Does one have to accept that man is the cause of all environmental problems to be a good environmentalist, or can one be a good environmentalist without believing that man is evil?
Can you be a good steward of the environment and not accept the dogma of "Global Warming"?|||Yep.
I am one who cares for and about the environment. I do love to antagonize the rabid environmentalists. Global warming is junk science, and it's a cause used by fear mongers to manipulate people who don't look closely at issues or who can't -- which is despicable.
Most people who claim to be environmentalists don't have much understanding of the environment, but they pick some issue to beat the drum about.
Mostly they need a sense of scope... human beings are puny, the earth is gigantic by comparison. If the earth were your head, we humans wouldn't make it itch.|||You ask a few different questions. First you can be an environmentalist who wants Nature to act in the cycles that it normal acts.
The problem is too many environmentalists want to control nature so that it doesn't change. The environment is always changing.
You can be a good steward of the environment, do actual research into climate change and see that most of the recreated temperature graphs have the Medieval Warming Period cooler then today and barely warmer then the height of the Little Ice Age. This goes against written evidence.|||There used to be two terms used in regards to those who dealt with environmental concerns. The first group and the better educated one was the conservationist movement Started by Teddy Roosevelt and some others who wanted to protect large areas from over development. This led to national, state and regional parks and forests being allocated to maintain these regions for use by the citizens. About the same time a group sprang up opposing the conservationists who wanted to lock all wild areas away from public access and use. This second group is the parent group of the current green environmentalists. There pogrom is to protect and preserve, not to use and conserve and so through their actions are forests have become crowded with scrub or junk wood and sick with not enough co2 or water to keep the rest of the forest healthy and strong.
So now we have massive forest fires that are natures way of restoring health to the forests. But when the ignorant bleeding heart types try to preserve anything they sicken it and cause it to die anyway because they go on emotion instead of education and reason whenever they tackle what they think is a problem. The best way to describe an environmentalist is one who sees that a plant or animal is an evolutionary dead end because it has evolved to fit an ecological niche that no longer exists. So these environmentalists that are also evolutionary dead ends try to protect and preserve others of their dead end kind. But why is any creature or plant a dead end, because nature no longer has need of it to maintain the world and so all dead ends will die anyway, but if you try and force them to survive their end might just be severe and catastrophic than if they had been allowed to fade away naturally.|||Of course... they are two philosophies which are NOT mutually exclusive.
Environmentalist - have respect and regard for the environment (aka "Mother Earth")
Global Warming "people" - Are people who look at a small sliver of time - Look only at the trends that support their sliver - and look to extort money from people - by declaring it a CRISIS.
Since about 2001 there has been very little "global warming".
The AL GORE effect is hysterical - every time it happens, and it happens a lot...
China which has records that go back thousands of years - has had two consecutive winters that have been the COLDEST in history.
This "administration" has suppressed all the credible evidence - that shows that actually the Earth - very recently... the Earth is experiencing a COOLING Phase.
Accordingly this "dogma" is being renamed... from "GLOBAL WARMING" to "Climate Change". I think that's brilliant... If the temperature goes UP it's man's fault... if it goes down - it's man's fault.
Brilliant - until you think... wait... There's always going to be variations in climate... wtf?
Obama did TWO great things when he allowed his Administration to propose "Cap and Trade" (the real name should have been CAP and TAX - but this administration names things the OPPOSITE of what they really are)
1) He broke his promise: re: if you make less than 250K your taxes will NOT go up. This will levy huge taxes all the way up the line - and guess who will be paying them? (that's right first - you and I)
2) It proves that Obama ignores the science that doesn't go along with his narrow, socialist views.|||Yes. Being an environmentalist doesn't just mean studying global warming and believing in it. Being an environmentalist means that you studying all the aspects of the environment. From plants to animals to the atmosphere. Also, trying to find ways to stop pollution and to help save the planet from whatever you think it needs to be saved from.|||Of course you can. Recycling, buying locally grown food, reducing fuel consumption, switching to solar power, etc., etc. doesn't require that you accept global warming.
The only requisite required for being an environmentalist is that you want to make the earth a cleaner, greener place. You don't have to have a specific reason why.|||Well, you taint your question by equating being a good environmentalist with believing that man is evil, and I certainly don't think that believing man is inherently evil is required to be an environmentalist. That's kind of a strawman approach, like saying that AGW believers want us to live in trees or are flat earthers. That would be another worthwhile topic to discuss reasonably; were I forced to take a position on any or all of the three I would probably argue the opposite view on each.
I'd probably also take issue with your choice of the word 'dogma.' Like describing proponents of AGW as belonging to a cult, it really isn't an accurate picture of most believers, despite the implications of the word 'believers.'
Finally I doubt that anyone would accept-or have to accept-that man is the cause of ALL environmental problems to be considered a good environmentalist. Obiviously, there are many environmental 'problems' that mankind didn't cause...this goes to the argument that AGW proponents ignore natural processes and influences on climate, which is also untrue.
So with those qualifiers, I'd have to wonder-as you are-what DOES qualify someone as a 'good' environmentalist? Can we pick and choose what we 'believe' in? That's a good question...what if, for example, someone recycles their trash, doesn't litter, drives an economical car and conserves energy at home in all sorts of ways-but uses chemicals on his or her lawn?
At what point, or what behaviors are required to be a 'good' environmentalist? What makes a bad or mediocre-or GREAT environmentalist? How do we weight significant good environmental behaviors with bad and come to a conclusion as far as the overall stewardship of the environment of any individual?
I personally don't think that accepting the scientific evidence of AGW is required for a person to be a good environmentalist; it is a very complex subject with a LOT of research and data that has to be absorbed to make a final judgement on how the potential impact of AGW will change an individual's behavior. Of course, if someone is actually and deliberately acting counter to the theory of AGW and its mitigation-as some here have claimed by saying they burn more energy just to (apparently) piss off other people, that would be enough to qualify that person as a bad environmentalist, in my opinion.
What it boils down to in my point of view is that each of us has a moral responsibility to conserve resources, and that depends in part on individual needs while separating those needs from wants. For example, someone might have a job that requires a 4 wheel drive, V8 powered truck and can't afford to buy, insure and maintain a more efficient vehicle too; for another example, someone else might have a long commute to work or live out in the country; both examples are going to require more fuel than someone who lives six blocks from work or in an urban environment. I wouldn't consider either example necessarily boxing those people in as 'bad' environmentalists, even though they might use more fossil fuels for transporation than someone else. I would be far less inclined to put my stamp of approval on someone who drives a 12 mpg SUV back and forth to work and as their grocery getter when the vehicle never sees a back road or hauls anything heavier than a few 2X4s or some bags of mulch.
But nobody needs my stamp of approval or disapproval for what they drive, how big a house they live in, or any number of things that may hurt the environment or use more than their fair share, which ultimately drives up costs for me. That's the price of liberty-and AGW or no, it is unfortunate that "a few" greedy and careless people not only consume more than their share, but will eventually take away liberties we all enjoy now.
But no, you don't have to accept AGW to be a good environmentalist.|||Yes, there was an article sometime back in the Nation magazine that was talking about how all the talk of global warming distracts from the real immediate environmental problems we face such as water quality. But how can you use water quality to sell some kind of product or retarded government program?|||global warming has nothing to do with man being evil. That is just BS from people who oppose climate change proponents.
I suggest you do what you think is best and spend less time making snarky comments about others. That obviously does little to help anyone.|||Yes. You may not accept 'global warming' but you want to conserve the natural resources since you know fully well it is unsustainable in the long run. So you want to reduce,recycle and reuse,|||I drive a v8 7.3 L diesel pick up that get's 10mpg in the city when i could drive a car that gets 35mpg. Keep up with saving the environment that way I can drive a gas guzzler while it's still legal lol
womp womp womp|||Sure nobodies going to stop you from helping the environment|||That's insulting.|||Of course, I am one such person!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment