(10-26-2020 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2020 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The problems with the environment movement are many and varied.

1. Goals. Most proposals would not even begin to solve the problem. they are just meant to delay the results. So when I hear a proposal like "replace 40% of the gas powered cared cars with electric vehicles by 2040", I think of people in a lifeboat bailing with a pie pan.

2. Identification of the problem. If the problem is even partially due to natural causes, then we are centuries away from being able to control those. Many environmentalists will not even admit to the possibility of natural factors, despite the presence of billions of years of history. The Bering Land Bridge did not become submerged due to Chevys.

3. A failure to look to secondary cause and effects. Sure, if we were able to go to 100% electric cars, that would cut down emissions...from cars. But where does the electricity come from. Generating plants powered by coal, gas, or nuclear, right?

The overarching problem, as I see it, is overpopulation. Nobody has suggested anything to combat this problem. But the food necessary to feed the multitudes, the power to heat and cool and build their domiciles, all is predicated on water which is is NOT a renewable resource. So all the efforts of the environmentalists are directed at the wrong target and in the wrong way.

I don't have a suggested solution. Population control is a tricky topic. But I do think it would be better to concentrate on the REAL problem rather than run around advocating and instituting useless programs, like the GND.

This is an extremely well articulated version of my issues as well. Its not remotely about 'denying the science', no matter how loud they yell that. It's about accepting the science, and also accepting that no real solution has been offered... especially when you consider the global implications... by that I mean, we could cut our emissions and China's economy could improve by 10% allowing them to buy more CHEAP IC cars, trucks and power plants and completely eliminate our efforts... or Africa etc etc etc.

I am SICK AND TIRED of these constant positions where if you don't buy in 100% to 'one side', that you are a horrible person. No friends, if I don't buy in, you're a horrible spokesman. Stupid people don't count... but I'm nowhere near stupid.

It's not about science, the environment, the population, mother earth or whatever else is thrown against the wall to see what sticks. It's about power and control.

(10-26-2020 10:48 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2020 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2020 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The problems with the environment movement are many and varied.

1. Goals. Most proposals would not even begin to solve the problem. they are just meant to delay the results. So when I hear a proposal like "replace 40% of the gas powered cared cars with electric vehicles by 2040", I think of people in a lifeboat bailing with a pie pan.

2. Identification of the problem. If the problem is even partially due to natural causes, then we are centuries away from being able to control those. Many environmentalists will not even admit to the possibility of natural factors, despite the presence of billions of years of history. The Bering Land Bridge did not become submerged due to Chevys.

3. A failure to look to secondary cause and effects. Sure, if we were able to go to 100% electric cars, that would cut down emissions...from cars. But where does the electricity come from. Generating plants powered by coal, gas, or nuclear, right?

The overarching problem, as I see it, is overpopulation. Nobody has suggested anything to combat this problem. But the food necessary to feed the multitudes, the power to heat and cool and build their domiciles, all is predicated on water which is is NOT a renewable resource. So all the efforts of the environmentalists are directed at the wrong target and in the wrong way.

I don't have a suggested solution. Population control is a tricky topic. But I do think it would be better to concentrate on the REAL problem rather than run around advocating and instituting useless programs, like the GND.

This is an extremely well articulated version of my issues as well. Its not remotely about 'denying the science', no matter how loud they yell that. It's about accepting the science, and also accepting that no real solution has been offered... especially when you consider the global implications... by that I mean, we could cut our emissions and China's economy could improve by 10% allowing them to buy more CHEAP IC cars, trucks and power plants and completely eliminate our efforts... or Africa etc etc etc.

I am SICK AND TIRED of these constant positions where if you don't buy in 100% to 'one side', that you are a horrible person. No friends, if I don't buy in, you're a horrible spokesman. Stupid people don't count... but I'm nowhere near stupid.

It's not about science, the environment, the population, mother earth or whatever else is thrown against the wall to see what sticks. It's about power and control.

It's about winning elections. I wonder how many will vote Biden because they "hope" he will be better for the Environment?