The Problem With Environmentalists
Discussion
I'm sure regular visitors to NP&E (and certainly the climate thread) are familiar with that lovely short video by 10/10 No Pressure where Man-Made Global Warming "deniers" were blown up?
No?
Clicky Reminder
By following a related link from the "Karma" thread in GG, I happened upon this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&...
(stop the clip at 0:35)
Now I'm all for being critical of bloody-minded littering, but i) getting an arrow in the arm which ii) leads to being run over by a truck seems lacking in perspective to me. Especially when such a video is clearly endorsed by:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/
&
http://www.iucn.org/
It seems like the entire "Environmental" movement's brain is turning septic.
No?
Clicky Reminder
By following a related link from the "Karma" thread in GG, I happened upon this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&...
(stop the clip at 0:35)
Now I'm all for being critical of bloody-minded littering, but i) getting an arrow in the arm which ii) leads to being run over by a truck seems lacking in perspective to me. Especially when such a video is clearly endorsed by:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/
&
http://www.iucn.org/
It seems like the entire "Environmental" movement's brain is turning septic.
kiteless said:
Now I'm all for being critical of bloody-minded littering, but i) getting an arrow in the arm which ii) leads to being run over by a truck seems lacking in perspective to me. Especially when such a video is clearly endorsed by:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/
&
http://www.iucn.org/
It seems like the entire "Environmental" movement's brain is turning septic.
I think I might agree if the crime was standing on the left on a Tube escalator, but for this crime it actually makes me like them a little more. If they had a similar one with someone keying a car and then somehow being slowly skinned alive whilst being fed into a meat grinder and burned, simultaneously, then I may even join up.http://www.wwf.org.uk/
&
http://www.iucn.org/
It seems like the entire "Environmental" movement's brain is turning septic.
Well since he had thrown a glass bottle at someone, laid out two innocent bystanders, caused a woman to be dragged face down along the road and an elderly man to pass out against a gate, it does seem there were other circumstances at play. I'd be interested to know what the police would make of Sitting Bull's target practice in that location, mind you. It's ridiculous enough to be funny in that video, and it does relate to a reasonable message for an anti-littering campaign - "It all comes back to you."
The one of people cheerily blowing colleagues and students up after telling them "no pressure" was more sinister altogether IMO, and didn't seem to relate to anything except that they didn't like people who were not convinced about MMGW, and perhaps that these people were disproportionately overweight, ginger or even French, but never black, pretty or otherwise the right sort.
The one of people cheerily blowing colleagues and students up after telling them "no pressure" was more sinister altogether IMO, and didn't seem to relate to anything except that they didn't like people who were not convinced about MMGW, and perhaps that these people were disproportionately overweight, ginger or even French, but never black, pretty or otherwise the right sort.
AJS- said:
The one of people cheerily blowing colleagues and students up after telling them "no pressure" was more sinister altogether IMO, and didn't seem to relate to anything except that they didn't like people who were not convinced about MMGW, and perhaps that these people were disproportionately overweight, ginger or even French, but never black, pretty or otherwise the right sort.
This ad's not sinister like the blowing up of dissenters.
I don't think you'll find many intelligent individuals defending the concept of throwing one's rubbish where one pleases.
I wish people would concentrate on the real issue.. f
k the polar bears, frankly. It's a shame, but we can live without them. We can sample their DNA and bring them back at a later date.
Same goes with anything we're making extinct.
The REAL problem we're facing is the oil running out. We need to transition to renewable sources of energy sooner rather than later, and frankly if you have to tell people that a polar bear is going to die to get them to pay for it then that's fine by me.
Even if we have 200 years worth of oil left we're still WAY behind in the transition.
k the polar bears, frankly. It's a shame, but we can live without them. We can sample their DNA and bring them back at a later date. Same goes with anything we're making extinct.
The REAL problem we're facing is the oil running out. We need to transition to renewable sources of energy sooner rather than later, and frankly if you have to tell people that a polar bear is going to die to get them to pay for it then that's fine by me.
Even if we have 200 years worth of oil left we're still WAY behind in the transition.
Frankeh said:
I wish people would concentrate on the real issue.. fk the polar bears, frankly. It's a shame, but we can live without them. We can sample their DNA and bring them back at a later date.
Same goes with anything we're making extinct.
The REAL problem we're facing is the oil running out. We need to transition to renewable sources of energy sooner rather than later, and frankly if you have to tell people that a polar bear is going to die to get them to pay for it then that's fine by me.
Even if we have 200 years worth of oil left we're still WAY behind in the transition.
Spoken like a true engineery scientist type, and missing the point completely.k the polar bears, frankly. It's a shame, but we can live without them. We can sample their DNA and bring them back at a later date. Same goes with anything we're making extinct.
The REAL problem we're facing is the oil running out. We need to transition to renewable sources of energy sooner rather than later, and frankly if you have to tell people that a polar bear is going to die to get them to pay for it then that's fine by me.
Even if we have 200 years worth of oil left we're still WAY behind in the transition.
200 years ago we didn't even have oil as a major energy source, and trying to predict where energy will come from 200 years hence is a foolish endeavour. Akin to worrying about running out of trees during industrialisation. Currently oil could quadruple in price and still be an economically viable fuel source for most of it's current applications. People would adjust their lifestyles accordingly over a period of 5-10 years. At some point though, a substitute would be developed, or made more attractive by that price rise and our reliance on crude oil would be gone.
We're not reliant on oil because it's the only show in town, we're reliant on it because it's the cheapest show in town.
AJS- said:
Spoken like a true engineery scientist type, and missing the point completely.
200 years ago we didn't even have oil as a major energy source, and trying to predict where energy will come from 200 years hence is a foolish endeavour. Akin to worrying about running out of trees during industrialisation. Currently oil could quadruple in price and still be an economically viable fuel source for most of it's current applications. People would adjust their lifestyles accordingly over a period of 5-10 years. At some point though, a substitute would be developed, or made more attractive by that price rise and our reliance on crude oil would be gone.
We're not reliant on oil because it's the only show in town, we're reliant on it because it's the cheapest show in town.
I think this is incredibly optimistic. 200 years ago the worlds population was 1/7th of what it is today, most food was grown locally and people weren't reliant on a cheap fuel source to stay alive. Our entire world civilisation is based on stuff that is easily refined to have an energy density >40MJ/kg, is in plentiful supply and is cheap. 200 years ago we didn't even have oil as a major energy source, and trying to predict where energy will come from 200 years hence is a foolish endeavour. Akin to worrying about running out of trees during industrialisation. Currently oil could quadruple in price and still be an economically viable fuel source for most of it's current applications. People would adjust their lifestyles accordingly over a period of 5-10 years. At some point though, a substitute would be developed, or made more attractive by that price rise and our reliance on crude oil would be gone.
We're not reliant on oil because it's the only show in town, we're reliant on it because it's the cheapest show in town.
Trying to draw some kind of comparison from going from wood to fossil fuels is deeply broken. Blithely saying that we'll find a substitute when there's enough economic pressure massively underestimates quite how good oil is as a fuel IMO.
Out of date?
http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/5054-rip-peak-oil-w...
Peak renewables anytime soon, that's where we're at.
http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/5054-rip-peak-oil-w...
Peak renewables anytime soon, that's where we're at.
turbobloke said:
Out of date?
http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/5054-rip-peak-oil-w...
Peak renewables anytime soon, that's where we're at.
It's still going to peak at some point, right? There's a finite amount of it.http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/5054-rip-peak-oil-w...
Peak renewables anytime soon, that's where we're at.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff