What do you think about the enviroment and how the US and world is handling it?

Happy Earth day, by the way.

At this point in time, the environment isn't at its best. I forget how many, but in a certain amount of years, we will have used all of our fossil fuels before nature can replenish them. Our atmosphere has become similar to the greenhouse effect because of using these fossil fuels. Our rain forests are cut down for agriculture. The land becomes unuseable after a period of time because after the trees are cut down, and new plants are grown, there aren't enough nutrients in the soil for much of anything to grow. The state of the environment is pathetic.

Hurray, somebody fell for the ambush.
ah-hem
*clears throught*

The environmentalists have been running around for how many years, besides global warming what have they been saying? "We are polluting the planet! We're destroying our ecosystems! We're destroying animals. We're destroying life as we know it. We're leaving a future for our children, grandchildren, filled with nothing but coughs and wheezes and eventual death," and of course people are predisposed to hear negative news. They will believe it.

Well, try some optimism here: On this, the 35th anniversary of Earth Day, our nation continues to enjoy improved ecological health. The world is cleaner today than it was in 1970. But it never ends. Nothing unexpected about that tho. If environmentalists declare victory, it would be political suicide for their movement and those who have set up nice lives by themselves by braying at corporate America and the conspicuous consumption of fossil fuel. So don't ever expect the environmentalists to go silent. It just puts too many people out of work.

According to the EPA. Core air quality indicators, such as ozone down 31%, nitrogen dioxide down 42%, sulfur dioxide is down 72%, carbon dioxide down 76%, particulate matter down 31% and lead down 98% -- are all now well below their mid-1970s levels, when this environmental stuff all got going.

Have you ever wondered why so many of the environmentalist wackos say, "We need to get back to a more pristine lifestyle! We need to shut down all this technological advancement. We need to live more like they do in the Third World because that pollutes less?" Go to the Third World and tell me if it pollutes less. We as capitalists and as members of the community of capitalists in the world are the ones that have the means to best clean up our messes. It is in our interest to do so.

Did you know that roughly 5% of GDP is spent on enviromental stuff? So does anybody say we need to reduce our expenditures on the environment"? No! They always focus on the military. Why? Because they're a bunch of socialists

Just because the environmental health is better now than in 1970, doesn't mean the environment is doing spectacular.

Well I agree with Belial there. Until those pollutants are down 100% and STAY down, the environment will not be all that healthy. What we really need is to get off our dependancy on fossil fuels like oil and natural gas. The deforestation is bad enough, but people don't want to try and fix the damage that is already done. Sure, they are doing good by planting trees where they cut them down in the forests, but in other areas they don't plant nearly as many trees as they cut down.

Ok, and how do you propose we get to this 100% down mark? IE: The state of the earth before humans were here.

Therre are other ways to make oxygen if your talking about losing trees since that would be the general number one problem would be lack of oxygen. Well things are being implemented to creat oxygen with the use of water. Or something like that. So i heard. But hey it turns out that irrigation is BAD!!! I know it sucks hey! I live on a farm so i need to irrigate. But the enviroment is bad but i think that recycling practises will sowly fix things up.... Or may our great grandchildren all live on Mars.

It's not just oxygen issues when it comes to trees. A great number of species depend SOLELY on trees.

So we stop choping down trees?

True many animals do depend soley on trees. Take the Australian koala. Soon to be extincnt because we cut down to many trees.

I see where your going. Its not about our own survival its also about the survival of animals. So instead of finding an alternitive to Air we should be finding an alternitive to Wood.

Finding an alternative is only half the problem. A lot of the time we are cutting down trees to civilize an area so people can live there. I mean there are 6 billion people on the planet, they have to live somewhere. Can't believe nobody has brought this up yet.

Heh, soon we will live under water and after that the oceans will dry up than we will all die and cochroaches will rule the world again!

Originally posted by MichaelVash7886

---

Finding an alternative is only half the problem. A lot of the time we are cutting down trees to civilize an area so people can live there. I mean there are 6 billion people on the planet, they have to live somewhere. Can't believe nobody has brought this up yet.

---

The world is overpopulated. It's the reason our environment is unbalanced. Too much of one thing. It hasn't been brought up because some of us care about other species more than their own (like myself). They should have a population regulation.

Now who is being the socialist lol. Wouldn't that be discrimanation against humans? And even if we only had one baby per couple it would take something like 60 years for our population to stop growning. Personally I think those hydrogen powered cars could help us out a lot.

Originally posted by IceWave04

---

Heh, soon we will live under water and after that the oceans will dry up than we will all die and cochroaches will rule the world again!

---

Tch, cockroaches haven't ruled since the Cambrian Period.

Anyway, I think the world is over-populated due to modern science. Hydrogen powered cars are genius form of enviroment savers, I think it's amazing to think that someday they might have cars in which you can drink the exhaust.

Aren't China and India doing the one child per couple thing?

I really don't care what it's called, as long as it helps. We aren't the only ones on this Earth trying to survive. ;p And it wouldn't be discrimination... and what do hydrogen cars have to do with people..? O.o (other than humans would be driving them...) AND, it doesn't matter how long it will take for population to go down. It'll take 60 years for those trees they planted in place of the ones they cut down to grow to a decent size as well. It's a process...

We wouldn't be using gasoline in the cars and they wouldn't be putting out fumes to pollute things. China sorta does the one child per couple thing, they make it very beneficial to a family that just has one child. India i am not sure about. And do you know how hard that would be to get some couples to just have one child? Look at some other cultures. In some cultures you are expected to have many children. So are you just going to deny them that right?

Yeah, gasoline contains chlorofluorocarbons, right? That stuff obliterates the O-zone.

I don't think the U.S would decree that as a law, one child per couple, because that would defeat the purpose of one of the amendments.

Yeah the US would have to totally revamp its Constitution for that to happen. Eventually I think some kind of resolution will be found.

Back to the Hydrogen/gasoline car Idea, considering how horrible gas prices are (about $2.14 for regular gas, where I live) and how abundant hydrogen is in Earth's atmosphere, it's a win-win situation for both humans and the enviroment.