Earth Day for Skeptics!

[chrisa]

First, I should start off that I've always considered myself a skeptic and proud of that fact. I ask questions and look for answers on any topic of interest that comes my way.

While Earth Day is now focused on the global warming issue—it should be looked at in many different ways. There seem to be three distinct viewpoints on this issue:

1. People who believe the Earth's climate is warming at an accelerated rate due to human involvement.
2. People who believe that the Earth's climate is in a warming cycle and that humans have nothing to do with it.
3. People who don't care either way.

Regardeless if you believe in #1 or #2 (on the list above) conservation can only be a good thing for a number of reasons (but not limited to):

1. Less pollution means better air and water which is something that I don't think anybody would dispute (things like arsenic and mercury really do kill people).
2. Less dependence on foreign oil—do I really need to go into this?
3. New technology means more jobs and a better economy.
4. Renewable energy would also mean less price gauging by companies like Exxon/Mobil. Skeptic or not, nobody likes to give their money away to companies that base their prices on fictional supply and demand issues.

While many believe that humans have not had an effect on the Earth's warming cycle, humans have had an enormous effect on things like pollution, disease, species extinction just to name a few. Conservation can solve some of these problems. Sustainable energy will solve some of these problems. Instead of arguing about who's right or wrong on the global warming issue, try conservation for other reasons. It benefits everybody, regardless of political views or economic status.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yay Earth! Go Earth!

Underlying most of the "pollution problems" is the fact that there are a hell of a lot of people on the Earth. This trend seems to be continuing. Let's hope the planet can accommodate everyone.

~~ Paul

 

[Rob Lister]

First, I should start off that I've always considered myself a skeptic and proud of that fact. I ask questions and look for answers on any topic of interest that comes my way.

While Earth Day is now focused on the global warming issue—it should be looked at in many different ways. There seem to be three distinct viewpoints on this issue:

1. People who believe the Earth's climate is warming at an accelerated rate due to human involvement.
2. People who believe that the Earth's climate is in a warming cycle and that humans have nothing to do with it.
3. People who don't care either way.

Regardeless if you believe in #1 or #2 (on the list above) conservation can only be a good thing for a number of reasons (but not limited to):

1. Less pollution means better air and water which is something that I don't think anybody would dispute (things like arsenic and mercury really do kill people).
2. Less dependence on foreign oil—do I really need to go into this?
3. New technology means more jobs and a better economy.
4. Renewable energy would also mean less price gauging by companies like Exxon/Mobil. Skeptic or not, nobody likes to give their money away to companies that base their prices on fictional supply and demand issues.

While many believe that humans have not had an effect on the Earth's warming cycle, humans have had an enormous effect on things like pollution, disease, species extinction just to name a few. Conservation can solve some of these problems. Sustainable energy will solve some of these problems. Instead of arguing about who's right or wrong on the global warming issue, try conservation for other reasons. It benefits everybody, regardless of political views or economic status.

List 1 -- I'm dead middle between 2 and 3

List 2 --
1) There is a cost with doing or not doing everything and anything. The ban on DDT is a prime example.
2) I'm all for energy independance. What does the typical Earth Day environmentalist think about nuclear power?
3) Depends on if the new technology is actually useful.
4) Mean ol' doo-doo-head oil companies! Seriously, they charge what the market will bare. I'v no beef with them.

 

[Slimething]

chrisa,

Welcome to the forum. Despite the fact that, in general, I agree with you that conservation is a good thing, you have made a few claims that are questionable. For example, are As and Hg really in drinking water that big a deal right now in the US? If so, provide the number of people killed by these.

Also, the claim that new technology means more jobs. Usually, technology means fewer jobs as more efficient processes require fewer people to participate (read up on agriculture before and after the Industrial Revolution). If you have details on how new technologies would require increased human labor, you'd have to defend the cost of these newer technologies to the industries who would adopt them.

Finally, if you have hard evidence of price collusion by any industry, including oil, that is a criminal violation. Don't post it but please take such evidence to the Justice Department (or so it was called prior to Bush).

 

[H3LL]

Also, the claim that new technology means more jobs. Usually, technology means fewer jobs as more efficient processes require fewer people to participate (read up on agriculture before and after the Industrial Revolution).

"Usually"? Very odd.

Just for starters, could you let us know about the decrease in jobs in the automotive, aerospace, shipping, logistics, white goods, brown goods, telecommunications, IT, travel, finance, retail, media and leisure industries and just about everything (including the building and infrastructure) of you home and workplace that have occurred since the Industrial Revolution?

Or even the number of jobs in those industries before the Industrial Revolution?

.

 

[Slimething]

"Usually"? Very odd.

Learned a long time ago to avoid making blanket statements.

Just for starters, could you let us know about the decrease in jobs in the automotive, aerospace, shipping, logistics, white goods, brown goods, telecommunications, IT, travel, finance, retail, media and leisure industries and just about everything (including the building and infrastructure) of you home and workplace that have occurred since the Industrial Revolution?

Aha, you think you've caught slimey in a mistatement! H3LL, no! (Couldn't resist. ) If you read my post carefully, I said to read up on farming before and after the Industrial Revolution. So, you have not caught our hero!

Seriously, most of the industries you've listed are a result of the Industrial Revolution and beyond. However, the rule that new technology kills jobs still holds in that even these industries, new as they are, become less labor intensive and require fewer humans per unit with advancing technology. I don't have the numbers but it's pretty obvious that it takes much fewer people to assemble a TV in the transistor era than the vacuum tube era.

As far as the others (travel, leisure, finance and retail), more people are serviced by fewer people as technology progresses. Travel: how many ships would you need to carry the same number of people between any two transoceanic points as aircraft in a given year? Leisure: how many maintenance personnel would be needed to keep up a hotel before washing machines, vacuum cleaners, computerized check-in/out/billing, etc as now? Finance: CPUs, case closed. Retail: automated ordering/inventory systems etc have eliminated load of jobs.

Or even the number of jobs in those industries before the Industrial Revolution?

Cute!

 

[SezMe]

While Earth Day is now focused on the global warming issue ....

I disagree. But whether you are correct is small potatoes.

I took this opportunity to post to note about what gave me a chuckle at our local earth day celebration. We have quite an event: live music, streets blocked off, hundreds (literally) of booths, food, etc. But this year one booth won my admiration: Republicans for the Environment! Yep, there are conservatives who advocate conservation. I was surprised at the level of organization (nationally, in every state and, of course, locally). I got to yacking with some of them, kidding about "environmental republicans" being an oxymoron and they told even more funny anecdotes. I came away with a positive impression. Good on them.

 

[frank462]

I took this opportunity to post to note about what gave me a chuckle at our local earth day celebration. We have quite an event: live music, streets blocked off, hundreds (literally) of booths, food, etc. But this year one booth won my admiration: Republicans for the Environment! Yep, there are conservatives who advocate conservation. I was surprised at the level of organization (nationally, in every state and, of course, locally). I got to yacking with some of them, kidding about "environmental republicans" being an oxymoron and they told even more funny anecdotes. I came away with a positive impression. Good on them.

The fact that you were surprised says a lot. I applaud you for taking the time to get to know these good people. There are many, many people who are politically conservative and also support conservation and antipollution measures. Please spread the word and help put an end to this bad stereotype.

 

[strider]

Underlying most of the "pollution problems" is the fact that there are a hell of a lot of people on the Earth. This trend seems to be continuing. Let's hope the planet can accommodate everyone.

More alarming is the rate at which the Earth's population of humans is growing. The Wikipedia article Population_growth^WP has a graph showing human population increase from 10,000 BC – 2000 AD which should give one pause for thought.

Conservation of conception should be encouraged. After all, the Earth will be here even after man becomes extinct.