Why do environmentalists exaggerate global warming dangers when the scientific consensus is bad enough?
The environmentalists are banking on the ignorance of the people. Your average Joe or Jane won't bother to look at the predictions or check out the veracity of the data. All they have to do is turn on the boob tube and hear "Global warming is going to kill us all" and they believe it. Their attitude is if it's on TV it must be true, and those of us who use our brains know that the media is CONSTANTLY slanting or twisting the facts to promote a certain agenda. Just remember that for an environmentalist, panic is their power base. If they can make people panic, they can step in and play the super heroes and say "We know what will cure the problem, so give us the spotlight and all kinds of money and we'll take care of it for you." It's sad because the environmentalists have done a lot of good things like getting the lead out of gasoline and paint, forcing the forestry industry to plant trees after they cut a bunch down, promoting recycling, etc., but in this case they're pushing their agenda very hard and saying that anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is an idiot. Oh, so now we're supposed to believe you because you pull out the infantile "Liar, liar, pants on fire" defense? Come on. BOTTOM LINE: Environmentalists probably do realize that obvious exaggerations hurt their credibility, but they also realize that less than 5% of the people will be able to see the fact that they are exaggerating -- grossly, in many cases.
Why do so many people choose money over the environment (that they say it's too "expensive") when it comes to situations like global warming and electric cars when the Earth is much more important than money?
Even for those who are quite motivated by environmental issues and not overly constrained by tight budgets, money does come into the equation. My husband and I invested in a solar electrical system for our house more than ten years ago. We paid $17000 but if we had waited a few years for the technology and market to mature, we could have got the same system for just over $3000. Sure we were able to reduce our emissions during those years and by buying early, helped to support the photovoltaic industry as it matured — but was it worth the $14000 price difference? Or would it have been more effective to wait a few years and donate that $14000 to, say, the Climate Council?More recently, I bought a car. I test-drove the cheapest electric vehicle on the market and was very tempted, but it was $40000 and could only travel about 100km between charges. The equivalent petrol vehicle was $20000 and a hybrid, $25000. I bought the hybrid and hope that my next car can be an all-electric vehicle. If I were really green, I wouldn’t have bought a car at all — and that would have saved even more money.Expensive technological solutions are not always the best solutions. Finding alternatives to driving reduces emissions more than buying an electrical vehicle. Reducing energy use can reduce emissions more than rooftop solar panels. Avoiding single-use plastics does more good than curb-side recycling.
Why do people not protect the environment?
People don’t want to protect the environment because they have jobs dependent on unsustainable practices, and they don’t want to see entire ways of life disappear. Look at logging. People in logging towns have been chopping down trees for generations and benefitting from the economic boom it gives their town. But then, instead of creating ways of sustainable logging, we just decide to constrict the places they are allowed to log at (which just makes corporations log elsewhere) and that pits the working class against the left, the opposite of what should be happening. No, we should have nationalized logging that uses special practices so that we still get wood and our children can get wood. However, the environmental movement is full of educated and posh urbanites who do not understand that people need to have jobs, and that it should be left to the libertarian right to try and systemically target the working class and leave them unemployed.Another example is fishing. Instead of kicking out large corporations, setting up cooperatives of local fishermen and setting up regulations justified by the idea that the people will not be able to fish anymore if there are no fish left, the environmentalists just made it about shitting on blue-collar people and ending their way of life. And now, we have fish raised in fish farms, which are incredibly inhumane are in defiance of nature.And then there are the times when environmentalists are just plain ridiculous. Chasing steel mills out of a city because they are making a city smoggy is just posh idiocy; smog is part of living in an industrial society and if there isn’t smog in America there will be far more smog out in China. If you want to invent new steel mills that don’t burn coal I would love to see them but we don’t have those yet.Now, I am not saying all environmentalists are like this. I consider myself an environmentalist. I believe in global warming, I think green industries would help people and the planet. I am not one to defend big oil or any other large corporate lobby like them that are destroying our environment. But far to many environmentalists are like how I am describing, and they are the reason more people are not pro-environment.
How will reducing greenhouse gas emissions affect the American economy?
My Goodness! My variables were very pessimistic. For instance "How likely is it that national policies that make carbon fuels more expensive will stimulate technological innovation that raises energy efficiency or makes renewable energy alternatives less expensive?" I think the exact opposite is true. Higher prices mean higher profits, and suppression of alternate energy. That's all we've seen and that's all we're going to see. We wouldn't still be using petroleum if anything else were true. My predicted outcome was 2.989% growth versus the "business as usual" (do nothing) outcome of 3.0% growth.
If wages are declining, housing and healthcare are expensive, climate change is destroying the planet, and authoritarianism in on the rise, what’s the motivation for having children? What will our future children look forward to?
Dylan once sang in ‘Let Me Die In My Footsteps’ (good song, over a half century old, but relevant to this question, I think) … “There’s always been people who have cause to fear…”And it’s true. Hell, I’m one of them from time to time. It’s a scary world out there. But the truth is, people have been thinking the world is on the verge of ending arguably since people began thinking.Of course, in the atomic age and with the affects of climate change evermore observable, the destruction of diversity and ecosystems, it does seem we’re in a new and perilous time, the likes of which have never been seen before in the history of humanity.The case for optimism, I will say, lies in the following points:1.) Although population is ever-increasing, it is increasing at a decreasing rate, as people in developed countries are having less children (for instance, Japan’s aging and shrinking population as a prime example).2.) New technologies which utilize cleaner and greener energy sources are being developed and refined everyday, and if through the sheer force of humanity’s willpower, we can shift quickly to these zero-carbon sources of energy, this will be an essential step in the process.3.) Finally, I’m reminded of the movie “Idiocracy” (hilariously relevant and frightening these days, I’d say) wherein the people who are concerned, who do care about creating a better world and raising intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate citizens of Earth MUST procreate.Thus, the only way to create a better world, one which respects the earth and all living creatures, is to raise children who embody these values. It’s up to us to create the world we want to see. And this starts with raising children to carry the torch into the dark future which have the moral compass and sense of responsibility, which you, the questioner, seem to possess.
Why do we need to protect the environment?
The Environment is the most important resource for life. We get water, power and Oxygen from the Environment. It helps to clear pollution and is a large habitat for animals. Earth is getting polluted by poisonous gases and fumes made by cars and factories. A clean environment is essential for healthy living. Air pollution can cause respiratory diseases and cancer, among other problems and diseases. Water pollution can lead to typhoid, diarrheal diseases, and other water-related diseases. Therefore we should keep our environment clean and protected.
Does nuclear power contribute to Global Warming/Climate Change?
Nuclear power does not burn fossil fuels so does not emit carbon like oil , gas and coal do. However nuclear power generation does produce heat , the nuclear reactors must be kept cool and they use rivers to maintain a constant flow of cold water in and warm waste water out.This warm water lowers the oxygen level in the rivers and can kill fish. The nuclear power stations generate nuclear waste that we do not know how to dispose of or how to make safe. We simply store for ever really as its half life is 50,000 years so it will be half as dangerous in 50,000 years time. That waste will mount up and become ever increasingly expensive to store.