The climate change narrative insists that we are all doing something wrong. The results, they say, will be catastrophic for the planet. What we are doing wrong is: activities that put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That all of our private and public behaviors result in carbon dioxide emissions is pretty much true, but is carbon dioxide emission the worst thing the western consumer is doing environmentally speaking?
When is the last time you heard discussion of any other form of industrial pollution? The production of EV batteries is environmentally catastrophic. Most consumer electronics carry a similar pollution cost. While activists shout for us to stop using cars, disposable consumer products continue to dominate the market.
I’m not a fan of doomers, but I am concerned that we are covering up real ecological damage with the specter of climate change. Thoughts?
The 'we can save the environment if we sacrifice' message that is widely propagated by the media is both a smokescreen and a means to extend control over the general population because current tech makes it TOO easy for those in charge to become informed that they risk losing their last grasp of power.
The planet is already beginning to repair any damage we are doing, from ozone layer repairing itself, had reports of a new type of bacteria that consumes plastic, if we were doing too much damage to the Earth, it'd delete us with a new virus that wasn't made in a lab or just activate ring of fire failsafe and kill the majority of us in a volcanic ice age. Most of the environmental measures required can be done overnight with efficiency upgrades on all businesses around the world and nuclear power.
That's not a glorious counter by nature. It's one of the greatest environmental victories over the past 50 years (along with the re-introduction of fish to the Cuyahoga River).
In that case, the reduction of specific industrial chemicals that had a horrific effect on Ozone really did have an effect, and it didn't take as long as we thought it could. It only took 30 years, rather than 50. Cancer rates are coming down in South America because of it.
That's what I mean, that the industry shifted and had a huge affect than if they tried to say the public were the ones that individually had to do something.
The most we need the public to do is dispose of waste and trash responsibly and they fail at that basic task looking at a lot of cities.
Water, soil, and forest management are frankly more important than landfill management (but we could still do way better with that, including mining them for energy).
I'm not even talking landfill, I'm just talking about putting rubbish in trash cans, the times I've been in cities and felt dirty because there's half eaten fast food on the streets or plastic bags littering the ground, that probably affects the environment in just the natural wildlife in cities itself.
But land management is key, it's why the targeting of farmers reveals how much of a shit they really care about the environment.
Completely and utterly false. Unsurprising coming from you.
First the ozone hole was discovered in 1983, and the Montreal Protocols were established in 1987. That isn't enough time to determine what the natural state of the ozone hole is. Its complexly bullshit to claim it is human caused, but they went ahead with it anyways, because communist, who you are helping, always do.
First there is the part where the Protocols of the Elders of Montreal actually worked. They didn't. Also.
Then there is the part where they claim that the ozone hole is "healing" when it was at its 13th largest extent. Note, the ozone hole essentially completely recovers every Antarctic winter, as ozone returns to a level that is comparable to most of the rest of the atmosphere.
Finally there is the fact that there is an ozone hole over the tropics which completely invalidates the "CFC destroy the ozone layer" model.