Been there, done that. But I’m not defending anything. I’m pointing out the rather obvious fact that you are complaining about pollution while you are polluting. It’s like a cigarette smoker complaining about a fart.
So how far do environmentalists have to go to satisfy you that they aren’t hypocrites? They should shut down their computers because of the fossil fuels burnt to run them so should they also stop exhaling and farting greenhouse gases too?
Not quite ‘crazy’ but mayhaps just a tad lazy as there are 624 other sources referenced in that search. Guess you also missed the second link I provided, The Politics of Climate Change, which goes into quite a bit of detail on Glabla Warming, The Kyoto Treaty and the US’s refusal to adhere to its protocols.
Beyond that, here’s a detailed account on Bush’s environmental record – not a pretty sight.
From source:
Color me unimpressed about “one of the cleanest countries around.”
First of all, how does the EPA define ‘hazardous levels’? Is the definition the same as it was in, say, 1980? Or do they keep defining the standard down?
Second, what was the absolute values, and how do they compare to smog levels in other countries?
Third, how do today’s levels compare with the levels during the Clinton administration? Better? Worse?
Without answering these questions, statements like the quoted one above tell us absolutely nothing about whether the U.S. is doing a better or worse job with the environment than other industrialized nations. You also have to look at things like food standards, trash removal, forest replanting, landfill management, water quality, etc.
For example of some comparative values, have a look at these graphs of SO2 emissions in North America, which shows that on a per-populated area Canada is significantly worse than the U.S.
But neither of those countries can hold a candle to Europe. For example, the U.S. SO2 emission rate is 1.68 thousand metrix tons/square km. Belgium, on the other hand, has an emissions rate of 21.39 thousand metrix tons/square km - a rate almost 12 times higher. In fact, 17 countries in the EU have worse SO2 emission rates per populated area, including Germany, the UK, Denmark, Italy, along with a lot of the former Soviet states.
And even though China has huge area and a much lower level of industrialization, its SO2 emissions rate per inhabited KM is 50% greater than the U.S.'s. South Korea’s is over 10 times greater.
(rates per inhabited Km are a good measure, BTW, because they give an indication of how ‘smoggy’ populated areas are)
We could go down the list of environmental indicators, and you’re going to find that the U.S. is better than many industrial nations on most of them. Only when you consider aggregate output does the U.S. look bad, but again, that’s because the U.S. creates the most stuff (stuff which is used around the world, I might add).
I don’t think they’re hypocrites (at least, not all of them). I just think they’re naive. They want to use their computers, but they don’t want them manufactured. Or else they want them manufactured, but they don’t want them to cost $100,000. They haven’t looked into what it takes to provide the lifestyle they enjoy, and they’ve neglected to consider how much pollution has already been reduced. I can remember when the whole of Los Angeles was a grey cloud and the garbage in a Cleveland river caught fire and burned for days. I’m just asking them to be as reasonable and savvy as they are passionate.
-
It doesn’t matter what the standards WERE, only what they ARE now. And the standards we are concerned about are the USA’s.
-
It doesn’t matter (for the purpose of this OP) what other countries, such as China, do or are not doing.
-
The main purpose of the OP was to illustrate that the quest for money/profits trumps environmental concerns. Again, I do not see the logic of disposal toilet wands and parts when a non-disposal unit is perfectly adequate and is more environmentally proactive.
As usual Sam, you are doing your best to side-track the original OP through bamboozlement and BS.
Well, that depends on the point you’re trying to make. For example, if you’re trying to claim that the air quality is worse under Bush than under Clinton, it might matter if the standard of ‘worse’ has shifted.
Well, the OP seemed to indicate that Americans are especially bad, which does invite comparisons with other countries. If the OP (or the article it referenced) had been titled, “Come on Americans - we can do better”, then you would have a point. The gratuitous anti-American cheap shot is what gets your argument in trouble.
Ah. It’s an anti-capitalism rant. In which case, comparisons with other countries are entirely valid, because if your hypothesis is that it’s “money/profits” that trumps environmental concerns, you’re going to have to defend it against comparisons with the environmental records of countries like Russia, China, or socialist countries like France. I don’t think you’ll be able to.
No, you started this whole thing by making a claim that Americans are “screwing the planet” because they are Americans. You now claim that they are screwing the planet because they are capitalists, and capitalism is bad for the environment. I have already posted hard numbers that show the U.S. is better than average in SO2 emissions than the much more socialist EU, Canada, and Communist China. I’d say that data is directly applicable to your point, wouldn’t you?
Land-fills are privately owned. The goods are privately produced, purchased, and disposed of. They should be efficient regardless of whether they satisfy the desires of the religious types.
The only problem has to do with the status of petroleum in the ground and unaccounted for waste in the production process, e.g. emissions into the air. I have never heard of petroleum suffering from the common property resource problem, and it is a little hard to believe that the emissions from the production of disposable cleaning supplies compare even remotely to many other problems facing us.
I suppose we could make, say, a washing machine that lasts 50 years instead of ten. Of course, it will be outrageously expensive and will miss out on all the advancements in washing machine technology that allow them to use less water, use less energy, use less soap, and prolong the life of clothing. But who cares about four decades of wasted soap, water, energy, & clothing when the thing isn’t disposable, right? Because disposable=bad and that’s all there is to it.
I guess I’m just not religious. The air in London is the cleanest it’s been in 500 years, and all the garbage Americans produce over the next 100 years should fit into a 10 mile by 10 mile land-fill. The cost of renewables are a few cents per kilowatt/hour above petroleum, and global warming will cost money but won’t cause global holocaust. So if I use Swiffers, I’ll add a little to a land-fill? So what? I pay for that when I pay my garbage collection firm, and it is definately worth the price. What’s the cost of the damage done from emissions of one box of Swiffers? 10¢? A penny? How much isn’t already accounted for in regulation and controls?
That columnist is nothing more than Fundie, demonizing those who don’t subscribe to his religion. Well, fuck him and all the other Environmental Fred Phelps of the world. If Enviro-Phelps wants to use a broom, an absolutely shitty cleaning tool that’s been hanging around for thousands of years, then he is free to do so. If he wants to demonstrate that petroleum products aren’t properly priced, then he is free to do so. Instead, he’s prosletyzing a fascist, repressive religion and he is more than free to go to hell.
And since this thread is now devolving into yet another tiresome anti-Bush rant, how about a cite from the Brookings Institution, which is generally considered to be pretty fair and centrist:
Everything You Know About The Bush Environmental Record is Wrong - GREGG EASTERBROOK: The Brookings Institution - Economic Studies Program
From the Executive Summary:
For example:
Gee, standing up to those evil oil companies! Where’s a good old fashioned Haliburton conspiracy when you need one?
Then there’s this:
The article goes on to discuss other ways in which the Bush administration has been good to the environment, and a few in which the Bush administration has not been so good. In other words, a balanced picture.
So… Bush’s grand, sweeping, “I love the environment” moves are to open his heart and go to the trouble of not repealing all of Clinton’s changes, and to do some restructuring? Which, you know, is so significant compared to withdrawing from international treaties on environmental protection and raping a few moose in Alaska.
You did notice that the proposed amendment to the Clean Air act was a Bush administration proposal? It was NOT a Clinton-era rule that he upheld.
And upholding Clinton’s proposals is not all all like not repealing a law. These were PROPOSALS that the Clinton administration handed over. Like, “Here’s stuff we were working on but didn’t have a chance to push through Congress”. Bush looked at the Diesel fuel reg and said, “Yeah, I like this one too. We’ll carry the ball on it.”
Well, actually, there’re markedly different things.
If you’re concerned about the cost to the gov, consider that the enforcement of punishments is likely to cost more than giving incentives.
We could skip trying to regulate our neighbors except in cases of dire need.
I don’t recall claiming any such thing. It isn’t germane to the discussion.
Americans use a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources. This has been previously established and cited. And what’s with this “WE” stuff? You’re a Canadian, NOT an American citizen, something I’ve reminded you of in the past.
You should stop reading things into statements that aren’t there. Reread my first sentence. It says nothing about capitalism. Companies in Russia, China, et al are just as concerned with money as any capitalist country in the world.
No, I didn’t say that. As I pointed out earlier, if you have a problem with what was said in the article, then go send an email to the author. As usual, you misinterpret and go off on tangents at the drop of a button. I don’t care about SO2 emissions since it doesn’t relate to the subject of the OP. And anyway, one statistic doesn’t prove anything.
How about stopping invading and killing others “for their own good” while we are at it? :smack:
ummm…
ok
Disposable is bad WHEN something doesn’t have to be disposable. Disposable items cost more to make, over time, than non-disposable items and use more of resources to produce and dispose of them. And interjecting WASHING MACHINES into a discussion on paper toilet wipes is quite the stretch!
Yup, great ME FIRST attitude. I just LOVE how the word fascist gets bandied around here! Has anyone ever run a count of the number of times it has been wrongly used on SDMB? Anyway, too many people thinking similarly to what you express are why we have a lot of the problems we do and why they will get worse. Your attitude reminds me of an interview I saw Sunday on 60 minutes on SUV’s where this guy is basically taking the same viewpoint as you do. Sigh, living in your microcosm of life, you fail or are unable to see the big picture.
From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/28/60minutes/main620223.shtml
Always? Disposable items are always harder on the environment? No exceptions? If so, you’re wrong. There are plenty of examples where disposable materials make a lot of sense. For instance, I remember reading about a restaraunt chain that had moved away from disposable paper cups due to customer demand that they be more ‘green’. So now they had tens of thousands of cups that have to be washed with hot soapy water, a process that burns a lot of energy and releases a lot of phosphates into the environment. It was a net environmental loss.
See, here’s a question I’ve had for a while: how do we KNOW it’s a net environmental loss? The harm that comes from wasting energy and relasing phosphates strikes me as a COMPLETELY different type of harm than that caused by manufacturing the paper cups and tossing them out by the thousands to fill landfills. I can’t even see where to START comparing them.
Well, a good start is to look at the energy cost of the product’s use cycle. Start with the cost to make each product (ceramic cup vs paper). Divide by number of uses. Now add in the cost in energy to make the amount of soap used per cleaning, and the energy required to manufacture the phosphates used to clean the dishes.