Conservationists have a point. Environmentalists are "loonies".

We cut down a lot of trees over the last 400 years and we are still here. Although we have in the last 75-100 years started to replant for the future.

Edited December 19, 200817 yr by bballfamily
spelling

Environmentalists are "loonies".

I don't think it's "looney" to want to preserve life on Earth. It's, at the very least, the right thing to do. And it will eventually be a matter of our own survival as a species.

I don't think it's "looney" to want to preserve life on Earth. It's, at the very least, the right thing to do. And it will eventually be a matter of our own survival as a species.

The rain forests of the Amazon do not belong to us. If American taxpayers want a say in what happens in countries that own the rainforests, then our government should buy some acreage. Until that happens, what happens to the rainforests as the indigenous people strive to raise their standard of living is none of our business.

Environmentalists are 1st class nuts. There is nothing wrong with cleaning up the enivironment,but these people would oversee the destruction of our way of life, if not the every end of the human race. They do not believe in facts or the truth, just their fanatical views based on feelings, not facts.

The rain forests of the Amazon do not belong to us. If American taxpayers want a say in what happens in countries that own the rainforests, then our government should buy some acreage. Until that happens, what happens to the rainforests as the indigenous people strive to raise their standard of living is none of our business.

 

 

Do you feel we have no vested interested in how the rest of the planet is treated by other countries? An extreme example here, but what if a country was dumping tons of toxic waste into the ocean? Should we or should we not step in on this situation? Just curious.

Do you feel we have no vested interested in how the rest of the planet is treated by other countries? An extreme example here, but what if a country was dumping tons of toxic waste into the ocean? Should we or should we not step in on this situation? Just curious.

We may have a vested interest in how other countries treat the environment and in extreme circumstances their actions could conceivably constitute acts of war. Clearing rain forests for development and agriculture falls far short of an act of war, IMO.

IF we had some Global Warming....

 

The rain forests of the Amazon do not belong to us. If American taxpayers want a say in what happens in countries that own the rainforests, then our government should buy some acreage. Until that happens, what happens to the rainforests as the indigenous people strive to raise their standard of living is none of our business.

You better hope it's your business! Your very life depends on it. Our country does not exist in a bubble. What happens in every part of the world has an effect--political, economic, environmental, etc.--on us.

 

The more the rainforests are destroyed, the more biodiversity is lost. While the tropical rainforests cover just 2% of the Earth's land surface, they're home to two-thirds of all the species on the planet. That may seem unimportant, until you stop to think how many of our medical discoveries have come from nature. Nearly half the medicinal compounds we use every day come from plants found only in the tropical rainforest. If a cure for cancer or AIDS is to be found, it’ll almost certainly come from the tropical rainforests. The next great cure is waiting to be discovered; but if the forests are destroyed, that hope will be gone forever.

 

And of course, the tropical rainforests are the single greatest land source of air that we breathe. Much of our air is both produced and cleaned by the rainforests. They take in vast quantities of carbon dioxide and through the process of photosynthesis, convert it into clean, breathable air. It's an enormous engine that keeps the world's environment and weather running.

 

But an area more than twice the size of Florida goes up in smoke every year. Every second we lose an area the size of two football fields! If this rate of destruction continues, half our remaining rainforests will be gone by the year 2025, and by 2060 there will be no rainforests remaining.

 

The countries that are clearing the forests are doing so in an irresponsible manner. There are practices and policies that could be implemented that would lessen man's impact on the rainforests, and the environment in general. But money and politics win the day in these small countries--to the detriment of us all. Many scientists agree that, without the rainforests, the earth could very well become uninhabitable for virtually every living species, including humans.

 

In the words of Jacob Marley, "Mankind was my business. Their common welfare was my business."

You better hope it's your business! Your very life depends on it. Our country does not exist in a bubble. What happens in every part of the world has an effect--political, economic, environmental, etc.--on us.

 

The more the rainforests are destroyed, the more biodiversity is lost. While the tropical rainforests cover just 2% of the Earth's land surface, they're home to two-thirds of all the species on the planet. That may seem unimportant, until you stop to think how many of our medical discoveries have come from nature. Nearly half the medicinal compounds we use every day come from plants found only in the tropical rainforest. If a cure for cancer or AIDS is to be found, it’ll almost certainly come from the tropical rainforests. The next great cure is waiting to be discovered; but if the forests are destroyed, that hope will be gone forever.

 

And of course, the tropical rainforests are the single greatest land source of air that we breathe. Much of our air is both produced and cleaned by the rainforests. They take in vast quantities of carbon dioxide and through the process of photosynthesis, convert it into clean, breathable air. It's an enormous engine that keeps the world's environment and weather running.

 

But an area more than twice the size of Florida goes up in smoke every year. Every second we lose an area the size of two football fields! If this rate of destruction continues, half our remaining rainforests will be gone by the year 2025, and by 2060 there will be no rainforests remaining.

 

The countries that are clearing the forests are doing so in an irresponsible manner. There are practices and policies that could be implemented that would lessen man's impact on the rainforests, and the environment in general. But money and politics win the day in these small countries--to the detriment of us all. Many scientists agree that, without the rainforests, the earth could very well become uninhabitable for virtually every living species, including humans.

 

In the words of Jacob Marley, "Mankind was my business. Their common welfare was my business."

Americans have no God-given right to decide what other nations want to do with their own natural resources, nor do other nations have the right to dictate how we choose to manage our own natural resources. The "many scientists agree" line is indicative of the phony concept of scientific consensus that has given us the manmade global warming hoax.

 

If a cure for AIDS or other human disease is not found, then our species will survive. AIDS is almost 100% preventable through simple changes in human behavior. As for the loss of biodiversity, would you feel the same if you lived in an Indian village where tigers periodically dined on your neighbors? Are we really in a moral position to demand that the natural habitat of Bengal tigers be preserved in another nation if doing so results in the continued loss of human life to tiger attacks?

 

Like I said above, if American taxpayers want to pay nations like Brazil to place their natural resources off limits to development, then we should know what the costs, benefits, and risks are and compensate the Brazilians for their loss. Alernatively, the US could simply use its military might and begin building a new empire, targeting only those countries who we believe are mismanaging their own natural resources.

I don't think it means a darn thing. It's the ultimate scam.

 

:thumb:

We may have a vested interest in how other countries treat the environment and in extreme circumstances their actions could conceivably constitute acts of war. Clearing rain forests for development and agriculture falls far short of an act of war, IMO.

 

I am sort of curious as to those who would advocate foreign intervention on behalf of rainforest mismanagement feel about foreign intervention regarding fossil fuel mismanagement. If we can make war for air why can't we make war for oil? Just thinking out loud . . .

I am sort of curious as to those who would advocate foreign intervention on behalf of rainforest mismanagement feel about foreign intervention regarding fossil fuel mismanagement. If we can make war for air why can't we make war for oil? Just thinking out loud . . .

Me too. I am not advocating any intervention - just pointing out that if we expect other countries to act against their own economic interests then they should reasonably expect compensation.

 

The best way to ensure a cleaner environment around the world is to nurture democracy and capitalism. Prosperous western democracies have a much more impressive environmental record than backward nations with oppressive governments.

We were cleaning up the environment long before anyone starting talking about global warming. In fact we were cleaning up things before they talked about global cooling which procecced global warming.

So, I guess global warming saved us from global cooling, not.

 

The US has always tried to be on the front page of things. I would venture to say that China has some more highly concentrated area's of pollution that the US, but that doesn't mean we haven't been in the wrong. Honestly the whole global cooling hasn't really generated that much talk. It may in the future.

The air qualilty is better today than the 1950's. One example is Pittsburg. The smog was so bad that in the winter it was dark by 1 or 2 in the afternoon. Our waterways are cleaner, an example is Lake Erie that caught fire, somewhere around the early 1970's. It is much better today than 40-50 years ago.

The reason you cannot see the stars at night in the city is because of all the lights.

 

It is in fact better in parts of the US, but as a whole, it's not. We put off more pollution than last I'd seen any other Country in the world, difference being was that our concetrated areas(major cities) were not nearly as bad as some of our counter parts throughout the world.

It is in fact better in parts of the US, but as a whole, it's not. We put off more pollution than last I'd seen any other Country in the world, difference being was that our concetrated areas(major cities) were not nearly as bad as some of our counter parts throughout the world.

You are wrong. This country is much cleaner now than it was a few decades ago. Most of the pollution produced in this country is produced in urban, industrial areas. Our cities are far cleaner now than they were when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, as anybody who grew up in or near a large American city or traveled the country much over the past thirty to fifty years will tell you. The cleanup began in the 70s after the establishment of the EPA in 1970.