Just a theory about the personality types who automatically deny the existence of man-made environmental problems. Actually, more than a theory, but I'd like to stay objective here.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?By and large the deniers are people who don鈥檛 actually understand much about the climate 鈥?hence you鈥檒l very rarely find they answer questions that require any degree of comprehension about the climate (even if it鈥檚 got nothing at all to do with global warming). To demonstrate this point, pick some questions at random that actually require some climatic knowledge, and look at how few the skeptics and deniers have been able to answer.
It appears they have a believe that they do know about the climate, and presumably they think they are sufficiently knowledgeable to form an objective opinion on the matter. Sadly it is only too apparent that they don鈥檛 know enough to form an educated opinion.
Another problem is that denialism, by it鈥檚 very nature, precludes the deniers from recognising that they are afflicted by this psychological condition. As a consequence there is a distinct lack of objectivity or rationality, something that is quite apparent to any neutral person but not to the deniers themselves.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?
"Another problem is that denialism, by it鈥檚 very nature, precludes the deniers from recognising that they are afflicted by this psychological condition. As a consequence there is a distinct lack of objectivity or rationality, something that is quite apparent to any neutral person but not to the deniers themselves."
In a fairly ironic twist, this statement might actually apply to the person who made it. As a matter of fact, people who accuse other people of having some sort of "condition" often have that very condition.
By the way, I believe there are many man made environmental problems and I do eat animals. I know that kinda knocks your theory but your theory might need modifications to become more accurate.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?There is a certain lifestyle attributed to global warming denialism. As I'm sure everyone is aware of people such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh spout propaganda promoting global warming denialism. These people are in the mainstream right wing media and people listen to them and believe them regardless if they are telling the truth or not. These are the same people who don't trust science, believe evolution does not exist, are religious, are all for killing more animals and polluting the environment for human advancement. Note that this is a generalization and am fully aware that not everyone of their listeners believes like this. However you begin to get some sort of picture what these types of people think.
Andy: 1ppm is equal to roughly 7.7 gigatonnes of CO2.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?
It is a joke to counter PC whining. Skeptics are generally people that probably get the joke. Those that don't probably don't realize that it isn't about the animals.
More than a theory but somehow not confirmed in the real world. Sounds like a religion or a doomsday cult to me. In science, not being confirmed means it ranks as unconfirmed speculation at best.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?For the most part, we also tend to be engineers or free thinkers. I mean, all I had to do was actually read the IPCC reports and see the large amount of unproven assumptions that they make. Then they change units on you mid report from ppm to megatons with no conversion factor to compare the two dissimilar units. I could go on, but most AGW supporters will support this position no matter what. They also do every thing that they condemn deniers of doing but since it pushes their agenda it is fine.
Saying all of this, I still believe that we are warming up from the little ice age that started about 900 years ago and ended sometime in the mid 1800's.
I must admit, that sounds like something I've said before. I also like those "PETA Peaple Eating Tasty Animals" bumper stickers.
I'm not a global warming denier, I know our climate is warm and getting warmer, I know that we wouldn't be here today if our climate weren't warm, although it'd be nice if we still had Wooly mammoths, they were probably pretty tasty. Which brings up a question, do you think most AGW believers also believe that a few thousand cavemen hunted them all down, or would global warming, I mean climate change, err global climate disruption be a more plausable reason?
Do you find it odd that people who don't eat meat love to buy vegetable products that are processed to taste like meat?Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?
First of all I will answer your question. The answer is NO!
Many of your responders are right. Because I accept the science of global warming and I believe that we need to take action I am labeled a "Leftist." What? I thought that a leftist was a person who favored gay marriage and abortion. What do gay marriage and abortion have to do with global warming?
Then along comes C-Tech. Because I eat meat, I am now a global warming denier.
Oh joy! We are about to be pigeonholed...again. Let's see...
We are obsessed with Limbaugh
We are obsessed with Beck
We believe everything FOX news feeds us.
We are right wingnut christian zealots.
We are too stupid, to understand the science.
And now what? We are also smartasses?
I thought I did answer it, I'm a smartass.Are global-warming-deniers the same types of people who say "I love animals......they're delicious!"?
They are more like Creationists who ignore empirical evidence and dismiss science as either flawed or false.
Personality types who are alarmists: gullible, leftist, and did I mention gullible.
Absolutely NOT! Not all animals are delicious...just most!
Typical stereotyping and prejudice too. And liberals are supposed to be tolerant .
Yeah, ***-holes
I think we're more like the people who say, "You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
Way to generalize. You're no better than they are.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Where would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
If you had to give a multiaxial diagnosis to Hannibal Lecter, how would you fill it out?
Axis I - mental disorders
Axis II - personality disorders and metal retardation
Axis III - medical health issues
Axis IV - Psychosocial and Environmental Problems
Axis V - overall level of functioningWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis IV_ He's fictional but depicted as a brilliant sociopath/Antisocial personality/Psychopathic type
Axis II- He has full knowledge of rules of society, but chooses consciously to disregard them and even expresses this is because he is superior -Narcissistic Personality disorder.(No Mental retardation which is now called Developmental delay) and Anti Social Personality/Psychopathic type
The guy definite;y has "features"
I sometimes think Axis IV is like a mini Axis II (just my weird observation)
Just guessing I'm not a Therapist or a PsychiatristWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
honestly he is beyond all that......
Though he is a sick bast*rd.....he really is a genius.
He doesnt really have mental disorder i dont think.....he was a doctor and in fact very intelligent.
He just had a thing for human flesh......he functioned fine, his brain was fine, he just had an appetite differnet than most people......BLAH
so maybe axis IV i guess
-________-Where would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis I: None
Axis II: None
Axis III: None
Axis IV: Watching his sister become food for hungry german defectors and eating her himself, albeit unknowingly, really screwed him up
Axis V: Extremely highWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
Axis IV - Psychosocial and Environmental ProblemsWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis IWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
All of the above...
Axis I - mental disorders
Axis II - personality disorders and metal retardation
Axis III - medical health issues
Axis IV - Psychosocial and Environmental Problems
Axis V - overall level of functioningWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis IV_ He's fictional but depicted as a brilliant sociopath/Antisocial personality/Psychopathic type
Axis II- He has full knowledge of rules of society, but chooses consciously to disregard them and even expresses this is because he is superior -Narcissistic Personality disorder.(No Mental retardation which is now called Developmental delay) and Anti Social Personality/Psychopathic type
The guy definite;y has "features"
I sometimes think Axis IV is like a mini Axis II (just my weird observation)
Just guessing I'm not a Therapist or a PsychiatristWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
honestly he is beyond all that......
Though he is a sick bast*rd.....he really is a genius.
He doesnt really have mental disorder i dont think.....he was a doctor and in fact very intelligent.
He just had a thing for human flesh......he functioned fine, his brain was fine, he just had an appetite differnet than most people......BLAH
so maybe axis IV i guess
-________-Where would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis I: None
Axis II: None
Axis III: None
Axis IV: Watching his sister become food for hungry german defectors and eating her himself, albeit unknowingly, really screwed him up
Axis V: Extremely highWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
Axis IV - Psychosocial and Environmental ProblemsWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?Axis IWhere would Hannibal Lecter be on this scale?
All of the above...
What do people really think environment actually means?
do people not understand that poverty is an environmental problem and do people not understand that environment has far greater menaings than the climate, do people not understand that it is the environment of the human culture that is the cause of poverty and what people are calling climate change which should be called climate fluctuation the greatest environmental concern is the abuse of women and the evolutionary cause of that is directly linked to too much pollution but eh this gets a little too complex for this , but if there is a genric solution to the abuse of females that help humans come to terms with their existence and solve their fears about climates changing would people be intersted in the solution that is beyond Al Gore Al Gore has yet as told us nothng we did not already know what are his solutionsWhat do people really think environment actually means?If you can come up with one big answer to solve the problems of the climate ,poverty , abused woman , pollution and humans coming to terms with existence and Al Gore i would be more then happy to listen to you . But as far as i can see we cant even come up with one solution on either one of those subjects that we can all agree on so make it goodWhat do people really think environment actually means?environment is where we live and how we live, and we should try too take care of both.What do people really think environment actually means?en路vi路ron路ment (n-vrn-mnt, -vrn-) KEY
NOUN:
1.The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings.
2.The totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or group of organisms, especially:
a)The combination of external physical conditions that affect and influence the growth, development, and survival of organisms: "We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism" (Paul Brooks).
b)The complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the nature of an individual or community.
3.Computer Science
a)The entire set of conditions under which one operates a computer, as it relates to the hardware, operating platform, or operating system.
b)An area of a computer's memory used by the operating system and some programs to store certain variables to which they need frequent access.
Thesaurus: synonyms for environment
NOUN:
1.The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings.
2.The totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or group of organisms, especially:
a)The combination of external physical conditions that affect and influence the growth, development, and survival of organisms: "We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism" (Paul Brooks).
b)The complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the nature of an individual or community.
3.Computer Science
a)The entire set of conditions under which one operates a computer, as it relates to the hardware, operating platform, or operating system.
b)An area of a computer's memory used by the operating system and some programs to store certain variables to which they need frequent access.
Thesaurus: synonyms for environment
Finding Nemo Environmental Question?
The main environmental issue presented in this movie is people removing wild animals from their natural environments. In this case, Nemo is taken from the reef by the dentist and placed in the office fish tank. Describe in detail three problems this change could cause Nemo and other animals like him. Also, list five other things Darla (The dentists niece) could have gotten for her birthday that would have been better presents then Nemo.Finding Nemo Environmental Question?"list five other things Darla (The dentists niece) could have gotten for her birthday that would have been better presents then Nemo."
1) a flamethrower
2) drugs
3) a time-travelling unicorn
4) a mountain made of clams
5) drugs.Finding Nemo Environmental Question?If anything, I'd question the size difference between Dory and Nemo's dad and not the enviromental change
Clown fish are tiny tiny things compared to the fish that dory is
It's just a cartoon though, so I guess it doesn't matter :)Finding Nemo Environmental Question?Sounds like you're trying to have us write you an essay...
1) a flamethrower
2) drugs
3) a time-travelling unicorn
4) a mountain made of clams
5) drugs.Finding Nemo Environmental Question?If anything, I'd question the size difference between Dory and Nemo's dad and not the enviromental change
Clown fish are tiny tiny things compared to the fish that dory is
It's just a cartoon though, so I guess it doesn't matter :)Finding Nemo Environmental Question?Sounds like you're trying to have us write you an essay...
Environmental science problem...please help me!?
A herd of caribou on Edwardian Island was measured in 1959 to be 20 animals and the herd was growing at a steady rate of 10% annually. An expedition returned to Edwardian Island in 1994. Assuming the dynamics of the herd have not changed, how many caribou will there be? Show how you arrive with your answer.Environmental science problem...please help me!?It's a simple interest problem, assuming that the island is large enough to support a large herd.
How environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?
over resent years car manufacteres have been improving the performace of cars and the way it uses pertrol so what is being used in them should be less toxic in this case or will cars in the future be totally using biofuel if so how will this effect the enviroment in the future or is really there are far to many cars on the roads already and thats the real problem or is it an excuss to put the prise of petrol upHow environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?Cars are indeed much more eco-friendlier than it used to be. If you ever watch old movies people used to commit suicides by running their cars with the garage doors closed. If you tried that NOW you just get a head ache (if that much).
But Bio-Fuel isn't cleaner, it is just re-newable energy source - so the theory is it is better. That is yet to be proven. Either way it does NOT solve CO2 problem (see blow). It only solves the problems of OIL coming from the troubled Middle East region.
===
The new problem is that whenever you burn any kind of fuel, it produce CO2 and that is green house gas (meaning it warms up the planet). So while it is cleaner (free from sulfur and nitrogen compounds), it still harms the earth - by warming it. So you take that and multiply it by millions of cars and you get global warming.
So any real eco-friendly energy has to eliminate CO2 also. For that we have to eliminate any kind of combustion (fire).
===
As for the prices, oil companies will take any kind of EXCUSE to hike up the price. They don't need just this crisis.
Good Question - Good Luck.How environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?Mordern cars get more and more environmentally friendly as they have to conform to ever increasing emissions laws. e.g. In Europe all new cars must be Euro IV compliant and Euro V will come into affect at some point which will be even more strict.
Biofuel can be argued to not be an alternative as the volume of plants cut down to produce it has an adverse effect on the environment and actually contributes to increased CO2 in itself.
Petrol prices going up are largely due to supply and demand. Various things have has a short term impact on prices recently which has driven the barrel of a price of oil up significantly. OPEC can control this to some extent though.
Governments don't help with the increased prices as they see fuel duty as an easy target, but at the same time do little to stop people using their cars in ways of better public transport.How environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?Bio fuel is not the overall answer. while it allows a car to reduce its output of harmful emissions the cost in providing that fuel is bad for the planet too.
There are better alternatives but all have drawbacks or are not cost effective.
alcohol as used in Argentina etc will give toxic free emissions and allow less wear on an engine but we cannot supply as per Bio fuel enough for everybody.
The way forward at the moment is still being developed with things such as the hydrogen fuel cell but is not yet thought to be commercially viable etc.
an in between offering is best at the moment such as the 'Prious' car which uses both an engine and electric motors and a battery to assist and work between them to reduce overall emissions. again it has a slight higher fuel usage than its petrol equivalent so it's till an open game as what is best. time will tell.
But Bio-Fuel isn't cleaner, it is just re-newable energy source - so the theory is it is better. That is yet to be proven. Either way it does NOT solve CO2 problem (see blow). It only solves the problems of OIL coming from the troubled Middle East region.
===
The new problem is that whenever you burn any kind of fuel, it produce CO2 and that is green house gas (meaning it warms up the planet). So while it is cleaner (free from sulfur and nitrogen compounds), it still harms the earth - by warming it. So you take that and multiply it by millions of cars and you get global warming.
So any real eco-friendly energy has to eliminate CO2 also. For that we have to eliminate any kind of combustion (fire).
===
As for the prices, oil companies will take any kind of EXCUSE to hike up the price. They don't need just this crisis.
Good Question - Good Luck.How environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?Mordern cars get more and more environmentally friendly as they have to conform to ever increasing emissions laws. e.g. In Europe all new cars must be Euro IV compliant and Euro V will come into affect at some point which will be even more strict.
Biofuel can be argued to not be an alternative as the volume of plants cut down to produce it has an adverse effect on the environment and actually contributes to increased CO2 in itself.
Petrol prices going up are largely due to supply and demand. Various things have has a short term impact on prices recently which has driven the barrel of a price of oil up significantly. OPEC can control this to some extent though.
Governments don't help with the increased prices as they see fuel duty as an easy target, but at the same time do little to stop people using their cars in ways of better public transport.How environmental friendly are modern car as surly with new technology cars should be cleaner?Bio fuel is not the overall answer. while it allows a car to reduce its output of harmful emissions the cost in providing that fuel is bad for the planet too.
There are better alternatives but all have drawbacks or are not cost effective.
alcohol as used in Argentina etc will give toxic free emissions and allow less wear on an engine but we cannot supply as per Bio fuel enough for everybody.
The way forward at the moment is still being developed with things such as the hydrogen fuel cell but is not yet thought to be commercially viable etc.
an in between offering is best at the moment such as the 'Prious' car which uses both an engine and electric motors and a battery to assist and work between them to reduce overall emissions. again it has a slight higher fuel usage than its petrol equivalent so it's till an open game as what is best. time will tell.
Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
In light of recent issues about global warming, would you say that the responsibility for the environment is a problem that is due in large part to those that produce the most emissions, that of corporations? Yes we all use our fair share of the energy pie, corporations taking the biggest chunk of all; yet we鈥檙e told that we need to drive more efficient cars, use less electricity and travel less, while corporations are constantly looking for methods of expansion and resource exploitation and paying to have studies done that show that they鈥檙e not to blame for the current environmental problems
The president says we have to have all the facts in before we can act on global warming, but should someone in Iraq fart hard, all he needs is a flimsy report to say that he鈥檚 a terrorist and we鈥檙e off to war. Plus when we look at the division of the wealth, the largest is found in the smallest portion of the population, that being of the rich who happen to sit at the head of many corporations.Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?I am not word savvy so please excuse. I have listened to both sides of the argument and I must say that if you are asking weather or not big industry plays a larger part in global warming? You would be correct! However, it is by our own design that these companies are in effect! We ask for bigger better products and as such receive them! The larger the company the hirer the turn out, which makes the consumer very happy. There will always be this problem unless people from every walk of life control their spending, no matter how much or how little. Poor or rich we have all played a large roll in what science has named global warming. You can not blame large industry alone for the majority of this problem, because they are controlled mainly by the needs, wants and desires of ordinary people like you and me. Your computer for instance? This is a product that must be created and in turn releases gases into our atmosphere that is harmful. Everyone wants one soooo, Large companies produce produce produce. If we are to blame one person for this blame ME. Or perhaps yourself? We all play a role in this problem and we all pay the price. Yuck! I hate the idea that I helped cause this problem. Good luck and I hope you receive the answers you want!Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
Simple, who funds the governments ? :)Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?If someone (even from inside the company) were to admit such a thing it would be either slander or libel
global warming is everyone's problem and bicyles are cheaper than even the most environmentally safe carsWould you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
I can't help but think of Alec Baldwin in Team America, "But but...the big corporations...and.."
If it wheren't for big corporations where do you think we would be?
And yes, large industrial sectors have way more effect on emissions, which is why it is pointless to inconvenience your life by doing little things to "save the environment". Want to help? Donate money to research, they are the ones who are going to make a difference.Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?The thing about big corporations is, they make products that we all buy. Pollution and global warming are everyone's problem because it is largely our lifestyle that drives it. We are a society of consumers and it is that constant consumption which makes it profitable for the big scary corporations to pollute the world.
If you want to make corporations pollute less, buy less stuff.
Better yet, do some research and identify the most egregious offenders - then lead a boycott of their products. On the flip-side, there are also companies that go out of their way to minimize environmental impacts of their operations. Their products are often more expensive because of it, but you can vote for their behavior by buying their products instead of cheaper versions from environmental abusers.
In a way you are right about it being more the fault of the rich, but only to the extent that the rich consume more.Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
Let's be real. Americans pollutes more than someone from the 3rd world. The income of the average american is more that the income from someone from the 3rd world. So, I could say yes.
The problem is that the "rich people" aren't the only ones that suffer the consequences.
What really gets me mad is someone telling me things like "travel less". I mean, the president has his own airplane....and I bet the presidents and the big companies have at least one too. So shut the f*** up!!!what kind of example is that?!!
Now that we know that the only thing they care about is money. We all have to wake up and do something about it. I know is really hard to be against a huge corporation because they are behind of most of the products we use daily.... it's like fighting against Godzilla.
Hard but not impossible.......Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
It is the poor people who are the food producers in the third world countries
they are living with the effects of the rich people hunger
and it will become everybodies problem
what if the third world stops producing food for the rich as you call them
will they become canibals again
this is my answer on global warming that i wrote a few minutes ago
global warming is one of the Mega threats that loom over humanity,with many related factors each as mega as the other
in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification
In the days of the dinosaurs this planet was under an aquiferus manta ,a mist that covered the entire earth ,and there were no desserts .
Count how many there are today,and all of them are as a result of mans actions.
the sahara used to be forrests,it is now a dessert that grows by 7kilometres per year
arabia ,irak ,iran used to be fertile lands in biblical times
Ghengas Kahn put every thing to the sword and torch turning vast territories into desserts,and to make sure he filled all the wells with sand.
in recent times thousands of people have died because of exessive heat,usually old people.in India ,Mexico and France,
Deforestation causing desertification,the desert conditions causing very cold nights and scorching hot days
in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried about 900 of their towns,and villages, transforming their lands into dessert,
and instead of producing food they are now needing it from some where else,
the Chinese will drastically effect the world food prices when they start buying water in the form of grains(1 ton of corn represents 1000 tons of water) ,at any cost destabalising governments, in some countries ,could be the result
(are you seeing more Chinese around interested in buying agricultural lands??? ,we do here in Mexico)
so as far as the food production is concerned Global warming or some of its effects are serious,
each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss
more landloss because of desertification every year,we have less areble land to produce food ,for an extra 70 million people ,and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),they areoverpumping deep carbon aquifiers to irrigate this production ,
and plowing more and more unstable lands ,because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing.
(Ghengas would have been envious of the effects of modern Agriculture)
and there are less and less farmers to do it..because so many of their sons are leaving for the cities
Our consumption of water is ever increasing and our drinkable water supply is shrinking because of polution ,and the production of potable water is less all the time because of deforestation.
we are living in a bubble economy and when the bubble bursts
food prices will sky rocket,and so will the price of water.
the wars of the future will be for water and we will be up to our ears in the wrong water
RISING SEAS result in more landloss
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.
Global warming is in theory reversable,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,
At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where.
However
Almost all governments in the first world and many others who deal with them,are already working on this for a long time ,
In Mexico many farmers are being persuaded Agro forestall farming which includes trees ,like shade grown coffee
and many countries like Germany and the USA ,for example have made heavy commitments to reduce carbon emissions
Countries like Australia ,Denmark,USA and South Africa to name but a few are spending a lot on alternative energies ,
but all of this is still far to slow
greed to further exploit the petrolium business prevents fast positive advancement
SOLUTIONS
if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if EVERYONE on the planet did this, we would be able to reverse the destructive processes,and start creating more biomass again.
reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.
the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia
Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.
the protection of existing forrests.and the production of water
stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.
education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.
education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over麓population
Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.
more land design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks
regulations and control for public behaviour
alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine
recicling wastes,limit water use
i am a Permaculture Consultant for the department of Ecology for the regional government in Guerrero Mexico Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into 50 languages and won the best book award in 2003.
Here is something to think about don't believe me check this stuff out...
1.Water(H2O) is the only element known to man to expand when it freezes every other element contracts when it freezes so that is the first fact. For example fill a milk jugg with water, now stick it in the freezer... come back later and it will have exploded from preassure of freezing water.
2.Icebergs are massive chunks of ice, only a few percent of the ice is above water, which means the rest of the ice is underwater.
3.The ice underwater because water expands when it freezes is displacing the liquid water. So when that iceberg melts all the ice under the water will contract and fill a smaller space, so the level of the water will be less now because the ice which was displacing the liquid water is unfrozen and now occupies a less amount of space.
4.Scientific models show that if all the ice on this planet melted we would see a 3" DROP in ocean levels NOT a rise but a DROP.
Now isn't that interesting.
Now for the greenhouse gasses.
1.Plants LOVE a carbon dioxide rich air supply.
2.The more carbon dioxide their is the faster they grow.
3.Plants use photosynthesis to get their food so they can grow.
4.When the plants sense a higher level of carbon dioxide they will make up for it by sucking up more and more and one of the products of photosynthesis is OXYGEN!!
5.So no matter how much CARBON DIOXIDE there is the plants will COMPENSATE and suck up more and grow faster and bigger. and the bigger the plant is the more OXYGEN it produces through photosynthesis
The president says we have to have all the facts in before we can act on global warming, but should someone in Iraq fart hard, all he needs is a flimsy report to say that he鈥檚 a terrorist and we鈥檙e off to war. Plus when we look at the division of the wealth, the largest is found in the smallest portion of the population, that being of the rich who happen to sit at the head of many corporations.Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?I am not word savvy so please excuse. I have listened to both sides of the argument and I must say that if you are asking weather or not big industry plays a larger part in global warming? You would be correct! However, it is by our own design that these companies are in effect! We ask for bigger better products and as such receive them! The larger the company the hirer the turn out, which makes the consumer very happy. There will always be this problem unless people from every walk of life control their spending, no matter how much or how little. Poor or rich we have all played a large roll in what science has named global warming. You can not blame large industry alone for the majority of this problem, because they are controlled mainly by the needs, wants and desires of ordinary people like you and me. Your computer for instance? This is a product that must be created and in turn releases gases into our atmosphere that is harmful. Everyone wants one soooo, Large companies produce produce produce. If we are to blame one person for this blame ME. Or perhaps yourself? We all play a role in this problem and we all pay the price. Yuck! I hate the idea that I helped cause this problem. Good luck and I hope you receive the answers you want!Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
Simple, who funds the governments ? :)Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?If someone (even from inside the company) were to admit such a thing it would be either slander or libel
global warming is everyone's problem and bicyles are cheaper than even the most environmentally safe carsWould you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
I can't help but think of Alec Baldwin in Team America, "But but...the big corporations...and.."
If it wheren't for big corporations where do you think we would be?
And yes, large industrial sectors have way more effect on emissions, which is why it is pointless to inconvenience your life by doing little things to "save the environment". Want to help? Donate money to research, they are the ones who are going to make a difference.Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?The thing about big corporations is, they make products that we all buy. Pollution and global warming are everyone's problem because it is largely our lifestyle that drives it. We are a society of consumers and it is that constant consumption which makes it profitable for the big scary corporations to pollute the world.
If you want to make corporations pollute less, buy less stuff.
Better yet, do some research and identify the most egregious offenders - then lead a boycott of their products. On the flip-side, there are also companies that go out of their way to minimize environmental impacts of their operations. Their products are often more expensive because of it, but you can vote for their behavior by buying their products instead of cheaper versions from environmental abusers.
In a way you are right about it being more the fault of the rich, but only to the extent that the rich consume more.Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
Let's be real. Americans pollutes more than someone from the 3rd world. The income of the average american is more that the income from someone from the 3rd world. So, I could say yes.
The problem is that the "rich people" aren't the only ones that suffer the consequences.
What really gets me mad is someone telling me things like "travel less". I mean, the president has his own airplane....and I bet the presidents and the big companies have at least one too. So shut the f*** up!!!what kind of example is that?!!
Now that we know that the only thing they care about is money. We all have to wake up and do something about it. I know is really hard to be against a huge corporation because they are behind of most of the products we use daily.... it's like fighting against Godzilla.
Hard but not impossible.......Would you say that the environment (global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc...) is a rich mans problem?
It is the poor people who are the food producers in the third world countries
they are living with the effects of the rich people hunger
and it will become everybodies problem
what if the third world stops producing food for the rich as you call them
will they become canibals again
this is my answer on global warming that i wrote a few minutes ago
global warming is one of the Mega threats that loom over humanity,with many related factors each as mega as the other
in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification
In the days of the dinosaurs this planet was under an aquiferus manta ,a mist that covered the entire earth ,and there were no desserts .
Count how many there are today,and all of them are as a result of mans actions.
the sahara used to be forrests,it is now a dessert that grows by 7kilometres per year
arabia ,irak ,iran used to be fertile lands in biblical times
Ghengas Kahn put every thing to the sword and torch turning vast territories into desserts,and to make sure he filled all the wells with sand.
in recent times thousands of people have died because of exessive heat,usually old people.in India ,Mexico and France,
Deforestation causing desertification,the desert conditions causing very cold nights and scorching hot days
in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried about 900 of their towns,and villages, transforming their lands into dessert,
and instead of producing food they are now needing it from some where else,
the Chinese will drastically effect the world food prices when they start buying water in the form of grains(1 ton of corn represents 1000 tons of water) ,at any cost destabalising governments, in some countries ,could be the result
(are you seeing more Chinese around interested in buying agricultural lands??? ,we do here in Mexico)
so as far as the food production is concerned Global warming or some of its effects are serious,
each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss
more landloss because of desertification every year,we have less areble land to produce food ,for an extra 70 million people ,and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),they areoverpumping deep carbon aquifiers to irrigate this production ,
and plowing more and more unstable lands ,because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing.
(Ghengas would have been envious of the effects of modern Agriculture)
and there are less and less farmers to do it..because so many of their sons are leaving for the cities
Our consumption of water is ever increasing and our drinkable water supply is shrinking because of polution ,and the production of potable water is less all the time because of deforestation.
we are living in a bubble economy and when the bubble bursts
food prices will sky rocket,and so will the price of water.
the wars of the future will be for water and we will be up to our ears in the wrong water
RISING SEAS result in more landloss
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.
Global warming is in theory reversable,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,
At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where.
However
Almost all governments in the first world and many others who deal with them,are already working on this for a long time ,
In Mexico many farmers are being persuaded Agro forestall farming which includes trees ,like shade grown coffee
and many countries like Germany and the USA ,for example have made heavy commitments to reduce carbon emissions
Countries like Australia ,Denmark,USA and South Africa to name but a few are spending a lot on alternative energies ,
but all of this is still far to slow
greed to further exploit the petrolium business prevents fast positive advancement
SOLUTIONS
if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if EVERYONE on the planet did this, we would be able to reverse the destructive processes,and start creating more biomass again.
reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.
the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia
Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.
the protection of existing forrests.and the production of water
stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.
education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.
education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over麓population
Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.
more land design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks
regulations and control for public behaviour
alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine
recicling wastes,limit water use
i am a Permaculture Consultant for the department of Ecology for the regional government in Guerrero Mexico Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into 50 languages and won the best book award in 2003.
Here is something to think about don't believe me check this stuff out...
1.Water(H2O) is the only element known to man to expand when it freezes every other element contracts when it freezes so that is the first fact. For example fill a milk jugg with water, now stick it in the freezer... come back later and it will have exploded from preassure of freezing water.
2.Icebergs are massive chunks of ice, only a few percent of the ice is above water, which means the rest of the ice is underwater.
3.The ice underwater because water expands when it freezes is displacing the liquid water. So when that iceberg melts all the ice under the water will contract and fill a smaller space, so the level of the water will be less now because the ice which was displacing the liquid water is unfrozen and now occupies a less amount of space.
4.Scientific models show that if all the ice on this planet melted we would see a 3" DROP in ocean levels NOT a rise but a DROP.
Now isn't that interesting.
Now for the greenhouse gasses.
1.Plants LOVE a carbon dioxide rich air supply.
2.The more carbon dioxide their is the faster they grow.
3.Plants use photosynthesis to get their food so they can grow.
4.When the plants sense a higher level of carbon dioxide they will make up for it by sucking up more and more and one of the products of photosynthesis is OXYGEN!!
5.So no matter how much CARBON DIOXIDE there is the plants will COMPENSATE and suck up more and grow faster and bigger. and the bigger the plant is the more OXYGEN it produces through photosynthesis
Environmental Science Questions?
From taking an environmental science class at school I have some questions
1) Soil is not lifeless. What kinds of organisms inhabit soil and what do they do. Cite a few example.
2)What is the importance of top soil in an ecosystem or farmland? What sort of techniques can be applied to protect farmland topsoil from erosion?
3)Should we be concerned about the current and predicted future population of human beings on the planet? why or why not?
4)Someone tells you that the world is too big for little humans to cause global environment problems, Why are they informed?Environmental Science Questions?Soil contains bacteria, fungi, insects, earthworms
topsoil has the most nutrients
contour plowing
not cutting down treed areas
cover crops
yes, over population as well as the effect of humans on pollution
global warming is misnamed. It is not just warming. There are areas that get colder, areas of flooding, areas of drought, increased storms, etc
CO2 in the air as well as other greenhouse gases contribute to warming of the planet as a whole.auto auction
1) Soil is not lifeless. What kinds of organisms inhabit soil and what do they do. Cite a few example.
2)What is the importance of top soil in an ecosystem or farmland? What sort of techniques can be applied to protect farmland topsoil from erosion?
3)Should we be concerned about the current and predicted future population of human beings on the planet? why or why not?
4)Someone tells you that the world is too big for little humans to cause global environment problems, Why are they informed?Environmental Science Questions?Soil contains bacteria, fungi, insects, earthworms
topsoil has the most nutrients
contour plowing
not cutting down treed areas
cover crops
yes, over population as well as the effect of humans on pollution
global warming is misnamed. It is not just warming. There are areas that get colder, areas of flooding, areas of drought, increased storms, etc
CO2 in the air as well as other greenhouse gases contribute to warming of the planet as a whole.
Whats a good song to use for a project about the environment?
like environmental problemsWhats a good song to use for a project about the environment?This site has a good list of songs relating to the environment:
http://www.grinningplanet.com/6001/envir鈥?/a>Whats a good song to use for a project about the environment?"Where have all the flowers gone?" Written by Woody GutheryWhats a good song to use for a project about the environment?Greensleeves....Whats a good song to use for a project about the environment?
'mercy mercy me (the ecology song)' by marvin gaye still packs a punch 36 years after it was written...
http://www.grinningplanet.com/6001/envir鈥?/a>Whats a good song to use for a project about the environment?"Where have all the flowers gone?" Written by Woody GutheryWhats a good song to use for a project about the environment?Greensleeves....Whats a good song to use for a project about the environment?
'mercy mercy me (the ecology song)' by marvin gaye still packs a punch 36 years after it was written...
Which of the following is not one of Australia鈥檚 3 major problems mentioned in the text?
a. Aboriginal issues
b. Environmental degradation
c. Immigration issues
d. border disputesWhich of the following is not one of Australia鈥檚 3 major problems mentioned in the text?.D The island continent has no common borders with any other countryWhich of the following is not one of Australia鈥檚 3 major problems mentioned in the text?D
b. Environmental degradation
c. Immigration issues
d. border disputesWhich of the following is not one of Australia鈥檚 3 major problems mentioned in the text?.D The island continent has no common borders with any other countryWhich of the following is not one of Australia鈥檚 3 major problems mentioned in the text?D
Some environmental issues for science poster?
hey guys, tell me some of the environmental issues, for my science poster, i have to make two sides. one with present situation and one which is perfect without the problem.Some environmental issues for science poster?Global Warming
Deforestation
Invasive Species
Lack of Food in third world countries
Lack of clean water
Loss of biodiversity
Nuclear waste
Nitrate pollution from fertilizers
Not enough people who careSome environmental issues for science poster?i think u should do my pollution by paper millsSome environmental issues for science poster?Global warming, acid rain, deforestation,land and air pollution
I would say global warming is easiest the perfect would be ozone layer is fine ice caps are fine species arent endangered sea levels wont rise
Currently caps are melting ozone being damages sea levels may rise species may become extinctSome environmental issues for science poster?
If you want to specialize in Global Warming, a popular topic, check out some of the facts at...
http://www.stuffintheair.com/global-warm鈥?/a>
They should be helpful.
Deforestation
Invasive Species
Lack of Food in third world countries
Lack of clean water
Loss of biodiversity
Nuclear waste
Nitrate pollution from fertilizers
Not enough people who careSome environmental issues for science poster?i think u should do my pollution by paper millsSome environmental issues for science poster?Global warming, acid rain, deforestation,land and air pollution
I would say global warming is easiest the perfect would be ozone layer is fine ice caps are fine species arent endangered sea levels wont rise
Currently caps are melting ozone being damages sea levels may rise species may become extinctSome environmental issues for science poster?
If you want to specialize in Global Warming, a popular topic, check out some of the facts at...
http://www.stuffintheair.com/global-warm鈥?/a>
They should be helpful.
Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?
Am a Kenyan conservationist undertaking community conservation awareness and poverty alleviation projects.I want support financially to mitigate conservation challenges,we are facing by working with the people.The problems includes poaching,and environmental degradation.Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?The Forestry Commission.Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?
There exists many people endeavoring to do just as you are, though one might add that there are not quite enough people with institutional knowledge about, to say the least, the political economy involved, which appears to go deeper than the African model of aid as administered today.
There is a Zambian economist, born in Lusaka, that may be capable of sharing additional ideas on your undertaking in that she may provide for you additional questions that many researchers do not know are essential questions to ask without which one stands to face considerable obstructions. She can at least donate inside knowledge in ways that non-Africans simply have not considered.
Her name is Dambisa Moyo, who came out of Oxford University with a Ph.D. in Economics and was conferred a master's degree from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government; she wrote a book titled 'Dead Aid', published this year, 2009. According to Moyo, the problems that Africa has confronted rests with misplaced intentions brought on by both negligence by outsiders, though often well-intended; and second, misjudgement by insiders, who along with outsiders have protracted the conditions inside Africa, much of which mistakes she feels is due to the lack of education and surplus of greed, and that the peoples of the varied African countries should benefit best and first where proceeding toward amassing self-sufficiencies.
She shares an incisive if whole different point of view with respect to donations and aid as regards the plights of African peoples. Maybe you might contact her publicist or the publishers themselves. In addition, check with the American embassy for Kenya and the American U.N. ambassadorship for Kenya. Last, check with the American foundations, which support and sponsor many PBS programs. Many of these are the charitable foundations that finance programs like NOVA and the myriad social-culture related critical issues that the world is faced with.
And of course, you have heard of Conservation International (CI). But one thing might be said: such an outfit as CI is focused on the same concerns and may well be vying for monies as well from these selfsame foundations.
Still another is ... 'Bioresources Development and Conservation Programme' ... http://www.bioresources.org ... it is an African organization proper.Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?Try contacting the wildlife institute of india. They do similar projects in India and can help you with sponsorship ideas.
I just saw an article on Kenya today in The Hindu but originally from the Guardian-it might be of interest to you.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/07/stories/鈥?/a>
I came across another link-the Whitley Awards- I am posting it belowWhere can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?
In eastern and southern Africa, where conservation efforts often focus on wildlife and ... organization (NGO) established to support local projects. ... donors, conservation and development NGOs, government agencies, .... This strengthening of the chiefs' authority through the backing of a government willing to use ...Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?You need to send them condoms before you start any other effort, and i'm not being sarcastic... they need sex ed first, or no amount of conservation is going to make that country/continent better.Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?
I'd suggest contacting the African Wildlife Fund - they're on the web, Conservation International, or the World Wildlife Fund. Good luck! I wish I could bring you some bucks myself!
There exists many people endeavoring to do just as you are, though one might add that there are not quite enough people with institutional knowledge about, to say the least, the political economy involved, which appears to go deeper than the African model of aid as administered today.
There is a Zambian economist, born in Lusaka, that may be capable of sharing additional ideas on your undertaking in that she may provide for you additional questions that many researchers do not know are essential questions to ask without which one stands to face considerable obstructions. She can at least donate inside knowledge in ways that non-Africans simply have not considered.
Her name is Dambisa Moyo, who came out of Oxford University with a Ph.D. in Economics and was conferred a master's degree from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government; she wrote a book titled 'Dead Aid', published this year, 2009. According to Moyo, the problems that Africa has confronted rests with misplaced intentions brought on by both negligence by outsiders, though often well-intended; and second, misjudgement by insiders, who along with outsiders have protracted the conditions inside Africa, much of which mistakes she feels is due to the lack of education and surplus of greed, and that the peoples of the varied African countries should benefit best and first where proceeding toward amassing self-sufficiencies.
She shares an incisive if whole different point of view with respect to donations and aid as regards the plights of African peoples. Maybe you might contact her publicist or the publishers themselves. In addition, check with the American embassy for Kenya and the American U.N. ambassadorship for Kenya. Last, check with the American foundations, which support and sponsor many PBS programs. Many of these are the charitable foundations that finance programs like NOVA and the myriad social-culture related critical issues that the world is faced with.
And of course, you have heard of Conservation International (CI). But one thing might be said: such an outfit as CI is focused on the same concerns and may well be vying for monies as well from these selfsame foundations.
Still another is ... 'Bioresources Development and Conservation Programme' ... http://www.bioresources.org ... it is an African organization proper.Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?Try contacting the wildlife institute of india. They do similar projects in India and can help you with sponsorship ideas.
I just saw an article on Kenya today in The Hindu but originally from the Guardian-it might be of interest to you.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/07/stories/鈥?/a>
I came across another link-the Whitley Awards- I am posting it belowWhere can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?
In eastern and southern Africa, where conservation efforts often focus on wildlife and ... organization (NGO) established to support local projects. ... donors, conservation and development NGOs, government agencies, .... This strengthening of the chiefs' authority through the backing of a government willing to use ...Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?You need to send them condoms before you start any other effort, and i'm not being sarcastic... they need sex ed first, or no amount of conservation is going to make that country/continent better.Where can i get donors willing to support community conservation projects in Africa?.?
I'd suggest contacting the African Wildlife Fund - they're on the web, Conservation International, or the World Wildlife Fund. Good luck! I wish I could bring you some bucks myself!
Eye sign problems: My daughter has 20:80 eyesight. Is this genetic, eyestrain from close reading or both?
Is bad eye sight inherited, or are their environmental factors that cause it (or both)? Can I use laser surgery and/or organic diet to help her sight improve or is the damage done.
NOTE: I'm meeting an eye doctor but want to be as informed as possible so I'm not just a sitting duck in his office. Peace and loveEye sign problems: My daughter has 20:80 eyesight. Is this genetic, eyestrain from close reading or both?More important than the vision is to know the prescription. You can have 20/80 with hyperopia or when you have lazy eye (amblyopia) each has different causes and treatments.
How old is she ?
Do you have more info? Was this vision obtained form a school screening?Eye sign problems: My daughter has 20:80 eyesight. Is this genetic, eyestrain from close reading or both?I have heard many different opinions on the subject. Some people are genetically predisposed to nearsightedness, making it very likely to get it even when doing a small amount of close work, while others can do large amounts of close work without any vision problems whatsoever. However, close work definitely does have an impact on the development of vision problems. I haven't heard anything about the impacts of an organic diet on eye problems, but I know that laser surgery is effective, although it is somewhat risky. I have heard stories of people you have depth perception problems or even prismatic vision after surgery, while others come out fine. You might want to discuss risk versus benefit with your doctor. Good luck :)Eye sign problems: My daughter has 20:80 eyesight. Is this genetic, eyestrain from close reading or both?Vision is genetic. Lasik surgery is only performed on adults with stable vision for at least 2 yrs. As far as I have been told there are not diets that will help. Again, because it is genetic. It might not be her vision. It could be her perception. There is something called a perceptual testing. This determines if what the child is sees, is transmitted to her brain correctly. If not, there is something called visual therapy that will help with that. Ask ur doc for more info.traffic cameras
NOTE: I'm meeting an eye doctor but want to be as informed as possible so I'm not just a sitting duck in his office. Peace and loveEye sign problems: My daughter has 20:80 eyesight. Is this genetic, eyestrain from close reading or both?More important than the vision is to know the prescription. You can have 20/80 with hyperopia or when you have lazy eye (amblyopia) each has different causes and treatments.
How old is she ?
Do you have more info? Was this vision obtained form a school screening?Eye sign problems: My daughter has 20:80 eyesight. Is this genetic, eyestrain from close reading or both?I have heard many different opinions on the subject. Some people are genetically predisposed to nearsightedness, making it very likely to get it even when doing a small amount of close work, while others can do large amounts of close work without any vision problems whatsoever. However, close work definitely does have an impact on the development of vision problems. I haven't heard anything about the impacts of an organic diet on eye problems, but I know that laser surgery is effective, although it is somewhat risky. I have heard stories of people you have depth perception problems or even prismatic vision after surgery, while others come out fine. You might want to discuss risk versus benefit with your doctor. Good luck :)Eye sign problems: My daughter has 20:80 eyesight. Is this genetic, eyestrain from close reading or both?Vision is genetic. Lasik surgery is only performed on adults with stable vision for at least 2 yrs. As far as I have been told there are not diets that will help. Again, because it is genetic. It might not be her vision. It could be her perception. There is something called a perceptual testing. This determines if what the child is sees, is transmitted to her brain correctly. If not, there is something called visual therapy that will help with that. Ask ur doc for more info.
Environmental changes in the 20th century?
a little help here...i am doing practice problems for my ap environmental science exam and i am stuck on this one. any constructive input would be appreciated! thanks.....
Which environmental change in the 20th century is mismatched with its percentage difference???
a) population increased 240%
b) agricultural land cultivation decreased 20%
c) we are feeding 100% more people than we did in 1950
d) since 1950 we have cut 1/3 of the world's forests
e) trick question- all of these are correct!
cheers!Environmental changes in the 20th century?E seems likely
Which environmental change in the 20th century is mismatched with its percentage difference???
a) population increased 240%
b) agricultural land cultivation decreased 20%
c) we are feeding 100% more people than we did in 1950
d) since 1950 we have cut 1/3 of the world's forests
e) trick question- all of these are correct!
cheers!Environmental changes in the 20th century?E seems likely
What are the benefits and problems of proposals like dubai?
economic, social- involving people and environmental
apart from tourism
i.e. building of new roads
thank youWhat are the benefits and problems of proposals like dubai?I think you'll find Dubai actually exists and is not a proposal...
apart from tourism
i.e. building of new roads
thank youWhat are the benefits and problems of proposals like dubai?I think you'll find Dubai actually exists and is not a proposal...
What environmental issues should i talk about?
i'm doing a presentation and i need some ideas on some topics.. topics has to do with problems on environment.
example: acid rain
more specific topic: acid rain affecting drinking water.
i need more ideas. thanks. :)What environmental issues should i talk about?Pick something that interests you, even something that seems unimportant. Then start looking at the various facets of that. Then look at facets of the facets.
Acid rain not only affects the drinking water, it has severely reduced the population of brook trout in the Adirondack Mountain area of New York. This has in turn led to fewer fishermen in a tourist-based area. So it directly affects the economy. There are more things it has done, too, and I'm sure you can find some of them.
If you want something a little less common, look at invasive species and their effects. Consider the zebra and quagga mussels, purple loosestrife, Gypsy moth, Eurasian milfoil, Russian thistle (tumbleweed) and round goby among others.What environmental issues should i talk about?haze n global warming would be good!!!coz it has more info. 'bout it!!!What environmental issues should i talk about?You can consider,
Water shortage, people need to save water in future.
Battery recycling to protect the environment
Recycling Aluminum Can and turn them into valuables
example: acid rain
more specific topic: acid rain affecting drinking water.
i need more ideas. thanks. :)What environmental issues should i talk about?Pick something that interests you, even something that seems unimportant. Then start looking at the various facets of that. Then look at facets of the facets.
Acid rain not only affects the drinking water, it has severely reduced the population of brook trout in the Adirondack Mountain area of New York. This has in turn led to fewer fishermen in a tourist-based area. So it directly affects the economy. There are more things it has done, too, and I'm sure you can find some of them.
If you want something a little less common, look at invasive species and their effects. Consider the zebra and quagga mussels, purple loosestrife, Gypsy moth, Eurasian milfoil, Russian thistle (tumbleweed) and round goby among others.What environmental issues should i talk about?haze n global warming would be good!!!coz it has more info. 'bout it!!!What environmental issues should i talk about?You can consider,
Water shortage, people need to save water in future.
Battery recycling to protect the environment
Recycling Aluminum Can and turn them into valuables
AP Environmental Science Word Problem? Please Help!!?
Some people have proposed that the earth could solve its population problem by shipping people off to space colonies, each containing about 10,000 people. Assuming that we could build such large-scale, self0sustaining space stations, how many people would have to be shipped off each day to provide living spaces for the 82 million people being added to the earth's population each year? Current space shuttles can handle about 6 to 8 passengers. If this capacity could be increased to 100 passengers per shuttle, how many shuttles would have to be launched per day to offset the 82 millions people being added each year? According to your calculations, determine whether this proposal is a logical solution to the earth's population problem
I really have to idea how to even begin this problem. My teacher mentioned something about dimensional analysis but if anyone knows how to solve this problem, can you please help me out? Thanks Alot!!!AP Environmental Science Word Problem? Please Help!!?82,000,000 divided into 100 person segments is 820,000 shuttles that would have to launch to over 82 colonies.
Since there are 82 million people being added each year, and the problem requires you to make space for them, that means that in a given year you'd have to launch 820,000 shuttles, each carrying 100 people. That equates to 2,247 (rounding up) shuttles a day carrying people to the colonies. You'd have to be adding colonies constantly though, as there is nothing slowing the birthrate on earth.
Considering the real-world cost of fueling and launching a shuttle into space, I don't think there are enough countries in the world that would be willing to embark on such an ambitious project, and therefore, it's not really a logical solution, in my opinion.
I really have to idea how to even begin this problem. My teacher mentioned something about dimensional analysis but if anyone knows how to solve this problem, can you please help me out? Thanks Alot!!!AP Environmental Science Word Problem? Please Help!!?82,000,000 divided into 100 person segments is 820,000 shuttles that would have to launch to over 82 colonies.
Since there are 82 million people being added each year, and the problem requires you to make space for them, that means that in a given year you'd have to launch 820,000 shuttles, each carrying 100 people. That equates to 2,247 (rounding up) shuttles a day carrying people to the colonies. You'd have to be adding colonies constantly though, as there is nothing slowing the birthrate on earth.
Considering the real-world cost of fueling and launching a shuttle into space, I don't think there are enough countries in the world that would be willing to embark on such an ambitious project, and therefore, it's not really a logical solution, in my opinion.
What would you think of a vegetarian/vegan who didn't care at all about the animals?
Suppose that this person adopted a vegetarian/vegan diet for reasons such as personal health or environmental impact, yet had absolutely no problems going on a hunting or fishing trip or wearing wool or leather clothes or using animal-tested products.
Would this person still be accepted in an active vegetarian/vegan community?
Would this person be treated any differently by other vegetarians/vegans, or even omnivores for that matter?|||Well, the person wouldn't be a vegan, even if they didn't eat any animal products. I also doubt that someone who adopted such a diet for environmental reasons would wear wool (if they did, they'd be very careful about their sources). Most ethical vegetarians and vegans, and even most hunters, would be horrified at someone hunting or fishing for fun and just killing an animal with no intention of using it, so someone who did that probably wouldn't fit in with many communities.
I suppose I wonder why they would want to join a vegetarian community, knowing that the vast majority of vegetarians will be discussing and working on issues that they would find irrelevant. It would sort of be like joining Chinese club just because you like Chinese food. For many people, vegetarianism encompasses much more than simply a dietary choice, just like an interest in a certain culture generally extends beyond their food.
I'm sure they'd be welcome at vegetarian cooking groups and potlucks. I have a pescetarian friend who is active in an online vegetarian cooking community. Even though she eats fish, she exchanges vegetarian and vegan dishes with vegetarian and vegan folks and they get along great. The issues of ethics and activism don't usually come up, and when they do, it's only in passing... kind of a "Hey, I came across this volunteer opportunity if anybody's interested" kind of thing. She obviously wouldn't be hanging out in a community that emphasized activism and education regarding the treatment of seafood animals.
So I guess I would say that it depended on the community in general. If it is focused on the dietary/health aspect of the lifestyle, then I'd say that it would be a good match for them. If it is about the environment, then again, it probably would work well (again, it would depend on their specific habits). If the community is primarily interested in animal rights or animal welfare, it would be a very bad match.|||The very definition of vegan precludes doing anything that exploits animals. So one who hunts or fishes, one who wears leather or uses products from companies that test on animals is not a vegan. Someone who adopts the vegan way of eating--consuming no animal foods--but does not embrace the lifestyle is a strict vegetarian.
As for how I'd react, it depends on the person. I would certainly disapprove of the hunting/fishing. It's bad enough when one is hunting for food, but when someone is hunting for "sport", that's really bad. My boyfriend has been veg longer than I have but still wears leather and wool and still buys P%26amp;G crap, and that's his decision.|||Personally I wouldn't give it much thought at all. People eat different diets for different reasons, including taste, religion, as a practice in discipline, health, or allergies. While I understand moral arguments for animal rights and collective responsibilities that impact society and the environment, I'm not really sure why we get so bent on what other people eat or don't or their reasons for it. If someone tells me they don't eat broccoli I accept they don't eat broccoli and don't serve it to them. I don't really question their motives.
But, they would not be vegan. Vegan, without a qualifying "vegan diet," refers to a lifestyle that rejects the use of animal products including for entertainment or clothing purposes.|||An enlightened vegetarian will accept human carnivores without judgment. The most socially retarded human carnivore may learn over time the value of a vegetarian diet. We are here not to judge but to provide others who are curious about a better way of being. The Washington State Vegetarian club welcomes all, vegetarian or not. Everyone is welcome to learn from each other.
Until recently, I fell into the vegan "just for health reasons" category. I was persuaded over time to see a veganism as an important part of a non-violent lifestyle. Now I realize that ethics is more important than simply my goal of achieving optimal health.
If you want to learn more about health benefits, I'd read Dr. Neal Barnard. The work of Dr. T. Colin Campbell is also remarkable. http://www.tcolincampbell.org.|||Well, there are many reasons for a person to change their lifestyle, so it's their choice how they are going to live this way of life. I don't agree with hunting or fishing, but I accept that it will happen no matter what I do. It's unlikely that they will accepted into certain vegetarian or vegan groups, especially those who chose to refrain from meat or other exploited products because of moral reasons.|||IS GOOD FOR YOU BEING A VEGETARIAN FOR VEGGIES ARE HEALTHY'' --- ALSO TO THOSE BEEF LOVER SHOULD EAT PICKED CUCUMBER, GREEN OR RIPE OLIVES WHILE EATING STEAKS, MEATS' ----- OR HIGH PROTEIN SEA FOODS'' --- LIKE ,HALIBUT' SALMON,TUNA,CRAB' LOBSTERS,SQUIDS, PRAWN,OCTOPUS.CLAMS,MUSSELS,SHRIMPS,OYST鈥?URCHINS,DEEP SEA SEAWEEDS %26amp; DEEP SEA FISHES,,,AND ACCOMPANIED WITH WINE BUT IN MODERATELY.|||No. Even if they don't realize it, they are doing the number one thing they can do to help our environment, the animals, helping to end world hunger, etc.
To some, this may not seem like the right reason, but in reality, we all work together. If you look at the heinous crimes committed in slaughterhouses and don't find it unacceptable, I personally don't understand that view, but if you go vegetarian, even with no regard for the animals whatsoever, you are still helping the environment and the animals, etc.|||I am not a vegetarian.
I would have little respect for a vegetarian/vegan hunter. I have no problem with hunting or hunters but if you are going to hunt it, eat it. Exeption would be for population control. But even then if it is edible and you don't want it find someone who does. I know hunters who donate meat to food banks.
A vegetarian hunter who does not waste would be ok with me.|||You ought to just try watching birds and animals yourself for a change, without any intention of hunting or harming therm, and you'll have your answer. Animals have a sixth sense about whether you might be after them, and quickly calm down when you just want to watch them and coexist. Man is very safe in nature, for the most part, and animals are a joy just to watch, and rather messy to catch and clean. Much easier just to find vegetable matter to eat...|||somebody who is that conscious of their body and environment simply wouldn't be obtuse enough to go on *wasteful* hunting trip. i would be surprised if they would go hunting at all, but it certainly wouldn't just be for sport - someone would have to eat it.
wool doesn't kill sheep. cows aren't killed exclusively for their hides, like other animals are for their fur.
i would say this person should be accepted into the veg*n community. they are still taking a stand against meat over-consumption.|||Vegans don't wear animals and etc. So if were speaking vegan here than yeah.
if they are following all the "vegan" rules. Than I don't care what their reason is, they are saving animals. if they like them or not.
But their are vegetarians that do fish etc and wear clothing from animals but love animals. So it's not any different.
I don't see why they should not be "in" the community. lol?|||Of course there are several different reason why people choose to go veg. In my experience I have never heard of anyone just plain not caring about the ethical reasons but, everyone is different. You cannot justify your reasons for being veg when you hunt and fish.. especially if it's for environmental impact. That's makes absolutely no sense considering those things are terrible for the environment.|||I suppose they might be amongst a minority, but that's still a good reason. If they just didn't like the taste of meat or will doing it to lose weight (but would immediately go back after losing), then they'd probably be shunned.
I do it for the animals, personally.|||on depends on a lot of things, im a vegetarian but i am a vegetarian for animal rights and for health reasons so i would probaly be accepted in a vegetarian community. idk if this person would, depends on alot|||if the person hunted/fished then no. But for the rest of the things yes that would be fine, there are a lot of people that are vegetarian for health reasons and not for the animals.|||I don't know because when people turn into a veg it's for different reasons.
I am a veg because of animal rights. Not health reasons, I'm skinny already lol.|||Then they're clearly vegetarian or vegan for some other reason.|||I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, but ae you intimate some communities would.|||Well, this person is vegetarian in mouth, but not in heart :)|||I would agree, because I don't care about the animals.|||I never became a vegan to fit in with some sort of community I did it for me.|||Who cares. One person ain't gonna make a difference.|||Some people may just be allergic to eggs and dairy-- it's their choice|||Their reason doesn't matter|||it doesnt bother me|||Actually that kind of describes me.
I don't like animals, I really don't like the hair, the smell, the poop, etc.
idon't MIND them, but I'm not really an animal lover like that.
I don't eat meat, fish, dairy, chiken eggs, nothing like that.
SOme people would say "oh , that's a vegan". But i don't label myself, I think it's silly., I certainly don't call my best friend "Nick, he's a carnivore".
I don't know why Americans have to go around labelling themself. But it seems to make them happy, as if they NEED to belong to some club, or identify themselves with some great blumming cause, or else they don't feel l like they're anything at all. They even do it with their family background "I'm Dutch Irish", "I'm Polish German", when they havent' even BEEN to Germany!
Anyway, since I don't go around with a "proud" label on my lapel at all times, I don't care if someone want to be so silly as to say these things about me. I don't eat these things for my own reasons, and one should assume vegan diets are only taken on my animal activists.
THAT would be very silly.
I wear wool, I detest fox and deer hunting and ANY hunting in fact. I hate people who hunt, I can't stand the bullrunning and bullfighting, and I would injurre someone if I saw thenm hit an animal, that doesn't make me an animal activist , or say I love animals in any way. I really don't.
If I knew someone who hunted and I do know people who hunt, I would be really pissed off with them, and make it known they are cruel and stupid. Still doesnot make me an animal lover. I would not be friends with them.
I wear leather and I eat honey. ( Hardly ever, but not because I pity bees).
I would wear ivory from an antique but think elephant hunting is the most despicable practise ever.|||I wouldn`t especially love `em, but after all it is their business.
We must always remember that most animals are only here to be killed and eaten by other animals. It`s nature. If this were not so, many carnivore animals would starve and become extinct.
Man is only another animal trying to survive. Also the way we kill many animals is a lot quicker and cleaner than most animals kill their prey.
Nature (which after all is another name for God) can be extremely cruel.|||Freaking hippes. Get a haircut, a job, and eat some real food.
Would this person still be accepted in an active vegetarian/vegan community?
Would this person be treated any differently by other vegetarians/vegans, or even omnivores for that matter?|||Well, the person wouldn't be a vegan, even if they didn't eat any animal products. I also doubt that someone who adopted such a diet for environmental reasons would wear wool (if they did, they'd be very careful about their sources). Most ethical vegetarians and vegans, and even most hunters, would be horrified at someone hunting or fishing for fun and just killing an animal with no intention of using it, so someone who did that probably wouldn't fit in with many communities.
I suppose I wonder why they would want to join a vegetarian community, knowing that the vast majority of vegetarians will be discussing and working on issues that they would find irrelevant. It would sort of be like joining Chinese club just because you like Chinese food. For many people, vegetarianism encompasses much more than simply a dietary choice, just like an interest in a certain culture generally extends beyond their food.
I'm sure they'd be welcome at vegetarian cooking groups and potlucks. I have a pescetarian friend who is active in an online vegetarian cooking community. Even though she eats fish, she exchanges vegetarian and vegan dishes with vegetarian and vegan folks and they get along great. The issues of ethics and activism don't usually come up, and when they do, it's only in passing... kind of a "Hey, I came across this volunteer opportunity if anybody's interested" kind of thing. She obviously wouldn't be hanging out in a community that emphasized activism and education regarding the treatment of seafood animals.
So I guess I would say that it depended on the community in general. If it is focused on the dietary/health aspect of the lifestyle, then I'd say that it would be a good match for them. If it is about the environment, then again, it probably would work well (again, it would depend on their specific habits). If the community is primarily interested in animal rights or animal welfare, it would be a very bad match.|||The very definition of vegan precludes doing anything that exploits animals. So one who hunts or fishes, one who wears leather or uses products from companies that test on animals is not a vegan. Someone who adopts the vegan way of eating--consuming no animal foods--but does not embrace the lifestyle is a strict vegetarian.
As for how I'd react, it depends on the person. I would certainly disapprove of the hunting/fishing. It's bad enough when one is hunting for food, but when someone is hunting for "sport", that's really bad. My boyfriend has been veg longer than I have but still wears leather and wool and still buys P%26amp;G crap, and that's his decision.|||Personally I wouldn't give it much thought at all. People eat different diets for different reasons, including taste, religion, as a practice in discipline, health, or allergies. While I understand moral arguments for animal rights and collective responsibilities that impact society and the environment, I'm not really sure why we get so bent on what other people eat or don't or their reasons for it. If someone tells me they don't eat broccoli I accept they don't eat broccoli and don't serve it to them. I don't really question their motives.
But, they would not be vegan. Vegan, without a qualifying "vegan diet," refers to a lifestyle that rejects the use of animal products including for entertainment or clothing purposes.|||An enlightened vegetarian will accept human carnivores without judgment. The most socially retarded human carnivore may learn over time the value of a vegetarian diet. We are here not to judge but to provide others who are curious about a better way of being. The Washington State Vegetarian club welcomes all, vegetarian or not. Everyone is welcome to learn from each other.
Until recently, I fell into the vegan "just for health reasons" category. I was persuaded over time to see a veganism as an important part of a non-violent lifestyle. Now I realize that ethics is more important than simply my goal of achieving optimal health.
If you want to learn more about health benefits, I'd read Dr. Neal Barnard. The work of Dr. T. Colin Campbell is also remarkable. http://www.tcolincampbell.org.|||Well, there are many reasons for a person to change their lifestyle, so it's their choice how they are going to live this way of life. I don't agree with hunting or fishing, but I accept that it will happen no matter what I do. It's unlikely that they will accepted into certain vegetarian or vegan groups, especially those who chose to refrain from meat or other exploited products because of moral reasons.|||IS GOOD FOR YOU BEING A VEGETARIAN FOR VEGGIES ARE HEALTHY'' --- ALSO TO THOSE BEEF LOVER SHOULD EAT PICKED CUCUMBER, GREEN OR RIPE OLIVES WHILE EATING STEAKS, MEATS' ----- OR HIGH PROTEIN SEA FOODS'' --- LIKE ,HALIBUT' SALMON,TUNA,CRAB' LOBSTERS,SQUIDS, PRAWN,OCTOPUS.CLAMS,MUSSELS,SHRIMPS,OYST鈥?URCHINS,DEEP SEA SEAWEEDS %26amp; DEEP SEA FISHES,,,AND ACCOMPANIED WITH WINE BUT IN MODERATELY.|||No. Even if they don't realize it, they are doing the number one thing they can do to help our environment, the animals, helping to end world hunger, etc.
To some, this may not seem like the right reason, but in reality, we all work together. If you look at the heinous crimes committed in slaughterhouses and don't find it unacceptable, I personally don't understand that view, but if you go vegetarian, even with no regard for the animals whatsoever, you are still helping the environment and the animals, etc.|||I am not a vegetarian.
I would have little respect for a vegetarian/vegan hunter. I have no problem with hunting or hunters but if you are going to hunt it, eat it. Exeption would be for population control. But even then if it is edible and you don't want it find someone who does. I know hunters who donate meat to food banks.
A vegetarian hunter who does not waste would be ok with me.|||You ought to just try watching birds and animals yourself for a change, without any intention of hunting or harming therm, and you'll have your answer. Animals have a sixth sense about whether you might be after them, and quickly calm down when you just want to watch them and coexist. Man is very safe in nature, for the most part, and animals are a joy just to watch, and rather messy to catch and clean. Much easier just to find vegetable matter to eat...|||somebody who is that conscious of their body and environment simply wouldn't be obtuse enough to go on *wasteful* hunting trip. i would be surprised if they would go hunting at all, but it certainly wouldn't just be for sport - someone would have to eat it.
wool doesn't kill sheep. cows aren't killed exclusively for their hides, like other animals are for their fur.
i would say this person should be accepted into the veg*n community. they are still taking a stand against meat over-consumption.|||Vegans don't wear animals and etc. So if were speaking vegan here than yeah.
if they are following all the "vegan" rules. Than I don't care what their reason is, they are saving animals. if they like them or not.
But their are vegetarians that do fish etc and wear clothing from animals but love animals. So it's not any different.
I don't see why they should not be "in" the community. lol?|||Of course there are several different reason why people choose to go veg. In my experience I have never heard of anyone just plain not caring about the ethical reasons but, everyone is different. You cannot justify your reasons for being veg when you hunt and fish.. especially if it's for environmental impact. That's makes absolutely no sense considering those things are terrible for the environment.|||I suppose they might be amongst a minority, but that's still a good reason. If they just didn't like the taste of meat or will doing it to lose weight (but would immediately go back after losing), then they'd probably be shunned.
I do it for the animals, personally.|||on depends on a lot of things, im a vegetarian but i am a vegetarian for animal rights and for health reasons so i would probaly be accepted in a vegetarian community. idk if this person would, depends on alot|||if the person hunted/fished then no. But for the rest of the things yes that would be fine, there are a lot of people that are vegetarian for health reasons and not for the animals.|||I don't know because when people turn into a veg it's for different reasons.
I am a veg because of animal rights. Not health reasons, I'm skinny already lol.|||Then they're clearly vegetarian or vegan for some other reason.|||I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, but ae you intimate some communities would.|||Well, this person is vegetarian in mouth, but not in heart :)|||I would agree, because I don't care about the animals.|||I never became a vegan to fit in with some sort of community I did it for me.|||Who cares. One person ain't gonna make a difference.|||Some people may just be allergic to eggs and dairy-- it's their choice|||Their reason doesn't matter|||it doesnt bother me|||Actually that kind of describes me.
I don't like animals, I really don't like the hair, the smell, the poop, etc.
idon't MIND them, but I'm not really an animal lover like that.
I don't eat meat, fish, dairy, chiken eggs, nothing like that.
SOme people would say "oh , that's a vegan". But i don't label myself, I think it's silly., I certainly don't call my best friend "Nick, he's a carnivore".
I don't know why Americans have to go around labelling themself. But it seems to make them happy, as if they NEED to belong to some club, or identify themselves with some great blumming cause, or else they don't feel l like they're anything at all. They even do it with their family background "I'm Dutch Irish", "I'm Polish German", when they havent' even BEEN to Germany!
Anyway, since I don't go around with a "proud" label on my lapel at all times, I don't care if someone want to be so silly as to say these things about me. I don't eat these things for my own reasons, and one should assume vegan diets are only taken on my animal activists.
THAT would be very silly.
I wear wool, I detest fox and deer hunting and ANY hunting in fact. I hate people who hunt, I can't stand the bullrunning and bullfighting, and I would injurre someone if I saw thenm hit an animal, that doesn't make me an animal activist , or say I love animals in any way. I really don't.
If I knew someone who hunted and I do know people who hunt, I would be really pissed off with them, and make it known they are cruel and stupid. Still doesnot make me an animal lover. I would not be friends with them.
I wear leather and I eat honey. ( Hardly ever, but not because I pity bees).
I would wear ivory from an antique but think elephant hunting is the most despicable practise ever.|||I wouldn`t especially love `em, but after all it is their business.
We must always remember that most animals are only here to be killed and eaten by other animals. It`s nature. If this were not so, many carnivore animals would starve and become extinct.
Man is only another animal trying to survive. Also the way we kill many animals is a lot quicker and cleaner than most animals kill their prey.
Nature (which after all is another name for God) can be extremely cruel.|||Freaking hippes. Get a haircut, a job, and eat some real food.
Why developing countries industrialize?
1. why developing countries industrialize?
2. what are the advantages of industrialization?
3. what are the ENVIRONMENTAL problems associated with industrialisation?
4. ways to tackle/ solve these problem?Why developing countries industrialize?they industrialize because it generates profit it also expands the import and export ratio creates more jobs for poverty stricken areas opens up trade with other countries creates a econimic growth. smog drained water resources natural habitats destroyed farm land ruind. crerate enviromental agencies promote awareness of ecological dangers in certain areasWhy developing countries industrialize?1. Developing countries industrialize because it generates revenue for the country.
2. Finished/industrialized goods are worth much more than raw materials, there are more ways for people to make a living and more jobs and money to provide, and creating your own manufactured goods means that you don't have to import it which saves a lot of money as well.
3. Many industrial jobs create a lot of exhaust that pollutes the air and waste that is damaging to the ground and water supplies.
4. If we knew some really good ways to solve these problems we wouldn't have so many problems with global warming :PWhy developing countries industrialize?Why developing country is going to be industrialize {I} people of the country unemployed {II} general mass people will get more or less Job {III} Environmental a little bit may be problem ,but plain wise industrialization its all right. {IV}When this type of country industrialization problem will automatically salved. The men and the country will be very peaceful.
2. what are the advantages of industrialization?
3. what are the ENVIRONMENTAL problems associated with industrialisation?
4. ways to tackle/ solve these problem?Why developing countries industrialize?they industrialize because it generates profit it also expands the import and export ratio creates more jobs for poverty stricken areas opens up trade with other countries creates a econimic growth. smog drained water resources natural habitats destroyed farm land ruind. crerate enviromental agencies promote awareness of ecological dangers in certain areasWhy developing countries industrialize?1. Developing countries industrialize because it generates revenue for the country.
2. Finished/industrialized goods are worth much more than raw materials, there are more ways for people to make a living and more jobs and money to provide, and creating your own manufactured goods means that you don't have to import it which saves a lot of money as well.
3. Many industrial jobs create a lot of exhaust that pollutes the air and waste that is damaging to the ground and water supplies.
4. If we knew some really good ways to solve these problems we wouldn't have so many problems with global warming :PWhy developing countries industrialize?Why developing country is going to be industrialize {I} people of the country unemployed {II} general mass people will get more or less Job {III} Environmental a little bit may be problem ,but plain wise industrialization its all right. {IV}When this type of country industrialization problem will automatically salved. The men and the country will be very peaceful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)