News1 min ago
Will We Listen To 11,000 Scientists?
65 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spathiphyllum. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
One of the many polluters are manufactures who churn out tons and tons of plastic junk, that no one needs. Good example is the shops full of plastic Halloween rubbish, and that's before the Xmas season begins. That's why Mcdonalds and burger king decided to stop giving away kids plastic toys a few weeks back. Walk round the pound shops, and the like, and there's tons of crap.
One of them reinforces it, the other debunks it which suggests there may be exaggeration and confusion. I can find many more examples of exaggeration, this is a good one:
https:/
https:/
If it's untold perhaps they should tell.
Meanwhile here in the UK I believe we are making reasonable changes and need no preaching at. In fact some authorities seem to use it as a means of dictating to the public. They want to protest, do so and nations not on board. Things will ease when different ways to do things become naturally the norm. And when the world's population learns to stop unrestricted breeding.
Meanwhile here in the UK I believe we are making reasonable changes and need no preaching at. In fact some authorities seem to use it as a means of dictating to the public. They want to protest, do so and nations not on board. Things will ease when different ways to do things become naturally the norm. And when the world's population learns to stop unrestricted breeding.
Just on the overpopulation point. This is fair but needs to be understood in its proper context. It's worse for the environment to have rich countries with relatively stable populations consuming resources at a huge rate than to have a high-population country that is also quite poor and so not really overeating, overusing fuels etc.
Therefore addressing the population growth can be at best only part of the solution. We also need to address consumption of resources and how that's managed. All of the forests cut down across the world to make way for oil palm trees or cow farms (South-East Asia and the Amazon respectively) makes a far greater difference, and even if you ignore the climate change issue should be addressed for its own sake.
Therefore addressing the population growth can be at best only part of the solution. We also need to address consumption of resources and how that's managed. All of the forests cut down across the world to make way for oil palm trees or cow farms (South-East Asia and the Amazon respectively) makes a far greater difference, and even if you ignore the climate change issue should be addressed for its own sake.
// even if you ignore the climate change issue should be addressed for its own sake. //
but that can't be done "for its own sake" unless society properly addresses the cause, that the human population is growing exponentially. if society accepts that there will be more and more humans to feed, then chopping down forests to plant palm oil is absolutely the right thing to do, palm plant produces more oil per area grown (or any other measure, including cost) than any other similar commodity. society needs to decide whether the environmental cost of population explosion is justified.
but that can't be done "for its own sake" unless society properly addresses the cause, that the human population is growing exponentially. if society accepts that there will be more and more humans to feed, then chopping down forests to plant palm oil is absolutely the right thing to do, palm plant produces more oil per area grown (or any other measure, including cost) than any other similar commodity. society needs to decide whether the environmental cost of population explosion is justified.
//The cost, ultimately, being extinction? //
of us, yes. human activity may lay waste to large parts of the planet, but won't destroy it. enough other living things may end up being destroyed that human life becomes unsustainable, but its very unlikely to kill everything. once humans have gone, nature will begin to set things right. it might take millions of years but that is but a blink in ecological time. the planet doesn't need saving; it's our lifestyle that's in danger.
of us, yes. human activity may lay waste to large parts of the planet, but won't destroy it. enough other living things may end up being destroyed that human life becomes unsustainable, but its very unlikely to kill everything. once humans have gone, nature will begin to set things right. it might take millions of years but that is but a blink in ecological time. the planet doesn't need saving; it's our lifestyle that's in danger.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
High Street Sales Slumpm Government...
News7 mins ago
