I think the dark times are behind us.

[Nubo]

I make no such claim, however the existence of fires and volcanoes are in no way a counter-claim to the problem of man-made generation of CO2. Fires and volcanoes have existed for millions of years. The rise in CO2 and temps in recent times is a different thing.

did I make a counter claim? or are you inserting one for me?
as for co2 levels and earth temps, they have fluctuated for as long as earth has existed, has man's impact exacerbated the changes? very possible, could the changes be from natural causes? very possible, the point is that there are no absolutes and trying to claim that there is only weakens your argument.

Yes, I'm inserting one. Why trot out Volcanoes if not in an attempt to discredit the significance of the problems posed by what we are doing to the atmosphere? I'm not aware of any geologically recent uptick in CO2 from volcanism. Are you?

 

[adric22]

if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.
if you dont eat meat, you are a vegetarian.

some tighty-righty folks may not like to find themselves in the environmental bag, but if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.

I find it hard to agree with this line of logic. There is a big difference between a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat because he thinks it tastes bad or a vegetarian who thinks he is saving animals by not eating meat. If you want to call me an environmentalist because I don't like the sound, vibration, stink, maintenance, fuel cost, and inconvenience of gasoline cars... then I guess you can call me that. Although my actions may prove environmentally beneficial, my motives are not.

 

[thankyouOB]

if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.
if you dont eat meat, you are a vegetarian.

some tighty-righty folks may not like to find themselves in the environmental bag, but if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.

I find it hard to agree with this line of logic. There is a big difference between a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat because he thinks it tastes bad or a vegetarian who thinks he is saving animals by not eating meat. If you want to call me an environmentalist because I don't like the sound, vibration, stink, maintenance, fuel cost, and inconvenience of gasoline cars... then I guess you can call me that. Although my actions may prove environmentally beneficial, my motives are not.

if you dont eat meat, you are a vegetarian. it doesnt matter why you do it.
even if you are forced to do it by economics. you are still a vegetarian if you cant afford meat and so never eat it.

some tighty-righty folks may not like to find themselves in the vegetarian or LEAF bag, but if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.

 

[apvbguy]

Yes, I'm inserting one. Why trot out Volcanoes if not in an attempt to discredit the significance of the problems posed by what we are doing to the atmosphere? I'm not aware of any geologically recent uptick in CO2 from volcanism. Are you?

I think you should calm down and realize that there are many differing points of view
the fact is that volcanoes emit a lot pollution and ignoring that, and I did notice how you omitted the forest fires from the discussion, then you are ignoring a big component of what you are railing about

 

[RegGuheert]

This was a decent thread. Can we please get back on topic?

 

[Nubo]

Yes, I'm inserting one. Why trot out Volcanoes if not in an attempt to discredit the significance of the problems posed by what we are doing to the atmosphere? I'm not aware of any geologically recent uptick in CO2 from volcanism. Are you?

I think you should calm down and realize that there are many differing points of view
the fact is that volcanoes emit a lot pollution and ignoring that, and I did notice how you omitted the forest fires from the discussion, then you are ignoring a big component of what you are railing about

And I notice how you omitted a demonstration of the correlation between volcanoes ( OR forest fires) and the current CO2 levels which are unprecedented in human history.

 

[Nubo]

This was a decent thread. Can we please get back on topic?

Sorry. My fault.

I had the fellow on ignore. Back he goes.

 

[adric22]

According to Webster's dictionary:

Definition of ENVIRONMENTALIST

• an advocate of environmentalism
• one concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution

So I can say for sure, being an environmentalist is a state of mind, not a checkbox of actions.

As far as the argument about CO2... The way to tell if it is man-made is to see if there is also a correlation of decrease of oxygen. That means something is being burned. While forest fires would also do this, I do not believe volcanoes do. So far, most of the rise in CO2 is also accompanied by a decrease of O2. While I may not be a huge environmentalist, I do make it a point to understand this stuff.

 

[apvbguy]

Yes, I'm inserting one. Why trot out Volcanoes if not in an attempt to discredit the significance of the problems posed by what we are doing to the atmosphere? I'm not aware of any geologically recent uptick in CO2 from volcanism. Are you?

I think you should calm down and realize that there are many differing points of view
the fact is that volcanoes emit a lot pollution and ignoring that, and I did notice how you omitted the forest fires from the discussion, then you are ignoring a big component of what you are railing about

And I notice how you omitted a demonstration of the correlation between volcanoes ( OR forest fires) and the current CO2 levels which are unprecedented in human history.

I did? didn't I say that levels ebb and flow? enjoy your argument.

 

[Stoaty]

Definition of ENVIRONMENTALIST

• one concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution

I have to wonder why most people wouldn't be environmentalists under this definition. They don't care if their air or water is polluted with toxic chemicals??? :?

 

[Nubo]

Definition of ENVIRONMENTALIST

• one concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution

I have to wonder why most people wouldn't be environmentalists under this definition. They don't care if their air or water is polluted with toxic chemicals??? :?

Sure. Look at all the people who deliberately pollute themselves with toxic chemicals. Either by addiction-denial, or nihilism the rationale goes: "You're going to die anyway so you might as well 'enjoy' yourself". Many view the environment the same way, figuring the really bad stuff won't happen until they're dead anyway.

 

[klapauzius]

Sure. Look at all the people who deliberately pollute themselves with toxic chemicals. Either by addiction-denial, or nihilism the rationale goes: "You're going to die anyway so you might as well 'enjoy' yourself". Many view the environment the same way, figuring the really bad stuff won't happen until they're dead anyway.

Which might happen much faster than in a clean environment, but since people dont realize in what polluted environments they live, lacking a meaningful comparison, they dont mind.

Can someone explain to me this moral paradox of deliberately NOT wanting to be part of a good thing (i.e. "I drive a LEAF but I DONT want to be labeled an environmentalist")????

 

[apvbguy]

Can someone explain to me this moral paradox of deliberately NOT wanting to be part of a good thing (i.e. "I drive a LEAF but I DONT want to be labeled an environmentalist")????

why do some people insist upon labeling others?

 

[Nubo]

Sure. Look at all the people who deliberately pollute themselves with toxic chemicals. Either by addiction-denial, or nihilism the rationale goes: "You're going to die anyway so you might as well 'enjoy' yourself". Many view the environment the same way, figuring the really bad stuff won't happen until they're dead anyway.

Which might happen much faster than in a clean environment, but since people dont realize in what polluted environments they live, lacking a meaningful comparison, they dont mind.

Can someone explain to me this moral paradox of deliberately NOT wanting to be part of a good thing (i.e. "I drive a LEAF but I DONT want to be labeled an environmentalist")????

For some it seems to boil down to a belief that prosperity and environmentalism are mutually exclusive.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I Look At Evironmentalism As A Form Of The "Golden Rule" So The Next Time U AskMother Nature Why She Chose To
Unleash A Cat 5 Hurricane, Before You Do, Think A Bit On How Mankind Has Treated Her House

 

[apvbguy]

I Look At Evironmentalism As A Form Of The "Golden Rule" So The Next Time U AskMother Nature Why She Chose To
Unleash A Cat 5 Hurricane, Before You Do, Think A Bit On How Mankind Has Treated Her House

wow, I never knew that there really was a "mother nature"

 

[adric22]

Can someone explain to me this moral paradox of deliberately NOT wanting to be part of a good thing (i.e. "I drive a LEAF but I DONT want to be labeled an environmentalist")????

Let me count the ways:

• It's an extremist position. Typically this word paints a picture of a certain type of person that goes way beyond what kind of car they drive. It also tends to lump a person in with certain political groups and could even go so far as to lump people into a particular religious affiliation.
• I'm specifically concerned about the EV movement in this regard. I do not want people to feel that in order to drive an EV they will be labeled as a liberal, a treehugger, an atheist, pro-choice, or anything else. They need to feel like it is okay to like an EV for what it is without being labelled something.

Its sort of like this. If I go out and buy a motorcycle I won't automatically be assumed I'm part of the Hell's Angles. if I drive a minivan, people won't automatically assume I'm a soccer mom. If I drive a pickup, hopefully people wouldn't automatically assume I work in construction or on a farm. Yet, for some reason, if I drive an electric car I'm automatically considered a treehugger. And this is the association or stigma I want to see removed from EV ownership. It is the ONLY way to achieve mass adoption.

Sure - I don't necessarily mind being labeled a treehugger when I am around certain groups. After all, I care about the environment more than most people do. But when I'm around my conservative friends, I do not want this issue brought up because this will reduce their likelihood of adopting an EV. A vehicle can be an identity. And some people care a lot more than others about portraying that identity. And while getting a Prius owner to move to an EV is easy. Getting a Tahoe owner is much more difficult.

 

[Stoaty]

• It's an extremist position. Typically this word paints a picture of a certain type of person that goes way beyond what kind of car they drive. It also tends to lump a person in with certain political groups and could even go so far as to lump people into a particular religious affiliation.

• 
  Perhaps it's that way where you live, not so here (Los Angeles). I don't recall hearing anyone I know saying they are an environmentalist. Really haven't heard the word used much. I do know a number of people (including family members) who are concerned about the use of fossil fuels, where their electricity comes from, air pollution, our dwindling water supplies. In response many have bought a Prius, some have bought a BEV, installed solar on their roof, and/or put in drought tolerant landscaping. In my brother's neighborhood about 1/3 of the houses have drought tolerant landscaping, a lot of it quite beautiful. The guy next door to him got tired of paying through the nose for gas for his large SUV and bought a Prius shortly after my brother did. These people are not making political statements, they just see that conserving resources/using renewable resources will be better for them and their kids in the long run... and often end up saving money.

 

[mwalsh]

Perhaps it's that way where you live, not so here (Los Angeles). I don't recall hearing anyone I know saying they are an environmentalist. Really haven't heard the word used much. I do know a number of people (including family members) who are concerned about the use of fossil fuels, where their electricity comes from, air pollution, our dwindling water supplies. In response many have bought a Prius, some have bought a BEV, installed solar on their roof, and/or put in drought tolerant landscaping. In my brother's neighborhood about 1/3 of the houses have drought tolerant landscaping, a lot of it quite beautiful. The guy next door to him got tired of paying through the nose for gas for his large SUV and bought a Prius shortly after my brother did. These people are not making political statements, they just see that conserving resources/using renewable resources will be better for them and their kids in the long run... and often end up saving money.

Nicely said!

 

[thankyouOB]

if you drive a LEAF, you are a conservationist.