or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › environmentalists- are to blame for world hunger
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

environmentalists- are to blame for world hunger - Page 2

post #31 of 34
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Really, then why is the unemployment rate so high?
Because that's part of what happens when a severely mismanaged economy starts falling apart.

Of course, we have way too many people in this country. Just because one CAN breed doesn't mean one should.
There are more people in south London than the whole of Montana, North Dakota and New Hampshire put together.

I would agree that, say, China has way too many people, or India, but not the US. If you don't keep your birthrate up then populations die out. You guys are about breaking even.

Neet, I couldn't agree more with you. But as long as big business stands to gain financially from neglecting the environment, the small things we as individuals can do will only scratch the surface. When capitalism meets environmentalism, the latter will always lose. It's a shame - but things are slowly changing. There just still needs to be that big dollar sign carrot dangled in front of the noses of government and big business before we will see any significant change. What is happening with the electric car is a good example of that.
post #32 of 34
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
... This process changes the whole industrial equation. Waste goes from a cost to a profit."

Just imagine it. Just for a moment.

Less waste. No more hazmat disposal. More energy sources. Jobs created. Land reclaimed for crops that was formerly landfills. No more hog farm smells. Forget about recycling to feel better about the environment, how about the joy from taking EVERYTHING in the trash can to be reclaimed?
Nice picture of how things could be .... I wish, too ....

The local country landfills have grown into huge mountains in an otherwise mostly-flat landscape. ("landfill" -- now, that's an oxymoron!!) They get some methane off of it for local plant use. But otherwise, it's just discarded material that's going to be there for a long, long time. And more and more keeps coming. I feel guilty whenever I throw something non-degradable away, but what else can I do with it?

If we could realize this picture of turning our waste into energy, I think that would be just wonderful. What's the catch? Why are we pursuing this?

Ethanol, wind turbines, solar, even hydrogen .... pretty much everything in the forefront has some drawback. If we could just reclaim the energy used to produce what we use and consume, so we could use it again .... and again .... and again -- like nature intended it to be --- wouldn't that be wonderful? You've heard of the fundamental law of nature: conservation of matter and energy, right? Nothing is ever destroyed or lost, it just changes form. Converting what we cast off into renewable energy would really be the most natural way. Everything else has some drawback.
post #33 of 34
Subsidies to the agriculture from the developed countries like the US and Europe are distorting the price of food. Agriculture in poorer countries cannot compete and so they produce less.

The US farm bill parades under the banner of "helping the family farm" but it subsidizes the large agri-businesses who then slurp up more family farm land. 78% of the subsidies go to 10% of the recipients. In 2005 a quarter of subsidies came in the form of “direct paymentsâ€, which go to landowners regardless of what they farm, how much they farm or if they farm at all. These payments, originally designed to wean farmers off subsidies, have stuck around, along with the subsidies they were meant to replace.

Instead of having a diversity of products grown, the handouts encourage farmers into only a handful of crops. Maybe those crops aren't the best crop for the farm.

It would be better if the government stopped handing out payments directly to farmers and instead provide monies for R&D to grow stronger, more environmentally friendly crops and provide crop insurance to a wider variety of crops.

And while many here are unhappy with trade agreements, there are a lot of industries who are dependent on the exports. By subsidizing 1% of the population, these trade agreements are in jeopardy and those industries that are right now helping to keep this economy afloat.
post #34 of 34
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
depends on the type of motor that is being used.
If you are using hydrogen to power something, you need the hydrogen. There isn't a hydrogen "motor" that makes its own hydrogen out of nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It takes energy to put hydrogen into a form that can be used to get energy (two atoms of hydrogen bound together).

The energy in fossil fuels comes from the photosynthesis (and before that from the sun) that bunches of organisms did millions of years ago. The organisms died, and fossil fuels are their corpses. We burn their corpses to get energy.

We have to use some other form of energy to get H2 (usually from water) before hydrogen can be used to power anything.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › environmentalists- are to blame for world hunger