Originally posted by dadudemon
Inimilist is far from ignorant...probably stubborn and cynical at worst.
I'd prefer beligerant, but I'd mostly agree
Originally posted by dadudemon
I fall somewhere between "Save the planet from these evil humans" and "Humans ain't messin' anything up." Really though, we ARE messing things up AND we are idiots sometimes. It IS all about business.
I fail to see these as being "either / or" options. For instance, I am interested in saving the planet so that humanity is able to survive. However, condemning people as evil doesn't seem to propose any solutions.
I can't deal with such real world problems with these moral abstractions of "good" and "evil". We need to pick a goal and figure out what the most effective way of getting there is. My goal would be continued human existance at the same standard of living we have today (by which I mean things like water, heat, electricity.. maybe not 3 cars in a 7000 square foot home, although there is no reason why these things could not be made more environmentally friendly).
However, greens (I need to figure out a way to combine slang for greens and pinks...) have a much different goal. It seems they are more interested in bringing down major corporations, as opposed to solving specific environmental concerns. As with the post I replied to above, the most specific point that was made was concerning "shadowy figures" that head corporations, and their greed (which is synonimous for evil of course).
Originally posted by dadudemon
I want to go buy a $40,000 mass produced electric car....but where is it? I am willing to pay $20,000 more for a car if it was electric. Half the people I know want to buy a fully electric car. An electric car would raise your monthly electric bill by $5-$6 a month...But, if I can remember correctly....car pollution is only 20-30% of global warming!!! The large majority comes from business and Energy Production!!!!These same electric cars that we want may only increase pollution at the power plant IF the power plant does not have a clean source of energy. In some areas, you can tell your company that you only want "green" energy and they will try to provide that...it costs a few cents more.
Agreed. However, the only "green" technology that is available and also mature enough to be a realistic alternative is nuclear. I am a HUGE supporter of nuclear power, however, people (re: greens (re: pinks)) are against it for some reason, and insist that solar, wind, and many other technologies (which are still immature compared to nuclear) could provide the same (which they wont be able to for decades).
My opinion on future green power? Start working with bacteria.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On top of that, you have got the stupid Chinese going overboard with the coal power plants because ALL they care about is making more money and becoming more successful, etc. What close minded fools, I say. Also, George Bush is a friggin' idiot because he wouldn't sign the Kyoto convention thingie....stupid friggin idiot!!! Though in his defense, I can understand why a republican would never sign something that would increase the costs of big businesses.
I agree with both of these. I am not a huge supporter of Kyoto by any means, however, something does need to be done.
China is a harder nut to crack, as with all developing nations, because here is where humanitarianism is in direct conflict with environmentalism. If we want developing nations to be prosperous and have happy and healthy citizens, letting them us coal and petrolium fuel is the best option. If you want there to be less pollution, make them use green technologies (which never includes nuclear, look at the Iran situation [although I am no naive enough to think Iran only wants nuclear technology for civilian power]). They do seem to be mutually exclusive options, though I'd love to hear someone explain a viable solution.