You are absolutely right. Government environmental regulations for example have nearly put large scale mining in this country out of business, so now we must import (at great expense and strategic danger) most of our mineral based products. The environmental damage that those industries were doing in our country pale compared to what they are allowed do overseas to produce the same raw materials for those products (which, to a large extent, are also now manufactured without considering environmental consequences overseas.). The net result is that far more environmental damage is being done to the Planet than if we cut them a little slack here.
Culpability for what? Staying alive? Humans are the dominant species and have been able to vastly increase our population (in spite of modest procreation abilities) because of our ability to use technology and adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions. For that, I refuse to be sorry.
I know what you said. The point is, environmental rules that have been in effect and functioned quite adequately for more than 40 years right up to the point of Obamsâs âadd-onsâ are not being eliminated by Trump. It is disengenous of you to imply that rollIng back some regulations, that demonstratively would hurt the economy, to 2016 status will hurt the environment.
Thatâs not an assessment of his administration, itâs what his administration has done. All other environmental statutes and rules are still in effect.
Youâre one to talk about being honest. Youâre the one who started this diversion by confusing âimprovementâ with âhabitable.â But then thatâs what you always do ⌠shift the topic and then try to make that the focus of the thread.
But on topic, a clean environment has very little to do with climate change, although clean air does allow more insulation at the surface, which raises surface temperature. When they cleaned the air in LA the average temperature of the urban area went up about 3 degrees.
Incorrect. This âdiversionâ, that is the current thread you inserted yourself into was between me and two other posters regarding a discussion on how to reduce pollution from Chinese factories and has nothing to do the âhabitableâ quote.
So yeah, I think I do get to say something about honesty when your last post demonstrates none.
I lost faith in environmentalists when I realized that most of them are anti-nuclear energy.
I mean come on. Itâs the one technology we have developed that could replace our dependence on coal and fuel oil with a sustainable energy source whoâs emissions (when everything is working correctly) is water vapor right now. Unlike solar and wind it can handle current and projected energy needs for the entire planet.
And yes I know about the spent fuel rod dilemma. That is an issue that could be solved with designating several areas worldwide as no go dispersal zones, placed in casks after cooling sufficiently for storage.
Simple truth is that humans arenât going to give up what we have achieved as a species. Itâs not going to happen. What we should focus on is increasing efficiency, slowly moving ourselves away from fossil fuels for power generation and transportation. Nuclear power is the key part of that equation.