Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Reschke on July 07, 2007, 09:37:46 AM
-
The worst so far for me has to be this band I saw this morning called 'Wolfmother'. Those guys suck worse than 'Linkin Park'. In a way they sounded like a late 60's hard rock band that never got off the junk to actually listen to what they sounded like. I hope they are not indicative of the music scene down in Aussie land.
-
Damn, I guess I was wrong. (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199721&highlight=wolfmother)
Since it's a political rally type event I have no interest in it. I am sure there are bands that are good (hehe) but if it's for a certain political view point I'll pass.
-
what is the carbon footprint of all the live earth concerts?
-
Originally posted by john9001
what is the carbon footprint of all the live earth concerts?
LMAO, that was one of the biggest criticisms of the event. And PETA was trying to make the vendors NOT sell hotdogs and hamburgers or anything with animal products in them.
-
Originally posted by john9001
what is the carbon footprint of all the live earth concerts?
Including TV viewers? Estimated at 74,550 tons.
That's okay though. It's to raise awareness. :rolleyes:
-
Fox news estimated the carbon output of just the New Jersey venue at 220 tons per day from just the press vehicle generators which are not running on biodiesel. :aok
-
This is not a political point in anyway. It's Enviromental awareness. So far the best has been Linkin Park, but thats me.
-
Originally posted by Renotrigger
This is not a political point in anyway. It's Enviromental awareness. So far the best has been Linkin Park, but thats me.
LOLZ, yeah, okkkkkkkkkkkkkkk....nothing Al Gore does is political, right?
-
I agree with you there Diablo. I just can't stand him or Wolfmother, Linkin Park, etc...
BUT the Red Hot Chili Peppers weren't so bad and neither was Rhianna (whoever the heck that is).
-
I enjoyed Genesis, but I always enjoy Genesis.
-
This event is not for the people who dislike what it stands for,
my only hope is that this people dont listen to the bands that
are playing, because this bands play just for what this event stands for.
For all other, have a nice evening, enjoy it! ;)
-
Originally posted by Renotrigger
This is not a political point in anyway.
Sure...........and Madonna and Pam Anderson or both virgins. Also, Michael Jackson doesn`t like little boys and O.J. is innocent dammit!
;)
-
O.J. is innocent dammit!
How could ANYONE think he was guilty!!??? I mean he even wrote a book about how he "could" or "would" have done it IF he had done it witch he says he didnt and that should be good enough for us unwashed masses
LOL
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I enjoyed Genesis, but I always enjoy Genesis.
If Gabriel was fronting then I'd say hell yes, bring on Supper's Ready!
If not, I'll pass.
-
OK whose Politics is it for if it being done all over the world??
Please, tell me that.
-
Originally posted by Renotrigger
OK whose Politics is it for if it being done all over the world??
Please, tell me that.
Please tell me you can't be that naive...
"THE CONCERTS FOR A CLIMATE IN CRISIS"
That's really all you need to know about it's political aim.
-
Whose Politics? That's what I want to know.
United States', United Kingdom's, Japan's, South Africa's, China's, Austalia's, Brazil's, or Germany's.
It's enviromental Awareness.
Does this mean there is no Enviromental Problems.
-
Oh boy...
:rolleyes:
-
The producer of these events specifically went to Al Gore instead of some other political whack job. No other talking head could have done as good of a job as Al Gore did in stating that HE was doing this for the environment and that it was HIS idea to get these concerts done all around the world.
BTW if you don't think that Al Gore will announce in the next few weeks that he is making another run at the Presidency then you are naive. What better way is there to turn some thing that should be about our world and coming together to force changes than to announce that it was your idea and oh by the way I am running for president.
AS for the worst act I have seen it was a band in New York....'Taking back Sunday' or some crap like that. They sucked worse than 'Wolfmother'.
-
"And it was only hours before the Washington DC concert was scheduled to begin that organizers were able to secure a venue for the last-minute addition to the schedule. The Washington Post reported the U.S. capital had been Gore's first choice for the main concert, but the National Mall was booked, and even an Act of Congress wasn't enough to keep Republican opponents from blocking attempts by Democratic lawmakes to secure a venue."
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Earth#Controversy_and_criticism)
Yup, no politics to be found anywhere...
-
I'm altogether not sure why there is this denial..this venom..directed at anyone who considers the environment important. I'm not talking about the wackjobs that go around preaching tree hugging and free love.. I'm more speaking to the backlash against those who are doing the actual work, the actual science.
It's almost like the backlash that happened when doctors first started declaring smoking bad for your health.
Any report you see that declares any sort of deniability on climate change is pre-eminently funded by an industry that would benefit from a business as usual attitude. The oil industry, for example, is giving ANY scientist who will stand up and cast doubt on the real science a "signing bonus". Can't anyone understand that policy cannot be made, nor real science performed, if the mechanism is funded by those who would directly profit from one course of action?
Science does not answer to policy. We answer only to the understanding of an issue.
Wake up. It's the same thing the tobacco industry did when they saw their profit margin about to get undercut.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I'm altogether not sure why there is this denial..this venom..directed at anyone who considers the environment important. I'm not talking about the wackjobs that go around preaching tree hugging and free love.. I'm more speaking to the backlash against those who are doing the actual work, the actual science.
It's because the tree hugging whackjobs are the face of the movement. I think there are very very few people that are saying "screw the environment, it's all bout me." I think the backlash is aimed at the nutjobs and whackos yelling that the sky is falling at every turn.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Science does not answer to policy. We answer only to the understanding of an issue.
Jessie James at least had the common courtesy of using a gun.
It`s all about the money.
Science, like everything else nowadays answers to the tune of the allmighty buck.
If you`ve got the money honey, I`ve got the time. (Willie)
:D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Jessie James at least had the common courtesy of using a gun.
It`s all about the money.
Science, like everything else nowadays answers to the tune of the allmighty buck.
If you`ve got the money honey, I`ve got the time. (Willie)
:D
Wow. Do you work in a science field?... because I do. We sure as hell don't live in mansions there genius. My annual salary is surpassedby more occupations than you could probably name.... I'm in it cuz I love it... not for the money. There isn't a rich scientist around. Yes, sometimes we work with expensive equipment, yet more likely there is a much easier way to get data, without expense.
Saying that science is for hire.....lol. I wish it wasn't true for a small minority, the ones the oil company gives "bonuses" to for attempting to create a doubt on climate change, and it being a causal, homo sapien event.
As for the rest of us, we show up for work only for the love of it. You would do well to visit my workplace sometime. You may have a slight change of heart.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
If Gabriel was fronting then I'd say hell yes, bring on Supper's Ready!
If not, I'll pass.
Yep that is good stuff, and all of the other pre-Trick of the Tail albums, but they remain a great live show without Gabriel.
and I think Trick of the Tail is one of their best.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yep that is good stuff, and all of the other pre-Trick of the Tail albums, but they remain a great live show without Gabriel.
and I think Trick of the Tail is one of their best.
No argument from me. I'm just a little burned out on the Collins-era Genesis.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Wow. Do you work in a science field?
No suh. I have never sold out on anything.
because I do.
My condolences.
We sure as hell don't live in mansions there genius.
"We"? You represent the whole shabang there Alfred? :rofl
There isn't a rich scientist around
O.J. is innocent I tell you! :cry
Saying that science is for hire.....lol. I wish it wasn't true for a small minority, the ones the oil company gives "bonuses" to for attempting to create a doubt on climate change, and it being a causal, homo sapien event.
That works two ways hoss.
It`s all about the money.
-
Genesis were ok....wolfmother have always been overrated...I thought Cat Steven's Peace Train was good, but the best was an aussie band The John Butler Trio or the Foo Fighters
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Genesis were ok....wolfmother have always been overrated...I thought Cat Steven's Peace Train was good, but the best was an aussie band The John Butler Trio or the Foo Fighters
Tronsky
I liked the Foo Fighters yesterday also and I have heard of the John Butler Trio but never heard one of their songs. I need to see if I can find a few to get a line on them to add to the play list (legally) and see if I like them. I did like the research scientist band Nanutak (sp?) that played in Antarctica.
Moray - This argument isn't about the environment. I think that we need to do something BUT and yes its a big one. Not one of the statements they put out where anything new or more useful than what had been preached about before. It was just Al Gores launchpad to the run for 08.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
No suh. I have never sold out on anything.
My condolences.
"We"? You represent the whole shabang there Alfred? :rofl
O.J. is innocent I tell you! :cry
That works two ways hoss.
It`s all about the money.
So that mean you have no idea what your talking about Jackal1, which in turn negates anything you've said....lol.
Because O.J. is innocent in the eyes of the law and that's all that really matters in the end. Reguardless what anyone else thinks. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Renotrigger
Because O.J. is innocent in the eyes of the law and that's all that really matters in the end. Reguardless what anyone else thinks. Sorry.
Oh........sorry. I didn`t know that was the rules. Excuse me please.
Or........give me a friggen break poser. :rofl
-
It doesn't matter aboot the political behind the scenes show, I don't really care for Al Gore meself, but global warming is occuring, and we are impacting it. It used to snow here, but not anymore. Forget the politics, something needs to be done aboot this. Global warming is no longer a theory, it's a fact. And it's a fact that we are impacting it. Burning rainforests, clearing land, factories putting out CO2, SO3, SO2, and other harmfull chemicals. If you don't beleive we are impacting the global climate, open your eyes. It's all around us now. You can practically see the smog in some cities, and yet for years the big factories said it wouldn't hurt you. It's been proven that the smog made by those factories can cause headaches, can errode metal and stone structures, and can even affect our long term health. We did something aboot those. Now it's time to do something aboot the rest. If you don't do it to save this planet for future generations, then do it to save yourself some money. That was the reason a lot of the people were there, not for some political reason. Even if there was a political reason behind it, ignore it and look at the rest. Environmental alarms have been sounding for years, it's time to fix the problem. Many species of plants and animals have become endangered or extict due to these factors. If that isn't enough proof something is dead wrong, I don't know what is.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Jessie James at least had the common courtesy of using a gun.
It`s all about the money.
Science, like everything else nowadays answers to the tune of the allmighty buck.
If you`ve got the money honey, I`ve got the time. (Willie)
:D
It isn't all aboot the money. I don't work just for money. I work to feed me family, and to get things done that wouldn't be otherwise. Am I a scientist? Yes, at times. I do some chemistry work, some biology, ecology, and several other sciences. Do I do it for the money? No. Money is the last thing I care aboot. Am I a tree hugger? No. Do I think PETA is right or good? Heck no! Do I like hippies? Heck no! But do I think something is wrong with the environment? Very much. Do I like hunting? No, but I do hunt when we are low on meat. And nice quote, it's a good song, but it's aboot something else entirely. Put on some George Jones, "Who's gonna fill their shoes?"
-
Both post were well written and the thoughts behind them were good as well McFarland. I am right there with you but the way they did it was all wrong. No I don't have a way to do it right or better but they needed to tell us something we did not know already about our impact on the world we live on.
-
What is a poser?
-
Originally posted by McFarland
I don't work just for money. I work to feed me family,
??????:huh
-
I'm a subsistance farmer. Look that up. And a chemist when the need arises. And a botanist, and a metalurgist, and a biologist, and a zoologist, and an ecologist, and what ever else I may need to be at any one time.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
I'm a subsistance farmer. Look that up. And a chemist when the need arises. And a botanist, and a metalurgist, and a biologist, and a zoologist, and an ecologist, and what ever else I may need to be at any one time.
Don't forget botanical reclamation engineer.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
It doesn't matter aboot the political behind the scenes show, I don't really care for Al Gore meself, but global warming is occuring, and we are impacting it. It used to snow here, but not anymore. Forget the politics, something needs to be done aboot this. Global warming is no longer a theory, it's a fact. And it's a fact that we are impacting it. Burning rainforests, clearing land, factories putting out CO2, SO3, SO2, and other harmfull chemicals. If you don't beleive we are impacting the global climate, open your eyes. It's all around us now. You can practically see the smog in some cities, and yet for years the big factories said it wouldn't hurt you. It's been proven that the smog made by those factories can cause headaches, can errode metal and stone structures, and can even affect our long term health. We did something aboot those. Now it's time to do something aboot the rest. If you don't do it to save this planet for future generations, then do it to save yourself some money. That was the reason a lot of the people were there, not for some political reason. Even if there was a political reason behind it, ignore it and look at the rest. Environmental alarms have been sounding for years, it's time to fix the problem. Many species of plants and animals have become endangered or extict due to these factors. If that isn't enough proof something is dead wrong, I don't know what is.
"Global warming is no longer a theory, its a fact"...well no kidding, it's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age 700 years ago you think no one noticed? The question remains what, if any, impact man is having on average temperatures. There are plenty of theories around that argue that man's net effect on global temperature is 0 or that we're actually causing it to be cooler than it would otherwise be. We've been told we have 10 years before it's "too late"....first heard that one more than 5 years ago and we still have 10 years before it's "too late". What about 10 years from now...another 10 years?
Your observation about YOUR local weather is meaningless. Sorry it hasn't snowed at your house in a while but, while it may be consistent with natural warming or changes in local climate both of which have nothing to do with man and it in no way has any relationship to man's alleged contribution and doesn't prove a thing.
One of the biggest problems with the "man-made global warming" stuff is that proponents have succeeded in a propaganda victory by making global warming synonymous with "man-made" global warming in the eyes of the generally poorly informed public. Besides that Orwellian bit, how is it exactly that "experts" can say that having a little warming isn't actually of benefit? Most of man's great advances have occured during warming periods including the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. The Little Ice Age is commonly called the "Dark Ages" for a very good reason.
Besides the inherent dishonesty and hysteria in the "man-made" global warming movement and their inevitable point of view that man is "bad" for the Earth, you have to consider what exactly it is they are trying to achieve. Essentially, it boils down to one thing and that's that we must do everything possible to keep the Earth exactly as it is (or as they "remember" it in their Polyannish way). The "good old days" when man was not yet a "virus", people lived off the land, respected "Mother Earth", and worshipped "nature" convienently forgets the shorter life spans, poorer health, lack of progress, and death from living relatively unprotected in "nature". Have you ever seen the anti-human diatribe by the founder of one of the environmental wack job organizations (believe it was Sea Shepard)? He thinks we should let most of humanity (i.e., the "virus") die off so we have less impact on good old "Mother Earth". What good is "Mother Earth" if we're not around to enjoy it?
These are the same types who are against euthanizing or hunting animals because it's cruel while convieniently forgetting that animals kill each other, most of the time by ripping and tearing each other apart. This isn't the "Wonderful World of Disney". Global climate changes, the Earth changes, and the number and types of species changes, these changes have always occurred and always will. I, and everyone I know (conservative and liberal) agree that pollution needs to be eliminated or at least controlled to the maximum extent economically feasible, not only because of health reasons but because it doesn't make sense to "shxt where you sleep" but no one has proven carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" other than in the most general sense (i.e., it's something that we're producing that's increasing the naturally occuring amounts) but there are no proven negative aspects to it (except in the most extreme cases), just theories. What if we started producing more water (actually make it vice purification)? Would it then be classified as pollutants? This isn't any different when the cause dejour' was global cooling, nuclear winter or the eradication of mankind by Aides. A lot of hype, hysteria and hypocracy with little or no facts to support them.
When someone can prove that man is causing, or even significantly contributing to warming then I'll be willing to re-look at the issue but for now I'll drive the car (or truck) I want, use as much energy as I need and can afford, buy the things I need or want, and pay as little tax as is legally feasible. For all you members of the Church of the Environment; until someone actually proves the man-made global warming theory (which they won't) keep your hands off my economy and my rights.
-
^^^ what he said.
-
this just in........
it is no longer called "Global warming", it is now officially called "climate change".
your temps may vary.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
It doesn't matter aboot
, something needs to be done aboot
We did something aboot
Now it's time to do something aboot
Are you from Canada?;)
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Are you from Canada?;)
i think they talk that way in East Tennessee.
as in " i go aboot me business"
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
The oil industry, for example, is giving ANY scientist who will stand up and cast doubt on the real science a "signing bonus". Can't anyone understand that policy cannot be made, nor real science performed, if the mechanism is funded by those who would directly profit from one course of action?
Sources for this info? Name names man, if its true its your duty to "out" these traitors.:rolleyes:
I have just as much reason to doubt Govt. funded scientists, by the way.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i think they talk that way in East Tennessee.
as in " i go aboot me business"
I don`t think this one does. :)
-
No decent band would be caught dead at this political rally. I have no interest in this at all....
-
Source: American Association For The Advancement Of Science
Date: February 23, 2001
More on: Nature, Ecology, Sustainability, Ecosystems, Biodiversity, Ecology Research
AAAS Atlas Shows Human Impact On Environment
Science Daily — San Francisco, CA - 16 February 2001 - The AAAS announced today the publication of an atlas that graphically illustrates the link between population and the environment. It shows, says Paul Harrison, who wrote The AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment, that humanity is "overreaching itself ... threatening the key resources on which we depend."
The atlas demonstrates, "the cross connections between human and natural environmental factors in determining a particular outcome," says Peter H. Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and President-elect of AAAS, in the book's forward.
The new atlas opens with an overview of the history of humanity's impact on the environment, the current status of the world's major ecosystems, consumption trends, and policy responses to the impact of the human presence on the environment.
The second part of the book comprises primarily graphics and maps that quantify the impact of humanity on natural resources, land use, the atmosphere, waste and chemicals, ecosystems, and biodiversity. Graphics illustrate, for example, the Earth's fresh water resources, as well as the world's top per-capita water consumers and how each nation allocates its water use. The last section of the atlas, produced by the World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy, consists of six case studies that examine the relationship between population and environment in areas of North and South America, Asia and Africa.
"We have found that people have a difficult time understanding how population dynamics affect the environment," says Richard W. Getzinger, director of the AAAS International Directorate, which produced the atlas. "So we began thinking about how we could use the latest technological tools in a way that can promote human welfare while providing a better understanding of the human impact on the environment."
The atlas, which is being published by the University of California Press, was produced with funding from the Summit Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Turner Foundation. Founded in 1848, AAAS is the world's largest federation of scientists with more than 138,000 individual members and 273 affiliated societies. The Association publishes the weekly, peer-reviewed journal Science and administers EurekAlert! (http://www.eurekalert.org) the online news service featuring the latest discoveries in science and technology.
-
Human impact on the natural environment
State of ecosystems, habitats and species
In the past, human interaction with nature, although often having a disruptive effect on nature, often also enriched the quality and variety of the living world and its habitats - e.g. through the creation of artificial landscapes and soil cultivation by local farmers.
Today, however, human pressure on natural environments is greater than before in terms of magnitude and efficiency in disrupting nature and natural landscapes, most notably:
Intensive agriculture replacing traditional farming; this combined with the subsidies of industrial farming has had an enormous effect on western rural landscapes and continues to be a threat.
mass tourism affecting mountains and coasts.
the policies pursued in the industry, transport and energy sectors having a direct and damaging impact on the coasts, major rivers (dam construction and associated canal building) and mountain landscapes (main road networks).
the strong focus of forestry management on economic targets primarily causes the decline in biodiversity, soil erosion and other related effects.
The clearest manifestations of the degradation of the natural environment are:
Reduction and fragmentation of habitats and landscapes
The expansion of humans activities into the natural environment, manifested by urbanisation, recreation, industrialisation, and agriculture, results in increasing uniformity in landscapes and consequential reduction, disappearance, fragmentation or isolation of habitats and landscapes.
It is evident that the increasing exploitation of land for human use greatly reduces the area of each wildlife habitat as well as the total area surface throughout Europe. The consequences are:
A decreased species diversity, due to reduced habitable surface area which corresponds to a reduced "species carrying capacity".
The reduction of the size of habitats also reduces the genetic diversity of the species living there. Smaller habitats can only accommodate smaller populations, this results in an impoverished gene pool.
The reduction of genetic resources of a species diminishes its flexibility and evolutionary adaptability to changing situations. This has significant negative impacts on its survival.
The conditions under which the reduction of habitats often occur prevent living organisms making use of their normal ways to flee their threatened habitat. Those escape routes include migration to other habitats, adaption to the changing environment, or genetic interchange with populations in nearby habitats. Of particular concern is:
The abrupt nature of human intervention; human projects are planned and implemented on a much shorter time scale than natural processes;
Furthermore human intervention, such as the construction of buildings, motorways or railways results in the fragmentation of habitats, which strongly limits the possibility for contact or migration among them;
In extreme cases even the smallest, narrowest connections between habitats are broken off. Such isolation is catastrophic for life in the habitat fragments.
Loss of Species of Fauna and Flora
Although relatively few species of Europe's fauna and flora have actually become totally extinct during this century, the continent's biodiversity is affected by decreasing species numbers and the loss of habitats in many regions. Approximately 30 % of the vertebrates and 20 % of the higher plants are classified as "threatened". Threats are directly linked to the loss of habitats due to destruction, modification and fragmentation of ecosystems as well as from overuse of pesticides and herbicides, intensive farming methods, hunting and general human disturbance. The overall deterioration of Europe's air and water quality add to the detrimental influence.
Agriculture
Europe's natural environment is inextricably linked with agriculture and forestry. Since agriculture traditionally depends on sound environmental conditions, farmers have a special interest in the maintenance of natural resources and for centuries maintained a mosaic of landscapes which protected and enriched the natural environment.
As a result of needs for food production since the 1940s, policies have encouraged increased production through a variety of mechanisms, including price support, other subsidies and support for research and development. The success achieved in agricultural production has however entailed increased impact on the environment.
Modern agriculture is responsible for the loss of much wildlife and their habitats in Europe, through reduction and fragmentation of habitats and wildlife populations. The drainage of wetlands, the destruction of hedgerows and the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides can all pose a threat to wildlife. Highly specialised monoculture are causing significant loss in species abundance and diversity. On the other hand increased production per hectare in intensive areas, raising of livestock volume, and lower prices for agricultural products also caused marginalization of agricultural land, changing the diversity of European landscapes into the direction of two main types: Intensive Agriculture and Abandoned land.
Energy
Abandonment can be positive for nature, but this is not necessarily so. Land abandonment increases the risk of fire in the Mediterranean Region, causes a decline of small-scale landscape diversity and can also cause decrease in species diversity.
All energy types have potential impacts on the natural environment to varying degrees at all stages of use, from extraction through processing to end use. Generating energy from any source involves making the choices between impacts and how far those impacts can be tolerated at the local and global scale. This is especially of importance for nuclear power, where there are significant risks of radioactive pollution such as at Chernobyl.
Shell Oil Company and IUCN have jointly drafted environmental regulations for oil-exploitation in Arctic areas of Siberia. Other oil companies are aware of this and use these environmental regulations voluntarily for developing oil fields.
Into the future the sustainability of the natural environment will be improved as trends away from damaging energy uses and extractive methods reduce and whilst real cost market forces and the polluter pays principle take effect.
Fisheries
The principle of the fisheries sector is towards sustainable catches of wild aquatic fauna. The principle environmental impact associated with fisheries activities is the unsustainable harvesting of fish stocks and shellfish and has consequences for the ecological balance of the aquatic environment. The sector is in a state of "crisis", with over capacity of the fleet, overexploitation of stocks, debt, and marketing problems.
Growing aquaculture industry may increase water pollution in western Europe, and is appearing to be a rising trend in the Mediterranean and Central/East Europe.
Fishing activities have an impact on cetaceans and there is concern that large numbers of dolphins, and even the globally endangered Monk seal, are being killed.
Forestry
Compared to other landuses, forest management has the longest tradition in following sustainable principles due to which over 30% of Europe is still covered with trees. Without such an organised approach, forests are likely to have already disappeared from Europe's lowlands. However, as an economic sector, forestry has also impacted severely on the naturalness of Europe's forests: soils have been drained, pesticides and fertilizers applied, and exotic species planted. In many areas monocultures have replaced the original diverse forest composition. Monocultures are extremely sensitive to insect infestations, fires or wind, and so can lead to financial losses as well as biological decline. The inadequate afforestation practices characterize new trends in impacting on the sustainability of the natural environment.
Industry
Almost all forms of industry have an impact on the natural environment and its sustainability. The impact varies at different stages in the life cycle of a product, depending upon the raw materials used through to the final end use of the product for waste residue, reuse or recycling. Industrial accidents and war damage to industrial plants can also endanger the natural environment.
Tourism and Recreation
Tourism and recreation impact in various ways on the natural environment. On the one hand, natural areas form the very basis of many touristic attractions by highlighting scenic value or exceptional encounters with fauna and flora. However, some forms of tourism can be extremely detrimental to ecologically sensitive areas, resulting in habitat degeneration or destruction, in the disturbance or hunting even rare or threatened species. The pressure from short holiday seasons and specific, sometimes small, locations of touristic interest result in conflicting land-uses, such as in the Alpine regions, at Mediterranean beaches and along many banks of inland waters.
Transport and Infrastructure
Transport is perhaps the major contributor to pollution in the world today, particularly global environmental issues such as the greenhouse effect. The key impacts of transportation include fragmentation of habitats and species and genetic populations, disruption of migration and traffic mortalities to wildlife. Since the 1970s transport has become a major consumer of non-renewable resources, 80% of oil consumption coming from road transport.
-
I've got more if you need it.
And I'm not a tree hugger. I'm just aware of the world outside of my computer.
-
so half the people on the planet should kill themselves, you first.
-
Originally posted by john9001
so half the people on the planet should kill themselves, you first.
What are you 12. I was just offering proof, to those who said they wanted it. Grow up.
-
Originally posted by Renotrigger
What are you 12. I was just offering proof, to those who said they wanted it. Grow up.
you have the "proof", but you offer no solutions to the problem.
BTW i'm not 12, i'm 10 and a half, and i'm growing as fast as i can.
-
You like quotes Renotrigger? This comes closest to demonstrating my point:
But there's something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.
For this guy, environmentalism, specifically fixing the mythical "climate crisis" is not just the right thing to do. It's a "mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and .... to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge". Now, what does this sound like to you? Sounds like a religion to me. Take a few facts, stir them around briskly, ignore other facts (inconvienient facts), flavor with "faith" and throw in a few Hymns and you have a new, more modern religion. Oh yeah, while you're at it call non-believers the equivalent of heretics (remember the meterologist at TWC that wanted non-believing meterologists disbarred?). How about those in Congress that want to essentially "outlaw" opposing views? They are threatening to drag several of the energy companies before them just because they don't want to toe the party line.
This is the problem. It's popular to ridicule Christians that believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that God placed fossils in it for his own reason. They look at a single document (the Bible) and that's sufficient proof to them that these are facts beyond dispute while ignoring hundreds of years of peer-reviewed science. In other words, their beliefs fly in the face of most known facts but the difference here is that these believers are not looking to take the cash out of my wallet (all though they may ask for some), force their theology down my throat through political action or to pursue policies that would destroy not only the US economy but the worlds.
As I said before there is no reason that people shouldn't believe and participate in some environmental programs as long as their need is adequately documented and the appropriate cost/benefit controls are in place; however, any time a "movement" arises which begins the debate with lies and misrepresentations, and attempts to generate hysteria should be questioned especially in light of the failed claims of such extremists in the past. Remember that we would run out of oil by 1990? How about the huge threat of global cooling (I think that was the '80's)?
Now, lets take a look at AAAS. First, they have support of at least two groups that many find rather "extreme", The Environmental Conservancy and The World Wildlife Fund. Their "news" portal (EurekAlert!) claims to provide access to "embargoed" news (What's that? The junk science thrown out into the wastebin by responsible scientists?) but only for "Journalists" and "Public Information Officers." Of course you, the general public can't have access to "embargoed" news or the "Experts Database". Why not? AAAS claims to have 138,000 members and gives the impression they're all "scientists" but it never specifically says who comprises it's membership....except of course anyone seems to be able to join. So, how many of it's membership are actually scientists? 138,000 members out of a US population of over 300 million? That's .046 percent of the population. I think there are probably a few more scientists around than that.
I'm not saying that AAAS is not really legitimate, I don't know myself. It's just that I'd think you'd want to ask a few fairly simple questions before quoting one organization "atlas" as "proof" of anything.
Oh, btw, the first quote...you know the new Epistle for Environmentalism? That was Al Gore.
-
I don't really know alot about Al Gore, I just know he was into the enviroment before he was in Politics. So I don't understand what everyone has against him. So what if he wants to run for President. I really don't care who the President is. (Not in to politics) I just want people to think about the enviroment. I feel anyone who can't see we are doing damage is just in denial. I'm not trying to upset anyone, just trying make people aware. See you guys in the skys.
-
Originally posted by john9001
BTW i'm not 12, i'm 10 and a half, and i'm growing as fast as i can.
lol
-
renotrigger.. since you seem to believe all this man made global warming stuff and.. not only that but that we can change the climate either way..
What would you have us do?
simple question really.. I don't even expect an answer... I will help.
You don't seem to be in favor of half the population of the world committing suicide to "solve the problem"
You do seem to be in favor of throwing concerts to solve the problem..
there must be some other pet idea you have.
What would you have us do... be specific... if you say "conserve" then tell us exactly what we, each of us would be allowed to use for energy a year and why..
If you say control the population... tell us exactly how many babies we can have and who would be allowed to have them.
and so on.
lazs
-
ok, I take the bus, even though I own a car, I only drive in emergencies. I lived in Nevada and worked on a project where they cut down trees for paper products and housing supplies, but we always planted sapling to take there place. If you are serious about saving the planted and not just about condeming anyone trying to, take the bus it cuts down on emissions in the air. less cars on the road means less polutions in the air. If thier is no bus try biking it's healthy for you and the enviroment.
The problem with most of my suggestions in that the human population is spoiled and set in thier ways. People could buy smart cars or use biofuels. I mean there are a lot of thing that we can do to clean the air, I'm not saying there will be signifcant changes in our life time on even our childrens but over time, just as we are killing the planet with enough people doing someting, or anything to change what we (when I say "we" I'm talking about previous generations too) have done, we can repair it.
Why are ppl jumping all over me about this, I'm trying to change the situation and all you folks can do is jump down my throat for it. I assume you are smart enough to figure out what can be done to change the world.
I also walk if it's less then ten miles distance. Like I said people are set in their ways so no matter what I suggest, most humans are to lazy to change thier ways and try to help. I know I can't change anything in my life time but I'm thinking about our children and thier children. these are just a few suggestions. Peace!!
-
Renotrigger I have to agree with everything you said except for your comment about "killing the planet". We're not killing the planet and the planet will probably be here long after we're gone but I understand what you're saying. We should not thoughtlessly pollute or destroy but on the other hand we, as a civilization, need to live and thrive. Your personal preferences and contributions with regard to doing your part are your business and no one should tell you not to follow your own beliefs; however, the point where I draw the line is the propensity for some to dictate how all should live. Just as I am against Christians who think that selling liquour on Sunday is a sin and should be illegal (as it is in most states), I am against environmental activists that want to force their "Earth First" theology on others. Ride your bike and enjoy it. I'd probably ride mine more if I didn't have a thirty mile commute and rainstorms to consider but I do not buy into every proclaimed "environmental catastrophy" that comes down the pike.
-
I agree Mace. I am not trying to push my beliefs on anyone, I am just trying to make people aware of the big picture. I am guilty of poluting the planet just like everyone. I don't believe I can change the world or believe all the preaching in the world would. I also understand that alot of people commute along way to work or school. I'm sorry if I sound preachy. I just don't understand how some people can say that some of the problem isn't our doing. I am also sorry, because I seemed to have highjacked this forum, and turned it into an enviromental debate. It was about the concert,not the enviroment. Sorry again folks.
-
Originally posted by Renotrigger
I am also sorry, because I seemed to have highjacked this forum, and turned it into an enviromental debate. It was about the concert,not the enviroment. Sorry again folks.
but the concert was about the environment, so it was not a hijack.
-
I agree with mace... reno.. I give you permission to ride the bus instead of driving your car.
In fact... I give everyone permission to do so.. I walk a lot... miles a day.. not to get anywhere or to save anything.. I like the exercise.
I also like my big block el camino that gets 8-13 mpg and I will drive it any time that I like. I will pay for the fuel for it. And... I won't tell anyone else what to drive. When we run out I will either be dead or, more likely... supply and demand will come to the rescue and we will have something else for me to hot rod and play around with.
you claim to know that man made global warming is a fact. that the science is in and not to be disputed so... how hot will it be in ten years? How hot would it be in ten years if every single human killed himself this afternoon?
How hot will it be if the suns activity slows next year and continues for the next nine?
If it is cooler in 10 years than we would like is that going to be our fault too?
lazs
-
I never said anything about giving permission.
You just want to ignore the facts. So be it. I just made SUGGESTIONS. So do what ever you want. I am not going to argue with you.
-
ok.. then if you think that man made global warming is happening but you think that all we should do about it is to make suggestions then..
I can't disagree with your solution. I will be glad to listen to your suggestions. I will use them if they work for me at the time. I use the flourecent bulbs... I do not do it to save the world tho. they save me money and I don't have to change em as often and they are no worse to me than the regular ones... if they were not as good I wouldn't use em.
I will listen to your suggestions about cars and then drive whatever I feel like driving.
See? it is not hard to come to some kind of agreement after all is it?
lazs