Artic sea-ice is approaching a record minimum.

Johnny Abruzzo

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

catefrances wrote:

just so you know, the netherlands and holland are the same country.

then who are the dutch?

People who work at Dutch Wonderland.

LikeAnOcean

catefrances wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.

The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.

It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.


And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.

It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."

just so you know, the netherlands and holland are the same country.

Technically, Holland is the nick name for the Netherlands. Holland is a region inside the country.


Being of Dutch ancestry myself, my family wasn't from Holland.

catefrances

LikeAnOcean wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.

The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.

It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.


And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.

It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."

just so you know, the netherlands and holland are the same country.

Technically, Holland is the nick name for the Netherlands. Holland is a region inside the country.


Being of Dutch ancestry myself, my family wasn't from Holland.

yep, i know it.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

Inlet, creating a more sustainable human presence on earth and being environmentally active is more about using less energy, depleting fewer natural resources and consuming fewer goods than it is picking up litter and using renewable energy. Not that those things aren't good also but they are rather small solutions a much wider spectrum of actions necessary to achieve those goals.

I find this post really funny, Brian.

First, I completely disagree with your definition of "creating a more sustainable human presence on earth" as doing what you listed. In order for people not to starve to death, you need to have enough food AND (in this day and age) you need jobs. There's a lot of people on earth. An active economy is necessary.

Second, every single thing you listed...

1) Using less energy
2) Depleting few natural resources
3) Consuming less goods

...has a direct economic cost. In fact, consuming less goods is nonsensically anti-economic growth.

Finally, I don't need for you to define to me what my own goals are. I mentioned that I think it's right to pick up after myself, etc. For example, I pick up six pack containers from the beach, not because they will cause global warming, but because it's gross, they could be wrapped around a bottle neck's nose, ect. That's why I do it. If I ever decide to consult the Book of Brian for environmental advice, you'll be the first to know.

catefrances

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Inlet, creating a more sustainable human presence on earth and being environmentally active is more about using less energy, depleting fewer natural resources and consuming fewer goods than it is picking up litter and using renewable energy. Not that those things aren't good also but they are rather small solutions a much wider spectrum of actions necessary to achieve those goals.

I find this post really funny, Brian.

First, I completely disagree with your definition of "creating a more sustainable human presence on earth" as doing what you listed. In order for people not to starve to death, you need to have enough food AND (in this day and age) you need jobs. There's a lot of people on earth. An active economy is necessary.

Second, every single thing you listed...

1) Using less energy
2) Depleting few natural resources
3) Consuming less goods

...has a direct economic cost. In fact, consuming less goods is nonsensically anti-economic growth.

Finally, I don't need for you to define to me what my own goals are. I mentioned that I think it's right to pick up after myself, etc. For example, I pick up six pack containers from the beach, not because they will cause global warming, but because it's gross, they could be wrapped around a bottle neck's nose, ect. That's why I do it. If I ever decide to consult the Book of Brian for environmental advice, you'll be the first to know.

all hail the capitalist consumer society that will fuck us in the end... as if its not on its way to doing so now HAIL!!! HAIL!!1

inlet13

catefrances wrote:

all hail the capitalist consumer society that will fuck us in the end... as if its not on its way to doing so now HAIL!!! HAIL!!1

Where do you live? Is it capitalism or government that's fucking you and your people? But, regardless...

...seriously...

...what's the alternative to capitalism that you suggest we adopt?

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Inlet, creating a more sustainable human presence on earth and being environmentally active is more about using less energy, depleting fewer natural resources and consuming fewer goods than it is picking up litter and using renewable energy. Not that those things aren't good also but they are rather small solutions a much wider spectrum of actions necessary to achieve those goals.

Funny ha-ha or funny strange?

inlet13 wrote:

First, I completely disagree with your definition of "creating a more sustainable human presence on earth" as doing what you listed. In order for people not to starve to death, you need to have enough food AND (in this day and age) you need jobs. There's a lot of people on earth. An active economy is necessary.

Yes, too many people. Not my doing.

inlet13 wrote:

Yes, too many people. Not my doing.
Second, every single thing you listed...

1) Using less energy
2) Depleting few natural resources
3) Consuming less goods

...has a direct economic cost. In fact, consuming less goods is nonsensically anti-economic growth.

One more time: on a planet not suited for human habitat there is no economy. That's nonsensical? As Edward Abbey once said, "growth is the ideology of the cancer cell".

inlet13 wrote:

Finally, I don't need for you to define to me what my own goals are. I mentioned that I think it's right to pick up after myself, etc. For example, I pick up six pack containers from the beach, not because they will cause global warming, but because it's gross, they could be wrapped around a bottle neck's nose, ect. That's why I do it. If I ever decide to consult the Book of Brian for environmental advice, you'll be the first to know.

Always my favorite part of your posts- the reprimand.

But seriously-- I don't define goals for others. I'm only responsible for my own actions.

"Book of Brian?" Your post are funny (ha-ha) too. I gave my book to another forum member and he paid me one of the highest complement I've ever received for anything I've written. He said, "You're writing is out of control!" It was a book of poetry and the recipient liked it so much he sent me a Christmas card in July. Sweet!

Jeepers, Inlet, I'm the one who keeps saying were all bozos on this bus. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not berating you or telling you it's your fault. I'm just disseminating what I believe to be useful information. I'm not looking to get a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize. Not even brownie points. I do it because it's something I care about a lot-- for my kids sake and theirs. Not for me. I'll probably be dead and gone before this ship sinks.

But thanks for challenging me. You at least do so with some thought behind your words and that helps keep me sharp and honest.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

Funny ha-ha or funny strange?

Both?

brianlux wrote:

Yes, too many people. Not my doing.

First, I don’t agree that there are too many people at all. We have enough resources, which is evident by the fact that we’ve seen average real incomes (life expectancy, etc) on a steep upward trend worldwide since the dawn of the industrial revolution. But, since you say that you believe there are too many people - what do you suggest we do about too many people? Encourage abortions like China? Have a war? What? I mean - the truth is America, (and EU) are having less children per couple. That's not working out for our welfare system - see social security, as an example. And the EU... well, there kinda f'd.

brianlux wrote:

One more time: on a planet not suited for human habitat there is no economy. That's nonsensical? As Edward Abbey once said, "growth is the ideology of the cancer cell".

My response – the planet is suited for human habitat. That’s why we’re living on it.
What’s nonsensical is your push for people to consume less and think “your creating a more sustainable human presence on earth” by doing such – that’s why I quoted that part and explained exactly that. What you said is quite frankly - bullshit. Moreover, thoughts like that awful quote lend more credence to the theory that hard-core environmentalists are anti-economic growth, and very well possibly even have a socialist/communist agenda. Preaching for people to consume less OF EVERY GOOD is certainly not a capitalist concept – that’s for damn sure.

brianlux wrote:

Always my favorite part of your posts- the reprimand.

But seriously-- I don't define goals for others. I'm only responsible for my own actions.

Reprimand? I asked you to not tell me what to do. I think you don’t realize that you come off as patronizing when you say something like- ehheemmm... inlet, that's not really what a good environmentalist does, you see... x,y and believing completely in global warming is what they do.
But, if you don’t believe you did – then why did you jump in and say the actions that I shared which were pro-environment weren’t good enough, and explain that I needed to do what you defined? That seems like defining goals.

brianlux wrote:

"Book of Brian?" Your post are funny (ha-ha) too. I gave my book to another forum member and he paid me one of the highest complement I've ever received for anything I've written. He said, "You're writing is out of control!" It was a book of poetry and the recipient liked it so much he sent me a Christmas card in July. Sweet!

Fair enough. If I want to read it, I’ll ask you. Don’t wait up though.

brianlux wrote:

Jeepers, Inlet,

What is this Scooby Doo?

brianlux wrote:

I'm the one who keeps saying were all bozos on this bus. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not berating you or telling you it's your fault. I'm just disseminating what I believe to be useful information. I'm not looking to get a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize. Not even brownie points. I do it because it's something I care about a lot-- for my kids sake and theirs. Not for me. I'll probably be dead and gone before this ship sinks.

You’re 100% entitled to deliver your information. I’m 100% entitled to say your information has flaws, is incorrect, or is down-right propaganda. I don’t mean anything personal by saying that, but I sincerely think you believe you’re open-minded on this subject and the truth is you’re really not. I comment in your threads because I believe there’s hope for you (and potentially other environmentalists) to become a bit more open-minded, however. And that’s a compliment. Because that’s not the case for a lot of folks around here.

brianlux wrote:

B
ut thanks for challenging me. You at least do so with some thought behind your words and that helps keep me sharp and honest.

I’m up for the task. That’s what this place is here for.

catefrances

inlet13 wrote:

First, I don’t agree that there are too many people at all. We have enough resources, which is evident by the fact that we’ve seen average real incomes (life expectancy, etc) on a steep upward trend worldwide since the dawn of the industrial revolution. But, since you say that you believe there are too many people - what do you suggest we do about too many people? Encourage abortions like China? Have a war? What? I mean - the truth is America, (and EU) are having less children per couple. That's not working out for our welfare system - see social security, as an example. And the EU... well, there kinda f'd.

i agree. i think its a management problem. however i do not agree that average incomes and life expectancy are on the rise, and have been since the industrial revolution. this is the viewpoint of someone living in the western hemispehere where everything is bountiful and you have access to top quality health care. not everyone in the world was fortunate enough to be born where you and i were. there are millions of people outside the first world who struggle every single day of their lives... and for what??? i dont know what the answer is.. perhaps people are living in places that cant sustain human life. perhaps theyre not utilising the resources they have.. perhaps they have no resources. perhaps their govts are corrupt.. perhaps western corporations have moved in and taken the wealth of their natural resources whilst paying the native workers a wage that is below the poverty line, so their countrys income is so limited the people are kept in conditions you and i would never tolerate. who the fuck knows? all i know is the system is highly flawed and works for some, not all. but then again its not suppose to work for all is it?

riotgrl

NPR had a good interview on yesterday about this if anyone is interested. It discussed alot of the points that were brought up previously in this thread.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/11/160952352/arctic-sea-ice-melt-sets-record