Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
Many of you who know me well know that I am a right-winger. This is especially true when it comes to economic issues and most of the social issues. But if we’re going over the environment, I tend to be in the left or the center-left. My reasoning is that while I oppose coersion against the markets and daily lives, the environment is a very serious issue. Even if were not in a grave situation, you should care for the Earth.
Global Warming:
Although I wouldn’t say that it’s a hoax, I don’t believe that Global Warming or Climate Change is a swift and man-made process like how many believe. It’s a natural process that would take millions of years to go into effect. However, this does not mean we can continue polluting the Earth and releasing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into the atmosphere. There are other reasons to reduce pollution:
In the contrary, we should also remain practical. I would not sacrifice cost-effectiveness for something that won’t provide benefits, ban products that have caused litte or no problems, force people to walk or exersice instead of driving to work or somewhere else, or evict people from their houses because of some endangered species got into their property. More cars equal more pollution, but public transportation could have bad customer service. Carbon-emitting vehicles are dirty, but bikes are much slower. Stairs are better than elevators for both exercise and the environment, but not everybody could take the stairs as moving big or heavy equipment requires the elevator. The general idea of keeping the environment clean is important, but everything has its limits.
Climate Change Denial:
Climate change denial is not just believing that global warming is a myth, but this also means that you don’t believe in the theory that it’s a quick and man-made process. Many believers in global warming thinks climate change denial is evil. But I don’t believe the same thing.
To call climate change deniers “ignorant”, “uneducated”, “uninformed”, or “stupid” is considered bigotry. If you’re going to question someone’s education for not believing in global warming, then you are a bigot. Intolerance based on beliefs (including skepticism in science) is still evil. Many climate change deniers are actually well-educated in science and informed on environmental issues, yet they reject it.
I’m not saying this to defend pollution or protect stuff that’s bad for the environment, but I’m saying this because it’s just as bad to criticize climate change deniers as it is to criticize anybody based on religious beliefs.
Ecology:
Another environment-related issue is on our interaction with different plants and animals. The biggest issue is endangered species.
In addition to our pollution, there are many factors that caused endangered species. Fish are endangered by overfishing. Rhinos, elephants, and tigers are being hunted for animal products. Some species like the axolotl are endangered by introducing exotic, yet incompatible species. Many species are endangered by loss of land. If any species goes extinct, they will never come back. If there’s anything else that makes this a big deal, it would be the balance in ecology. Some of these species are very important for the ecology. Each species plays a large role in the environment. If one is wiped out, it would cause major problems. For instance, if the predators of insects were wiped out, there will be more insects, which would cause problems to humans.
Another issue related to ecology is overpopulation. They would endanger other wildife, act as pests towards humans, and do other environmental damage. The best example of this would be the Australian rabbit population.
Energy Resources:
Ever since I started learning about the environment, I’ve always favored Solar Energy and Wind Energy more than the other resources, even if they don’t work everywhere and that they are expensive to produce less power than the fossil fuels. The problem with fossil fuels is not just that they are heavy pollutants. They are non-renewable resources, resources that do not replace themselves if they get used up. Once gone, we’ll never see them again. Nuclear power, despite being expensive, they produce a ton of energy, but it produces very dangerous waste, and if not handled correctly, it would cause a serious explosion while making the nearby city inhospitable. Biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wave energy are good.
Now if we were to push to 100% renewable energy like what the Green New Deal suggests, that would be a bad idea, for economic reasons. Even if we go up to 50%, it would take about 30 years to produce enough energy to pay themselves. But it wouldn’t be a bad idea if you had privately owned solar panels and wind turbines.
Waste Disposal:
If you chose between incinerating, landfills, or recycling, they all have their limits. Landfills are nasty and bad for the Earth, but garbage incineration is a worse pollutant. It releases many toxic gases, including cancer-causing gases, into the atmosphere. Recycling would be the best option here, but that is limited as well.
I support recycling as a way to dispose trash. In fact, I have threw away plastic bottles in a separate trash bag for a recycling bin for quite a long time now. One of the arguments against recycling is that the statistics are exaggerating, and there’s still a lot of room for landfills. This is true, however, I still support recycling. If it were over how much landfill space we have left, it’s not because there isn’t enough landfill space, but it’s to prevent landfill spaces from being filled up. If it were over how many resources we have left, it’s to save more resources. For instance, plastic is an oil product, and oil is a non-renewable resource. If we recycle plastic, we’ll still have plastic. If we don’t, there will be no plastic left on the Earth.
Now when it comes to banning certain products, I am against most of this. Take for instance, the plastic straw ban is very radical. Plastic straws aren’t doing as much damage as other waste, and I oppose banning products in general. But I do agree with McDonald’s on their decision to phase out of styrofoam cups and I hope every company follows this suit. Even if it’s a good insulator and prevents condensation, styrofoam is not recyclable, and it’s an oil product.
Property:
The last environment-related issue is about property and ownership. If you do something, you are responsible for it. If you mess up your own property, it’s your fault. If someone else or something messes up your property or invades it, it’s not your fault.
I do not support evicting people from their homes if an endangered animal invades their property. Nor would I confiscate anybody’s possessions that may be considered “harmful” to the environment. Now if they are causing serious damage (like ATVs, factories polluting rivers, oil spills etc), then that is when the EPA needs to be involved. But there’s no need to be overprotective.
Global Warming:
Although I wouldn’t say that it’s a hoax, I don’t believe that Global Warming or Climate Change is a swift and man-made process like how many believe. It’s a natural process that would take millions of years to go into effect. However, this does not mean we can continue polluting the Earth and releasing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into the atmosphere. There are other reasons to reduce pollution:
- The amount of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] we release from cars, factories, and power plants may be insignificant compared to how much CO[SUB]2[/SUB] comes from the oceans and from all life on the earth, but the carbon we’re releasing is a different kind of carbon. If it’s been trapped in the Earth for millions of years, it would be a lot dirtier than the carbon that’s been in life on the surface. Not to mention, but the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the oceans and life makes its way back to the oceans and life. The CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from fossil fuels never comes back from the atmosphere.
- Let’s not get started on the theory how greenhouse gases trap the Sun’s heat on the Earth, but we should be concerned about the ozone layer that surrounds the Earth. Greenhouse gases deplete the ozone layer (especially CFCs, which have been banned for a long time). The ozone layer protects the Earth from UV radiation. Without it, the Earth could get hot much quicker while diseases linked to radiation like skin cancer would be more common.
- We should care for our wildlife, in both plants and animals. Pollution kills life in the air, on land, and in the water. This goes deeper than CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions. It also includes waste disposal, water management, and farming practices. I’ll go over more about plants and animals later, but pollutions are a major cause of their endangerment.
- Pollution is also harmful for humans.
In the contrary, we should also remain practical. I would not sacrifice cost-effectiveness for something that won’t provide benefits, ban products that have caused litte or no problems, force people to walk or exersice instead of driving to work or somewhere else, or evict people from their houses because of some endangered species got into their property. More cars equal more pollution, but public transportation could have bad customer service. Carbon-emitting vehicles are dirty, but bikes are much slower. Stairs are better than elevators for both exercise and the environment, but not everybody could take the stairs as moving big or heavy equipment requires the elevator. The general idea of keeping the environment clean is important, but everything has its limits.
Climate Change Denial:
Climate change denial is not just believing that global warming is a myth, but this also means that you don’t believe in the theory that it’s a quick and man-made process. Many believers in global warming thinks climate change denial is evil. But I don’t believe the same thing.
To call climate change deniers “ignorant”, “uneducated”, “uninformed”, or “stupid” is considered bigotry. If you’re going to question someone’s education for not believing in global warming, then you are a bigot. Intolerance based on beliefs (including skepticism in science) is still evil. Many climate change deniers are actually well-educated in science and informed on environmental issues, yet they reject it.
I’m not saying this to defend pollution or protect stuff that’s bad for the environment, but I’m saying this because it’s just as bad to criticize climate change deniers as it is to criticize anybody based on religious beliefs.
Ecology:
Another environment-related issue is on our interaction with different plants and animals. The biggest issue is endangered species.
In addition to our pollution, there are many factors that caused endangered species. Fish are endangered by overfishing. Rhinos, elephants, and tigers are being hunted for animal products. Some species like the axolotl are endangered by introducing exotic, yet incompatible species. Many species are endangered by loss of land. If any species goes extinct, they will never come back. If there’s anything else that makes this a big deal, it would be the balance in ecology. Some of these species are very important for the ecology. Each species plays a large role in the environment. If one is wiped out, it would cause major problems. For instance, if the predators of insects were wiped out, there will be more insects, which would cause problems to humans.
Another issue related to ecology is overpopulation. They would endanger other wildife, act as pests towards humans, and do other environmental damage. The best example of this would be the Australian rabbit population.
Energy Resources:
Ever since I started learning about the environment, I’ve always favored Solar Energy and Wind Energy more than the other resources, even if they don’t work everywhere and that they are expensive to produce less power than the fossil fuels. The problem with fossil fuels is not just that they are heavy pollutants. They are non-renewable resources, resources that do not replace themselves if they get used up. Once gone, we’ll never see them again. Nuclear power, despite being expensive, they produce a ton of energy, but it produces very dangerous waste, and if not handled correctly, it would cause a serious explosion while making the nearby city inhospitable. Biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wave energy are good.
Now if we were to push to 100% renewable energy like what the Green New Deal suggests, that would be a bad idea, for economic reasons. Even if we go up to 50%, it would take about 30 years to produce enough energy to pay themselves. But it wouldn’t be a bad idea if you had privately owned solar panels and wind turbines.
Waste Disposal:
If you chose between incinerating, landfills, or recycling, they all have their limits. Landfills are nasty and bad for the Earth, but garbage incineration is a worse pollutant. It releases many toxic gases, including cancer-causing gases, into the atmosphere. Recycling would be the best option here, but that is limited as well.
I support recycling as a way to dispose trash. In fact, I have threw away plastic bottles in a separate trash bag for a recycling bin for quite a long time now. One of the arguments against recycling is that the statistics are exaggerating, and there’s still a lot of room for landfills. This is true, however, I still support recycling. If it were over how much landfill space we have left, it’s not because there isn’t enough landfill space, but it’s to prevent landfill spaces from being filled up. If it were over how many resources we have left, it’s to save more resources. For instance, plastic is an oil product, and oil is a non-renewable resource. If we recycle plastic, we’ll still have plastic. If we don’t, there will be no plastic left on the Earth.
Now when it comes to banning certain products, I am against most of this. Take for instance, the plastic straw ban is very radical. Plastic straws aren’t doing as much damage as other waste, and I oppose banning products in general. But I do agree with McDonald’s on their decision to phase out of styrofoam cups and I hope every company follows this suit. Even if it’s a good insulator and prevents condensation, styrofoam is not recyclable, and it’s an oil product.
Property:
The last environment-related issue is about property and ownership. If you do something, you are responsible for it. If you mess up your own property, it’s your fault. If someone else or something messes up your property or invades it, it’s not your fault.
I do not support evicting people from their homes if an endangered animal invades their property. Nor would I confiscate anybody’s possessions that may be considered “harmful” to the environment. Now if they are causing serious damage (like ATVs, factories polluting rivers, oil spills etc), then that is when the EPA needs to be involved. But there’s no need to be overprotective.
