That being said, many environmentalists and others who care for the world try to LIMIT their carbon-footprint. There's a grave difference between limiting your carbon emissions and not doing anything at all. Attempting to alleviate some of these issues is actively trying to be part of the solution instead of sulking about the problem at hand. Generalizing that environmentalists do nothing towards a passionate cause is unreasonable -- you don't know how they live, their personal decisions and it's not for you to judge. As Ghandi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." So please, take this as an initiative to go out and be more eco-friendly in your decisions because when it comes to our planet, action is much better than inaction.
You're in the wrong forum for environmental activism. Still...
>>Even if your house is run purely on renewable energy, the production of that energy can still have an effect on the environment in one way or another.<<
...if you are referring to AGW then "one way or another' is not the issue. The issue is a specific cause-effect relationship.
Are you generally stupid or do you specialize in political activism and science?
Even when PCs are powered by coal, it would take a huge number of them to remotely compare with the carbon footprint of a single car. And you are making a strawman argument. If the Kyoto protocol had been implemented, we would be using 95% as much oil as we were in 1990. A result which could have easily been achieved by using smaller cars or by diesel power or by hybrid cars.
Using energy more efficiently =/= doomsday
Why are you so bitter? Have you considered anger management
I can only see benefits , including national security , to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels (eg from odious regimes such as Saudi Arabia) and to decouple economic growth from burning fossil fuels. Why are you opposing these national benefits?
Why do you think I make a reasonable effort to *reduce* the environmental damage caused by my actions? I get a bus pass, when it would probably be cheaper for me to just drive to work (I live pretty close to work, though not close enough to comfortably walk) Why do you think I looked into getting solar panels for my roof? (the only reason I didn't was some issues with who exactly owns my roof) Why do you think I get LED lightbulbs, when it would be cheaper (at least short term) to get CFLs, or even incandescents? Why do you think I recycle?
And I would not expect anyone else to do more than I'm doing. We need to take a good, hard look at what we're doing to the planet, and reduce the impact of our actions. But that doesn't mean we need to go live in caves, just that we need to not drive single-occupant SUVs and light our homes with technology from the early 20th century.
hey Dook just gave you the answer; albeit a complete reversal of the truth. The theory is falling apart and give or take a few years; you will prevail on your thoughts above. These environmental theories usually have around a 30 year lifespan; we are in about the 26th year of this particular fanaticism. .
You really hit a nerve.
Personal consumption choices will never have anything to do with science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
and they have relatively little do with anti science deceptions about climate funded by fossil fuel companies or about the politicians who lie idiotically about science in return for large campaign donations from those companies and their front groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/busine...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/us/pol...
I'm on solar so pffft to you
I always hear people complaining about how greedy humanity is, how much they hate humans, how they are destroying the planet, etc. But I ask you this, why are you blaming others when you are just as much at fault? Right now this computer you're sitting on is most likely running on electricity that has been produced from the burning of fossil fuels, same when you drive your car, turn on your light, all that stuff. You are destroying the environment, so why do you complain about other humans destroying the environment?
Even if your house is run purely on renewable energy, the production of that energy can still have an effect on the environment in one way or another. You can complain about other humans all you want, but nothing will change until you realize that YOU are the problem in itself. People who complain about how humans live and then continue to live the same way are nothing but hypocrites.
So I ask you this, when will you stop blaming others and start blaming yourself?
