Global Warming?

[Camanche]

I can barely do my regular traveling due to all the snow! I know climate change has come up as a topic before, but I was kind of wondering about the general opinion on it.

[Fatney]

"I'm terrified". I'm not really terrified, but I'm very concerned about the future. This is the coldest winter in years, it hurts on every bare parts of skin when walking outside. I'm not really sure if the cold winter is related to global warming, but I guess it is.

My biggest hope is that people will stop driving so much. Some seem so unnecessary dependent of their car it's sickening.

[Manly Biceps]

Here's my (not to be confused with Atlus USA's) opinion:

If I'm wrong, and climate change doesn't exist, or is unstoppable we're out a few hundred million dollars.

If climate change doubters are wrong, and human-caused climate change does exist, we (as in humanity) all die.

Due to the significant differences in the weight of the consequences, I don't really see a reason to take the "Eh... It's too soon to really decide one way or another" stance.

[slayn]

I'm not really sure if the cold winter is related to global warming, but I guess it is.

It's important to note that global warming doesn't simply mean "the earth is getting hotter," though that's typically the most noticeable and talked-about effect (ice caps melting and all). It is hypothesized that the increased storm activity of the last decade as well as extreme temperatures in both directions are also due to global warming.

[Camanche]

I'm not well versed in it, but the general impression I get is that if global warming does exist, we're walking a fine line and should have been doing something to change it years ago. Like back in the 70's possibly. I've also heard the argument that the earth's climate goes through natural climate changes such as ice ages and warmings, and humanity developed to its current state on the cusp of one of these warmings. So, we are possibly just speeding up the warming/climate screwed-up-ness process?

I used to be nearly terrified of it too, but now I'm in the 'I try to reduce my footprint but..' boat. I only drive my car when it's not within walking distance and I make sure my car does amazing on the emissions test. I always recycle. I'm even attempting to bring my own bags to the grocery store.

[Flußkönig]

Whether it is real or not, I think that certain politicians see climate change as a tool that they can use for social/economic reform that wouldn't be passed otherwise.

[Manly Biceps]

I'm not well versed in it, but the general impression I get is that if global warming does exist, we're walking a fine line and should have been doing something to change it years ago. Like back in the 70's possibly. I've also heard the argument that the earth's climate goes through natural climate changes such as ice ages and warmings, and humanity developed to its current state on the cusp of one of these warmings. So, we are possibly just speeding up the warming/climate screwed-up-ness process?

I used to be nearly terrified of it too, but now I'm in the 'I try to reduce my footprint but..' boat. I only drive my car when it's not within walking distance and I make sure my car does amazing on the emissions test. I always recycle. I'm even attempting to bring my own bags to the grocery store.

Yeah, we are possibly accelerating the cycle. We can also, possibly adjust the cycle in the opposite direction or slow the rate of increase. Aside from greed and laziness, there's honestly no reason not to try.

[Flußkönig]

^ Good luck getting China and India on board with any kind of emission reduction plan. Until they and other "developing" countries agree to do their part there isn't much hope of slowing or reversing anything.

[Camanche]

I can't find a link, but I saw a show where they were developing these carbon dioxide filtering 'trees'. They basically reduce the amount of carbon in the air like a tree does.

EDIT: Ah ha. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8223528.stm

^ Good luck getting China and India on board with any kind of emission reduction plan. Until they and other "developing" countries agree to do their part there isn't much hope of slowing or reversing anything.

I had a discussion with someone about this. They don't even really care about recycling or anything, stating that anything they do will just be screwed up by China's massive pollution.

[DamageCity]

A lot of foriegners develop allergies when they move to Japan due to pollution from China. Or so, the Japanese tell me.

[Kakizaki]

I didn't know what category to vote within. I'm not terrified yet, but I definitely believe in climate change.

One of the biggest mistakes made regarding the propagation of awareness towards the situation, as Slayn has already pointed out, was labeling it as "global warming". I find it very annoying when I overhear people spout off about seasonal or below normal temperatures as evidence that global warming doesn't exist - or when they reference climate shifts in the past without taking large scale geological events that may have triggered / affected these shifts into account.

[Manly Biceps]

^ Good luck getting China and India on board with any kind of emission reduction plan. Until they and other "developing" countries agree to do their part there isn't much hope of slowing or reversing anything.

You can see their point, though. It's kind of like imperial expansion. Back in the 16-1700s that stiff was totally AWESOME and it allowed people to get massive empires. Then America comes into existence and is like, "YEAH! Expansion time!" and the rest of the world sort of clucks its tongue and says, "Oh, America. That is SO last century. You can't forcibly take over peoples anymore."

So for China and India, they're trying the whole, "YEAH! INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION!" angle, and everyone's like, "Oh, Asia..."

However, if the rest of the world minus China and India did this, it would definitely still have an effect.

DamageCity: I'm totally sure that the giant piles of trash that line the streets of Tokyo every morning are also left there by the Chinese. I don't doubt that some of the allergens in the air are from China, but it's nowhere near the amount they'd like like you believe.

[Steel Greyfalke]

I still think nuke wars are more likely kill us (though i think "Little Boy" & "Fat Man" May have something to say about the Climate

[Camanche]

I should probably have changed 'I'm terrified' to 'I'm very worried'. I don't think polls are editable.

[Kakizaki]

nor edible.

[Flußkönig]

However, if the rest of the world minus China and India did this, it would definitely still have an effect.


Other than totally destroying those countries economic competitors and sending even more jobs overseas?

I see your point, but it seems hard to reconcile the it is finally their turn attitude with a conviction that global warming will eventually lead to the destruction of the human race.

It is not like China and India can be forced to accept the terms of a fairer agreement though, so I guess that is the most realistic outcome that anyone who is worried about global warming can hope for.

[Manly Biceps]

Other than totally destroying those countries economic competitors and sending even more jobs overseas?

Let's be real here. No economy's going to get "destroyed" by making greener choices. There isn't going to be a mass exodus of jobs that get sent overseas. China's not even the place where all those jobs are going anymore. They're going over to Romania and Macau now...

[Flußkönig]

Other than totally destroying those countries economic competitors and sending even more jobs overseas?

Let's be real here. No economy's going to get "destroyed" by making greener choices. There isn't going to be a mass exodus of jobs that get sent overseas. China's not even the place where all those jobs are going anymore. They're going over to Romania and Macau now...
I didn't mean any one nations economy. I was referring to industrial and production based businesses that are in direct competition with China and India. It will be next to impossible for them to compete profitably if they are subject to the proposed emission levels while China and India are not.

edit: Just noticed the last part of your post. Where did I even say I thought jobs would be going to China? If it isn't profitable to run a business in a country (in this case due to regulations) then the jobs will go wherever it is profitable.

[Sanctine]

I've always taken steps to treat the environment well, but if I have to toss a soda can in the trash rather than recycle it, I'm not about to kill myself over it.

I find the whole environmentally friendly stance has turned into a fad and marketing ploy. It's become a new way to advertise. A new way to make money. Being environmentally friendly as an individual certainly can't hurt, but I find most people are taking this issue way too seriously.

[DamageCity]

Here in Japan recycling is just the way it is. I have around six color coded bags

brown = burnable
white = paper
yellow = plastics
red = cans
green = bottles
blue = landfill

Monday = burnable

Every Tuesday = Paper
1st, 3rd and 5th Tuesdays of the month = Cans
2nd and 4th Tuesdays of the month = Bottles

Wednesday = Burnable

Thursday = Plastic and Landfill

Friday = Burnable

Plastic bottles (PET) are taken to the Supermarket and everything else (oversized etc.) have to be scheduled for pick up which costs about 150 yen.

Kind of sounds annoying but it's easy to get into the groove. I probably use one landfill bag a year.

[Manly Biceps]

I didn't mean any one nations economy. I was referring to industrial and production based businesses that are in direct competition with China and India. It will be next to impossible for them to compete profitably if they are subject to the proposed emission levels while China and India are not.

This is only true if you're looking at trying to be a green industrial/production based economy in a consumer society.

If you change both at the same time so you run a sustainable style industry in a sustainable society, the industrial/production based companies are going to end up folding. You can't have a company that produces cheap cars that break down after 5 years when the consumer wants a reliable, greener machine that runs for 10+.

All those junky, cheaply produced, assembly line goods are just going to end up rusting.

Obviously, this is probably not what's going to happen, either. But, it's not going to be like China and India are going to hold this huge advantage.


edit: Just noticed the last part of your post. Where did I even say I thought jobs would be going to China? If it isn't profitable to run a business in a country (in this case due to regulations) then the jobs will go wherever it is profitable.

Sorry if I misunderstood there. In any case, if the laws are going to make it cheaper to produce stuff overseas, you make your constituents happier by raising the cost of sending jobs overseas. Something like "If your product is assembled outside the US, you need to pay import tariffs to bring you manufactured goods back into the country."

[Flußkönig]

But, it's not going to be like China and India are going to hold this huge advantage. If you say so. We could sit here all night touting our views, but this is one of those things where you can't really know what will happen till it actually does.



Sorry if I misunderstood there. In any case, if the laws are going to make it cheaper to produce stuff overseas, you make your constituents happier by raising the cost of sending jobs overseas. Something like "If your product is assembled outside the US, you need to pay import tariffs to bring you manufactured goods back into the country."That really doesn't sound like it will make anyone happy. The cost of the tariff is just going to get passed on to the consumer. So not only do you lose the jobs, but now you also have to pay more for the product.

[Kyuketsukimiyu]

As for if it exists, it's a scientific fact. It just has yet to become a political fact. You can actually trace the whole "does it exist?" debate to a journalist purposefully misquoting a scientist.

I do my part - though it is hard as it can be very expensive to recycle somethings in my area. It mostly comes to me using my resources efficiently.

[Gilgamesh-GTR]

I hate when people said all these cars making the global warming even worse and start changing to hybrid-rubbish-engine and against supercar production.

Dude, cars 'contribute' less than 5% (if I'm not mistaken...) all that non-enviromental factory are the major contributes to the global warming. We should kill their business, before they kill everyone in this planet...

[jonegomes]

Certainly there is a solid basis for this view. Global temperatures during the past ten years stopped rising and started to fall, something computer models that claim to show a human influence on the climate did not predict.

[Kakizaki]

I hate when people said all these cars making the global warming even worse and start changing to hybrid-rubbish-engine and against supercar production.The hybrids weren't necessarily created to curb pollution. There is a finite supply of crude oil. We have to break loose from our dependence on fossil fuel.


Edit - here is what I hate about polls on forums. There has been a definite shift overnight here, but no one from that particular category, accept for the car dude, has bothered to comment.

[Olethros]

I recycle, mostly because my wife and now my secretary guilt me into it. It's easier to just do it than to have to hear about it.

Ultimately, though, I guess I don't much care one way or the other. It's not entirely bacause I'm an unfeeling bastard (although there is that as well) but also because I get so engrossed in trying to save you all from cancer that I can't bring myself to worry about any of the other impending doom machines. :)

[slayn]

I always chuckle when I go on a landfill and see tons and tons of "recycled" plastics.

[Superkenon]

Frequently visit landfills do you? Hrmm...

I believe in Global Warming. But ultimately, whether it's true or not, there's no excuse not to try and be at least a little less wasteful in your daily lives. If not to help the environment out, then to just save money. It's win-win for me.

[slayn]

Frequently visit landfills do you? Hrmm...

I work for an engineering firm that designs gas extraction systems for landfills :-P.

[Superkenon]

I work for an engineering firm that designs gas extraction systems for landfills :-P.

Right, right, of course. I wouldn't believe for a second that you just go there to hide the bodies.

[Olethros]

He only hides the parts he can't eat.

[Enzeru]

I recycle, mostly because my wife and now my secretary guilt me into it. It's easier to just do it than to have to hear about it.
Wonder how? ;)

[Flußkönig]

He only hides the parts he can't eat.

Fine Old Cannibals?

[Manly Biceps]

He only hides the parts he can't eat.

Fine Old Cannibals?

She hive he hazy! Like no one hehelse!

[Olethros]

Woop! Woop!

[Manly Biceps]

We should do an Atlus karaoke night. Over skype.

[DamageCity]

We should do an Atlus karaoke night. Over skype.

I do a kick ass Purple Rain.

[dungeon_man]

I used to be 100% convinced of Global Warming, but when I hear about Al Gore having a $30,000 yearly electric bill I have to think he's a fraud. I don't trust anybody who doesn't practice what they preach, and a guy whose electric bill is 100x greater than mine is not trying to use resources efficiently.

I think it's interesting how Global Warming turned into Climate Change. I sometimes wonder if we're really heading towards an ice age, and the crazy amounts of pollution are delaying it for a bit. Just something to consider. Anyway, I think the real agenda behind Climate Change is to try and get the world to agree on "Carbon Credits" laws where each nation is allowed so much emissions based on population and some other criteria. What this will ultimately mean is that lots of jobs are forcibly sent out of developed nations to poor nations and all the greedy cocks who run things can increase their profits while keeping the workforce poor and powerless.

Regardless of my take on Global Warming/Climate Change, I do live by the "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" mantra. Some things everybody can do to help:


Don't buy bottled water. Carry a glass bottle and refill it as needed.
Don't buy ink pens. You're bound to get free ones at conventions and trade shows. Keep them. Use them until they are empty.
If you are only buying a few items at a store, say "no bag" to the cashier. If you are buying many items, bring a reusable cloth shopping bag.
Walk if you aren't going far. Keeps you in shape, gets you some Vitamin D to resist the flu, and saves on fuel.
Don't buy cheap junk. Big chains like Wal-Mart thrive on selling people cheap junk that will break and need replacement often. Do the research and pay more to get a quality item.
Buy local food. Reduces transportation, keeps money in the local economy, and tends to taste better. Likely healthier too.
Don't use canned air. It contains toxic chemicals, is fairly expensive for "air", produces a lot of pollution in manufacturing, and will eventually break down in landfills where it will release chemicals that poison life and destroy the ozone. Buy an air compressor and use that instead. Likewise, don't buy those canned "fix a flat" things. Ugh!
Don't eat fast food. Eat at a restaurant that serves you with an actual plate and silverware.


I could go on and on, but the point is to take a moment to think about the stuff you buy and look at how wasteful it is. If we all buy less of that stuff, factories produce less of that stuff. Then there will be less pollution and less junk in landfills.

[littlefuzzy1]

SAVE TEH ENVIRONMENT!

Buy flourescent bulbs instead of incandescent! They last for YEARS!!

Or, in my case, they cost quite a bit more than incandescent, You can't just turn them on for a few minutes, or they burn out quicker, they often burn in less than 6 months anyway, and they have mercury in 'em, so you can't just throw 'em away...

From what I understand, they take more resources/cause more pollution to manufacture, as well.


:confused:


But aren't they GOOD for the environment??

[Superkenon]

Was your last experience with them in the early 90's or something? I don't know what you're talking about. Since the more recent generation of them have come about, I've never ever had to swap out a fluorescent bulb, which is creepy, but welcome all the same. I've almost forgotten what it's like to change a light bulb. Not only am I saving money because I don't buy bulbs anymore, the electricity bill is noticeably lower, at that.

[dungeon_man]

Skip right past fluorescent and wait for LED bulbs to catch on. They use even less power, allegedly last for well over a decade, and aren't full of all that nastiness like vaporized mercury.

Also, when buying LCD computer monitors and televisions, look for ones that have LED backlighting instead of fluorescent.

[Foobar]

I really don't think there's enough scientific data out there to prove global warming is real and what data we do have is merely in the hands of people that are either alamists or opportunists looking for a chance to deprive us of our freedoms and even the ability to persue real knowledge that might bring us closer to the truth.

This world has survived the extinction of the dinosaurs, had ice ages and all manner of things happen, but new life came and took over. Maybe one day we'll be wiped out, too. I think its selfish to think we know what's best for the earth based on a less than a century of meteorlogical data. We've also come to learn that things that occur outside of Earth can affect us, but we don't have a lot of research on the sun or moon and what role they play in this.

Did you know that the reason a lot of meteors don't hit earth is because of Jupiter's gravitational pull? We've come to discover that over the years. Whatever the reason is for that, I'm not in a position to complain except when it lets the big one get by. There's supposedly one that could hit us in 2024 or 2036 or somthing like that.

If we deprive people of their ability to make money and progress society, how to we being to formulate a plan? And what of considering the potential of colonizing Mars or the moon. Its high science-fiction now, but also right now it seems some people what to use this "information" with global warming to control the way people live and progress.

We certainly should think about how much pollutants are pushed out of factory or the consequences of deforestation and overdevelopment, but it shouldn't come at the expense of quality of life, either. We can recycle, we can reuse old buildings or rebuild where old ones used to be, we can ride a bike if we don't need to go too far from home for a small errand or if work is that close.

And these are little things that people can and have done, but the powers/alarmists-that-be want to step in and act like they know better. I know government does little more than make things more complicated and harder than they have to be, which leads to more screw-ups and hindrences than anything else.

Anyway, I think people know how to modify their lifestyles without any assistance. I do my part when and where I can, so why should I have to be subjected to needless regulation? Its going to cost us more, not less, because new regulations always add cost, and that's going to affect your way of life.

[Superkenon]

It's a shame the situation has become as political as it is. That means the guys in charge just take extreme positions (that is, they're either FOR IT ALL THE WAY, or IT'S A HOAX) based on the party they belong to, and there's no genuine discussion about it going on at all in the circle of power... and both sides can't even make good arguments, since all they have is the gibberish from their echo chambers.

Right Wing: The liberals are hate you and are trying to kill your freedoms!
Left Wing: The conservatives hate kittens and are trying to destroy the world!


Skip right past fluorescent and wait for LED bulbs to catch on. They use even less power, allegedly last for well over a decade, and aren't full of all that nastiness like vaporized mercury.

Also, when buying LCD computer monitors and televisions, look for ones that have LED backlighting instead of fluorescent.

This. I have some LED things, and they're awesome.

[Foobar]

I have some kinda light bulb that's supposed to last for five years or so. It starts off dim and isn't the brightest I've used, but does the job well enough, Saves me cash and less glass and stuff to put into the system later.

I think it was only seven dollars, too, not a bad deal for the higher upfront cost. I think I'm gonna persuade my roommate, who is the resident energy hog here, to get some. She's changed the living room lights more times than I can count in the last year and I've never changed any light I've replaced once since moving in.

[Manly Biceps]

Anyway, I think people know how to modify their lifestyles without any assistance. I do my part when and where I can, so why should I have to be subjected to needless regulation? Its going to cost us more, not less, because new regulations always add cost, and that's going to affect your way of life.

Oh, you have an awful lot of misplaced faith in the average Joe.

Especially in light of this:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

As a more serious response, it's not the general populace that I think is going to be a problem, it's the corporations. The people that consistently let their greed override their common sense. I think regulations need to be put in place for them, and I also think there should be some regulations put in place that maybe don't legally bind citizens to a course of action, but possibly make them more aware of the impact of what they're doing.

[Fatney]

Skip right past fluorescent and wait for LED bulbs to catch on. They use even less power, allegedly last for well over a decade, and aren't full of all that nastiness like vaporized mercury.

Also, when buying LCD computer monitors and televisions, look for ones that have LED backlighting instead of fluorescent.

This. I have some LED things, and they're awesome.

It's not always easy being environmental friendly in that way though, considering LED TVs are a lot more expensive than "regular" LCDs. And that's just one example, a lot of the more environmental friendlier alternatives usually cost more, and that's just wrong in my opinion. It's like encouraging people to stop giving a #### about the planet.

[Kakizaki]

Did you know that the reason a lot of meteors don't hit earth is because of Jupiter's gravitational pull? We've come to discover that over the years. Whatever the reason is for that, I'm not in a position to complain except when it lets the big one get by. There's supposedly one that could hit us in 2024 or 2036 or somthing like that.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. You mildly blow off meteorological data from the past one hundred years as evidence that the human footprint is altering the ecosystem in harmful ways but you will support this?

I'm not disagreeing with the Jupiter / meteors comment. My point is that modern science has progressed significantly over the past few centuries. If it can recently allow us to understand the relationship between Jupiter's gravitation pull and meteors, why can't it allow us to critically analyze weather patterns from the past. Anyway, I guess I feel meteorology is only one portion of the argument - not that you said otherwise.

I'm just a bit curious how people feel about the world's massive population growth rate over the past century and some of the changes to the world's flora / fauna along with other geological and meteorological shifts. Is it simply a coincidence?

If we deprive people of their ability to make money and progress society, how to we being to formulate a plan?

Nothing wrong with this if people could moderate themselves, but they can't.

[Superkenon]

It's not always easy being environmental friendly in that way though, considering LED TVs are a lot more expensive than "regular" LCDs. And that's just one example, a lot of the more environmental friendlier alternatives usually cost more, and that's just wrong in my opinion. It's like encouraging people to stop giving a #### about the planet.

Newer technology is always more expensive at first. It's a dilemma, actually. For it to become cheaper, it needs to do well, but it won't do well unless it's bought. But for people to want to buy it...

This is where it would be nice for the bigger corporations to do a bit more to help.

[Flußkönig]

I think regulations need to be put in place for them, and I also think there should be some regulations put in place that maybe don't legally bind citizens to a course of action, but possibly make them more aware of the impact of what they're doing.
Regulating businesses is one thing, but the citizenry does not need more government encroachment in their daily lives. The government has no more business forcing citizens to accept your particular environmental view than it does forcing citizens to accept my view on the second amendment. Although I suppose that this line of thought is exactly what keeps Congress from passing regulations of the type you suggested.

Many people will never be true believers in the science behind the prevalent climate change theories while others will never care. Not to mention that (thankfully) there are still citizens who don't jibe with the idea of the government meddling in their affairs. They are probably all afraid (even some of the true believers) to some extent that once the government starts regulating the citizenry non binding regulations will eventually become binding. Either way I think that the science needs to be a little more concrete before the government tries to implement your suggestion. It will never pass otherwise.

[Olethros]

I'm just a bit curious how people feel about the world's massive population growth rate over the past century and some of the changes to the world's flora / fauna along with other geological and meteorological shifts. Is it simply a coincidence?

Nope, not a coincidence in my perspective. Over population is one of the main problems as far as I'm concerned. If these "developing" nations like, say India for example, was less densely populated they wouldn't need to burn through so many resources. And don't even get me started on feeding the starving kids of the world. I'd care a hell of a lot more about it if they didn't keep popping out 15 kids a piece. Yet I'm supposed to be all concerned about it because a bunch of celebrities got together and made a commercial? How much actual MONEY did they contribute instead of the time to make a PSA for me to have to watch and try to guilt me into giving up my hard earned dollars? Uggghhh. :mad:

Hmm. Went a bit off topic there. So, um, climate change is bad. There. All better now! ;)

[Manly Biceps]

Regulating businesses is one thing, but the citizenry does not need more government encroachment in their daily lives. The government has no more business forcing citizens to accept your particular environmental view than it does forcing citizens to accept my view on the second amendment. Although I suppose that this line of thought is exactly what keeps Congress from passing regulations of the type you suggested.

Forcing? I'm talking about putting labels onto stuff, like with cigarettes. It's their choice to ignore it or heed it if they want.

[Camanche]

I agree that overpopulation is a serious, if not one of the main problems. Deforestation and pollution is fueled by the need for resources. It's gotten to a point where many things are going extinct and cannot be saved. And things aren't getting any better. :(

[Flußkönig]

Regulating businesses is one thing, but the citizenry does not need more government encroachment in their daily lives. The government has no more business forcing citizens to accept your particular environmental view than it does forcing citizens to accept my view on the second amendment. Although I suppose that this line of thought is exactly what keeps Congress from passing regulations of the type you suggested.

Forcing? I'm talking about putting labels onto stuff, like with cigarettes. It's their choice to ignore it or heed it if they want.
Like I knew exactly what you meant. My point is the same regardless. It is not the governments job to enforce/notify people of/whatever speculative science or your opinion on any one subject.

[Kakizaki]

I'm just a bit curious how people feel about the world's massive population growth rate over the past century and some of the changes to the world's flora / fauna along with other geological and meteorological shifts. Is it simply a coincidence?

Nope, not a coincidence in my perspective. Over population is one of the main problems as far as I'm concerned. If these "developing" nations like, say India for example, was less densely populated they wouldn't need to burn through so many resources. And don't even get me started on feeding the starving kids of the world. I'd care a hell of a lot more about it if they didn't keep popping out 15 kids a piece. Yet I'm supposed to be all concerned about it because a bunch of celebrities got together and made a commercial? How much actual MONEY did they contribute instead of the time to make a PSA for me to have to watch and try to guilt me into giving up my hard earned dollars? Uggghhh. :mad:

Hmm. Went a bit off topic there. So, um, climate change is bad. There. All better now! ;)

That is kind of the point I am working towards. I think people become too fixated over the term global warming itself and the fallacies that may or may not exist regarding the situation. In the process, they ignore many other problems that potentially threaten the Earth's environment. Whether this is because they want place these other problems under the same rubric that they feel define climate change and are therefore are false by association or something else, I don't know.

[Manly Biceps]

Like I knew exactly what you meant. My point is the same regardless. It is not the governments job to enforce/notify people of/whatever speculative science or your opinion on any one subject.

I think you're not lining up with what I'm thinking. I'm just advocating putting labels on stuff that detail the amount of materials and pollution the product produced as a side-effect. Not a "WARNING: THIS IS CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING!" label.

[Olethros]

@ Kaki: Agreed. It's too easy/simple to define the problem in one term. The are many, many root causes, both obvious and less so, that all contribute to the issue.

People, by their very nature, are prone to concern themselves only with big impending life-altering things and lose interest in the lesser problems that lead up to it. I find it hard to believe that all the people in the world will agree to do all of the things necessary to prevent a catastrophe. Possibly some will agree and it will be delayed but the end results are inevitable. Man IS going to bring about his own downfall; it's not if but when.

Now everybody smile! :D

[Flußkönig]

Like I knew exactly what you meant. My point is the same regardless. It is not the governments job to enforce/notify people of/whatever speculative science or your opinion on any one subject.

I think you're not lining up with what I'm thinking. I'm just advocating putting labels on stuff that detail the amount of materials and pollution the product produced as a side-effect. Not a "WARNING: THIS IS CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING!" label.
Whats the difference? In the end it would have the exact same effect. What reason would the government have to mandate something like that other than to propagate a green/ environmentalist agenda.

[Foobar]

Oh, you have an awful lot of misplaced faith in the average Joe.

As misplaced as it might be, would you rather that faith be placed in a bunch of world leaders I didn't have a say in electing? There's a reason we live where we do and not in, say, China.

[Manly Biceps]

What reason would the government have to mandate something like that other than to propagate a green/ environmentalist agenda.

Giving people the power to make informed choices is furthering an agenda? I think you need to dial down the cynicism. Are nutritional labels furthering the "organic agenda"?

[Manly Biceps]

As misplaced as it might be, would you rather that faith be placed in a bunch of world leaders I didn't have a say in electing? There's a reason we live where we do and not in, say, China.

Because of the randomness of birth? That's why I live where I live.

In any case, I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm telling you to let other leaders of the world tell you what to do.

[Olethros]

^ :surprise: Manly Biceps is telling us to listen to non-American world leaders!?!?! :o

Is this the official position of Atlus USA? :p

[Flußkönig]

What reason would the government have to mandate something like that other than to propagate a green/ environmentalist agenda.

Giving people the power to make informed choices is furthering an agenda? I think you need to dial down the cynicism. Are nutritional labels furthering the "organic agenda"?
Right, in contrast to your total lack of cynicism. I think the boundary between informing, inundating and indoctrinating someone into a political/belief/religious system can be pretty hazy.

Anyway, I thought nutritional labels were largely implemented in a effort to combat misleading labeling by companies as well as to help prevent food allergies and other health concerns. Health is a traditional area of government regulation, so that makes perfect sense.

The environment is as well, but generally in an economic or conservation minded sense. I don't think what you are proposing would fit into any of those categories though. I mean, what stake does the government have in informing consumers about the waste content of the products they buy? If consumers cared about that kind of information they would petition the producers of the products to include it.

[slayn]

Yes, because the environment can have absolutely no bearing on health. That's why you see so many hazardous waste sites in subdivisions and next to schools.

Hyperbole, yes, but my point still stands: a polluted environment is going to lead to poor health, and by your own admission, health is a traditional area of governmental regulation. Ergo, to ensure that the citizenry can stay healthy, the government needs to do something with regards to the environmental regulation. Exactly what that something entails is certainly open to debate, but to maintain that the government doing nothing is preferable to them doing something is foolish.

[Manly Biceps]

What reason would the government have to mandate something like that other than to propagate a green/ environmentalist agenda.

Giving people the power to make informed choices is furthering an agenda? I think you need to dial down the cynicism. Are nutritional labels furthering the "organic agenda"?
Right, in contrast to your total lack of cynicism. I think the boundary between informing, inundating and indoctrinating someone into a political/belief/religious system can be pretty hazy.

I'm quite far from non-cynical. While that boundary can be pretty hazy as you claim, if it actually worked anywhere NEAR as good as you're afraid it will people would have stopped smoking cigarettes, pregnant women wouldn't drink, and nobody would be huffing paint thinner.

If consumers cared about that kind of information they would petition the producers of the products to include it.

They have. And if the producer feels like they have nothing to hide, they show it. And if they do, they say, "Meh."

[Flußkönig]

Yes, because the environment can have absolutely no bearing on health. That's why you see so many hazardous waste sites in subdivisions and next to schools.

Hyperbole, yes, but my point still stands: a polluted environment is going to lead to poor health, and by your own admission, health is a traditional area of governmental regulation. Ergo, to ensure that the citizenry can stay healthy, the government needs to do something with regards to the environmental regulation. Exactly what that something entails is certainly open to debate, but to maintain that the government doing nothing is preferable to them doing something is foolish.

Lol, there is already government regulation in place for marking hazardous materials. Are you arguing that they need to be more strenuous or that throwing away a plastic bottle is somehow going to adversely effect a persons health and that they need to be informed?

Hyperbole definitely. Your post is nothing but.



They have. And if the producer feels like they have nothing to hide, they show it. And if they do, they say, "Meh."
And you aren't satisfied with that? I am not seeing why the government needs to step in if that is the case. If it is really so important consumers can just vote with their wallets. The businesses that don't follow suit will suffer or not I guess if the consumers really just don't care.

While that boundary can be pretty hazy as you claim, if it actually worked anywhere NEAR as good as you're afraid it will people would have stopped smoking cigarettes, pregnant women wouldn't drink, and nobody would be huffing paint thinner.



Just thought about this a bit and it seems to me that this situation is totally different from the ones you mentioned. Certain environmental issues including global warming have become so closely tied to political viewpoints about the economy and society that it is very hard to separate the two. It is arguable that pushing that agenda is paramount to (or at least in a populace type movement way would end up) pushing a certain political view, which I feel is a bad thing for a government to be doing as well as as a self serving move for certain politicians.

[Manly Biceps]

And you aren't satisfied with that? I am not seeing why the government needs to step in if that is the case. If it is really so important consumers can just vote with their wallets. The businesses that don't follow suit will suffer or not I guess if the consumers really just don't care.

No, I'm not. Because I honestly have no idea if the "green" company that's claiming they pollute less is actually polluting less unless I have something to compare to. I see no reason why giving the consumer the power of information is such a bad thing. Refrigerators and Air conditioners now have to display their energy usages on the tag. Has this led to some mass shift to more energy efficient cooling? No. But I'd at least like to have all the information I need before I'm making a buying decision.

I don't know why you have this immense fear that this is going to somehow turn into effective government propaganda, especially considering the one thing the government is completely inept at is propaganda. Printing that cigarettes will cause cancer on every single box of cigarettes really hasn't really dented the tobacco industry's profits much.

[Flußkönig]

No, I'm not. Because I honestly have no idea if the "green" company that's claiming they pollute less is actually polluting less unless I have something to compare to. I see no reason why giving the consumer the power of information is such a bad thing. Refrigerators and Air conditioners now have to display their energy usages on the tag. Has this led to some mass shift to more energy efficient cooling? No. But I'd at least like to have all the information I need before I'm making a buying decision.


Well that makes perfect sense. I don't blame you for wanting to know whether or not these green products are really making a difference. I am a strong supporter of truth in advertising.

I would argue that something like a consumer report type deal would probably do a better job of providing that type of data than government regs, but either would be better than getting swindled by some corporation.

[slayn]

No, I'm not. Because I honestly have no idea if the "green" company that's claiming they pollute less is actually polluting less unless I have something to compare to. I see no reason why giving the consumer the power of information is such a bad thing. Refrigerators and Air conditioners now have to display their energy usages on the tag. Has this led to some mass shift to more energy efficient cooling? No. But I'd at least like to have all the information I need before I'm making a buying decision.

A lot depends on how you define "polluting less." A large number of companies are investing in carbon credits, which are sort of like get out of jail free cards. They can pollute the same amount (or hell, even more), but by either taking steps to do something beneficial for the environment (could be as simple as planting trees, similar to the method the Vatican is using to claim they are carbon-neutral) to earn credits, or buying up carbon credits from a company that's doing something benefixial (such as installing and maintaining a landfill-gas-to-energy system), on paper it actually looks like they are polluting less.

Personally, I feel this is something of a moral grey area since corporations are treating the environment as a zero-sum game, but at this point in time, I guess you have to take what you can get.

[Manly Biceps]

No, I'm not. Because I honestly have no idea if the "green" company that's claiming they pollute less is actually polluting less unless I have something to compare to. I see no reason why giving the consumer the power of information is such a bad thing. Refrigerators and Air conditioners now have to display their energy usages on the tag. Has this led to some mass shift to more energy efficient cooling? No. But I'd at least like to have all the information I need before I'm making a buying decision.

A lot depends on how you define "polluting less." A large number of companies are investing in carbon credits, which are sort of like get out of jail free cards. They can pollute the same amount (or hell, even more), but by either taking steps to do something beneficial for the environment (could be as simple as planting trees, similar to the method the Vatican is using to claim they are carbon-neutral) to earn credits, or buying up carbon credits from a company that's doing something benefixial (such as installing and maintaining a landfill-gas-to-energy system), on paper it actually looks like they are polluting less.

Personally, I feel this is something of a moral grey area since corporations are treating the environment as a zero-sum game, but at this point in time, I guess you have to take what you can get.

And that's why I'd rather have the government say, "These are the rules. You will all play by them. Everybody reports the same stuff." Personally, I find the "carbon-credits" shell game to be a way for unscrupulous people to cash in on the green movement.

In fact, the best thing I'd heard about that particular movement was that certain environmental action firms were buying up the carbon credits so that there were fewer on the market for this BS. I wholeheartedly support that in every way that doesn't involve giving money to the cause.

[dungeon_man]

Oh, you have an awful lot of misplaced faith in the average Joe.

As misplaced as it might be, would you rather that faith be placed in a bunch of world leaders I didn't have a say in electing? There's a reason we live where we do and not in, say, China.

Have faith in yourselves.

Average Joe is an inconsiderate slob who throws his fast food garbage on the side of the bicycle path instead of using the trash can that's less than two blocks away. Average joe throws his old refrigerator in the woods and dumps old tires in the lake. Average Joe will not save humanity's existence on this planet.

Greedy corporations and big stupid governments are even worse. The corporations aren't going to reduce pollution until they can find an angle where they profit from it. Meanwhile, the government is filled with too many fat bureaucrats to do anything effectively, and they'd never pass laws that harm their corporate sponsors.

The government likes Average Joe. Average Joe believes everything he hears on TV, never complains when his freedoms are stolen, and pays no heed to all the heists being pulled off by lawmakers behind the smoke and mirrors of MJ's death and Tiger Woods' affairs. The government keeps our water medicated and our school children malnourished while teaching people a bunch of crap to create more Average Joes who won't complain when the world their ancestors fought to create is stolen from them by politicians and corporate interests.

You can't look to others for the solution. Look to yourself. Don't be Average Joe. Do research. Learn things. Make changes in your own life and help others who are interested do the same. You aren't guaranteed to make a difference, but sitting around and waiting for somebody else to solve all the world's problems guarantees that you won't.