Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by worth

Environmentalism has become a new religion.

It's about time... it seems to have taken forevor to catch on. I just hope it keeps rolling!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wrong, politicians have a duty to implement the platform that they were elected on and represent their constituants. Thats the ethics of politics. A politician might have his own views, but it would be unethical for him to put his views above the masses. If his constituants are concerned about jobs and want a factory, then he has to do everything in his power to get that factory even if he doesn't agree with it. If you do it the other way around and put a notion about the wants of the people then you get dictatorships, totalitarianism and worse.

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

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.

If a politician goes against the wishes of the people who elect him its morally wrong. And that is black and white, a proper politician has to be above his own desires and serve the people by representing the people.

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.

Excellent how long until they issue federal hunting licenses on people and what will the bag limit be. Will we only be able to hunt them with cross bows or can we get the ban on automatic weapons lifted. I as one individual would welcome this initiative in thinning the herd.

[mykalberta]

Until science can eactly predict, lets say within a 100 years when the earth end if we do nothing starting from today then its all bs

All science has proved is, wait for it... That stuff emitted from burning other stuff isnt good for the environment.

WOW, I am floored, I would have never known that if it wasnt for science.

On behalf of everyone who got above 90 in chem and bio 30 and mid 60 in physics 30, thank you very very very much.

The simple fact is that reducing emissions at this point wont HELP the environment at all, it will simply keep it in its current state if we were to stop emitting at all. Science and technology will have to come up with a fix because the whole reducing your carbon footprint and thinking that will solve the problem is like giving away free condoms to coutries with high AIDS rates, it is nothing more than a bandaid solution that will never be fixed until the cultures in those countries are "fixed"

Also, I dont think any politician is arguing the science, they are arguing what to do about it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well why didn't you articulate it that way instead of using a flawed canned sound bite? You're a smart guy, so articulate your views.

I also don't think that alterning your behaviors is fanatical. We are at an interesting moment in history. Earth scientists have said we are at a tipping point and may never repair the damage to our environment. People do not seem to understand that as we do these things we impair the earth's ability to support us and other species. When we hurt the environment we hurt ourselves. This was told to us by NASA back in the 1980's and we ignored the plea. It was again brought up during the 1990's, but censored by the government. It was again brought up by NASA a few years ago and was again censored. That caused a number of high ranking officials to quit and try to do something through the media to make people wake up. We need to alter our behaviors and these people are trying to guide us through that change.

Sadly, the government, whose job it is to look after such issues, ignores its primary responsibility and instead cow-tows to indistry lobbies. We entrust our planet to these institutions, but they instead sacrafice it all for money and more power. Suzuki went to extremes, but the basis of his comment is somewhat accurate. We have entrusted the care of our environment to the government and they are ignoring their responsibility. There must be major repercussions for the failure to do their job.

[ken0042]

But Lanny- I think the point is that Suzuki could do so much more to make people change their ways. For example- when I see him doing a comercial about switching to CFL bulbs; it makes me think of where else in my house I could swap bulbs out. But hearing him make a somewhat radical statement makes me think less of his opinions.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

But Lanny- I think the point is that Suzuki could do so much more to make people change their ways. For example- when I see him doing a comercial about switching to CFL bulbs; it makes me think of where else in my house I could swap bulbs out. But hearing him make a somewhat radical statement makes me think less of his opinions.

Not to mention, they want everyone to use these light bulbs but don't tell people about the inherant dangers in them. They need to be recycled properly as there are toxic heavy metals in them. Also, what are the effects of increase in mining and production of said light bulbs?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Not to mention, they want everyone to use these light bulbs but don't tell people about the inherant dangers in them. They need to be recycled properly as there are toxic heavy metals in them. Also, what are the effects of increase in mining and production of said light bulbs?

The last package I got of CFL's had big notes on them describing how to properly recycle them. I think it's the mercury that is the most dangerous part of a CFL.

CFL's are not going to be a big deal for long. White coloured LED's are starting to become practical. They are cheap to produce, use almost no electricity compared to an incandescent and are more efficient (ie, less heat).

So, I doubt the overall environmental footprint of CFL's will ever be more then the current incandescent footprint. This is subjective conjecture though so...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Overpopulation is a very small problem compared to overconsumption...

Both are serious, and both are closely related. Over-consumption is probably the greatest collective sin of the Western world over the course of the past century or so. But it is the product of a lot of mitigating factors which have produced a great deal of benefit: one being the massive increase in life expectancy in the first world, which in turn has led to population problems. When one considers that for centuries upon centuries, the life expectancy for most human beings was well below 60 years—During the Classical period, the average middle class Roman citizen lived to 50. Now if we don't reach our 55th birthday it is considered an unnatural tragedy.

Over-consumption is a problem that has been escalated by the same philosophy that believes longevity is normative. Most North Americans participate in the workforce for 40–50 years largely in an effort to ensure long-term comfort beyond their working life. How much does this tax the economy, which in turn taxes the environment?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Over-consumption is a problem that has been escalated by the same philosophy that believes longevity is normative. Most North Americans participate in the workforce for 40–50 years largely in an effort to ensure long-term comfort beyond their working life. How much does this tax the economy, which in turn taxes the environment?

And further putting unrealistic forces on the market is the belief that economies must always be growing. That a company must always be getting bigger and more profitable in order to be considered successful. This mentality affects every aspect of our lives to the point where people willingly sacrifice 90% of their life to work.

Maintaining growth in the economy is an unattainable dream. Just look at the US economy right now. It's quite obviously in retraction and yet they keep trying to "correct" it by playing with misguided cash injections and modifying interest rates.

<quietly sets down a soapbox>
This all said, humans are just behaving like any other animal out there in the natural world. We consume all the resources we can and the move on. Eventually we will trigger an environmental response that will kill us off or at least cull our numbers and effects.

The greatest lie that environmentalists tell themselves is that humans are behaving unnaturally. We follow our instincts just as much as the next species. We just haven't hit the barriers to our expansion yet. The blowback will likely be brutal (extreme weather, disease, self destruction..).

Just some thoughts I have.
</steps of of the soapbox>

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by ken0042

But Lanny- I think the point is that Suzuki could do so much more to make people change their ways. For example- when I see him doing a comercial about switching to CFL bulbs; it makes me think of where else in my house I could swap bulbs out. But hearing him make a somewhat radical statement makes me think less of his opinions.

I agree with you 100%. His coments are outrageous and he hurts the environmental movement more than he helps. There's a time for people to just shut up for a while, and Suzuki has hit that point. I agree with you, I'm tired of hearing him. Let the others have a chance. I'd love to hear more from James Hansen (NASA scientist) and what he thinks. Too bad he's censored.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by llama64

...The greatest lie that environmentalists tell themselves is that humans are behaving unnaturally. We follow our instincts just as much as the next species. We just haven't hit the barriers to our expansion yet. The blowback will likely be brutal (extreme weather, disease, self destruction..).

Excellent post. And I might agree with you about the inevitable "blowback", but I wonder how great the impact will be in light of what wed have learned about the very nature of life. If evolution has taught us anything, it is that life is remarkably adaptable, and that the speciation will always trend towards survival. The blowback may not be as catastrophic as what is being projected, particularly because there is no way to guage or predict how life will change as a result of it. I think we may be underestimating our own capacity for change; and I'm not just talking about attitudes and ideals.