist. I know that we have become a sound bite culture, and that is just so weak. We have become lazy in so many ways. People just don't read any more. They get all of their information from the most suspect of sources and don't bother challenging the story floated by authority. Challenge the sound bite and try to figure out why it doesn't make sense and is wrong. Here, I'll do it for you.

Environmentalism has become a new religion.

Religion is based on placing your faith is some belief that cannot be proven. Environmentalism is based on science. Science that can be predicted, tested, replicated, and proven as fact. That is not religion, that is believing in something that is tangible, something that IS happening today. You may choose to disbelieve the facts, but that is your choice. That would make your belief closer to aderence to a religion.

[worth]

sure thing lanny

Edit: listen, my point was not to say environmental issues aren't important, rather that many people have taken this bull by the horns are leading the movement into a form of fanaticism. This topic has become so hot that people are willing to not have babies and drastically change their lifestyle. That was the analogy I was making.