Hot Button Topics (religion, politics, sports)

[Simonorged]

Accept for the car exhaust there is really not much more we can.
Farting cow burgers are NOT going to kill us!
We already recycle, all we really have to do is continue to do that, and a few other things and eventually the rain will handle the rest.
It doesn't help that I find the whole thing to be a farce.

Also, a little side note,
Only Google can take a misspelled exuast and tern it into asexual.

[NejinOniwa]

The EPA begs to differ...

I could talk a loooot on this subject, but I'm busy playing pokemans.

[Nichi]

I'd say true. My parents will say it's just a bunch of hippie bullshit, and claim it's on a cycle and it'll start cooling down within the next 20 years, but the evidence is there to prove that something needs to be done :\

[NejinOniwa]

Hippie bullshit?

...REALLY.

That's...
So fucking ignorant I want to smash something.

[Chocofreak13]

you and me both, man, you and me both....

my only saving grace is that eventually the earth will reclaim itself in one way or another and the humans will pay the price =w=

as for GW, my dad is a big eco-nut so we've been recycling since i was probably in single digits. there's no question that we as a race are ruining this lovely planet on which we crawl like biting insects. dumping, nuclear power, oil dependency are all things that need to be either curbed or snuffed out. how this relates to global warming is that we seriously (as a nation) need to get our asses in gear about alternate energy sources. energy crisis? PUT UP A COUPLE FUCKING WINDMILLS IN THOSE GODDAMN MOUNTAINS INSTEAD OF MINING THEM TILL THEY FALL APART
HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS ALL ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI
COVER THE DESERT IN SOLAR PANELS AND INSTALL THEM ON EVERY. FUCKING. ROOF. IN THIS DAMN COUNTRY

but we're americans who are lazy and fear change so nothing is going to get done 'v'

[Simonorged]

No doubt we are messing it up, we were always meant to take care of the earth.
But I still find it hard to believe that the world will end from it.
It would most likely be some thing like Wall-E

PUT UP A COUPLE FUCKING WINDMILLS IN THOSE GODDAMN MOUNTAINS INSTEAD OF MINING THEM TILL THEY FALL APART
HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS ALL ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI
COVER THE DESERT IN SOLAR PANELS AND INSTALL THEM ON EVERY. FUCKING. ROOF. IN THIS DAMN COUNTRY

And this helps how?
The plants wouldn't grow, the fish would most likely be affected, the only one of these I see plausible is putting them on the roofs, but then comes the question of who is going to pay for it,
And forget about the EPA, some of their decisions have either been down right silly, or more harmful.
Example: Do you know the difference between "Low Sulfuric Diesel" & "Ultra Low Sulfuric Diesel"?
Low Sulfuric Diesel doesn't stay in the air as long. The EPA switched it to Ultra Low Sulfuric Diesel
because they thought it would reduce emissions.

And the there was the situation just last year(or the year before) where a family was trying to build their dream home, but the EPA tried to say that it was on a wet land.
IT WAS PRACTICALLY A DESERT!!

[NejinOniwa]

Nuclear power actually isn't that bad. As long as you take care of the waste, it's a pretty clean source of energy, compared to other alternatives.

[Nichi]

@Simon: I'd agree on that
(Also, would you mind not censoring other people's posts when you quote them. It really comes off as condescending :\)

I think what would make a good incentive for some people to change their ways would be if they actually saved money doing it. Considering my mom is completely insane over saving a penny by buying horrible store-brand hot dogs over a brand name, I'm sure she'd be willing to make a change if it means she saves money :\
(She is all for more fuel efficient vehicles, since it means she saves money on gas)

[Simonorged]

Am I in trouble? 0_0
I won't edit others posts anymore.
There is more up there though, I wasn't done.

And about nuclear power, I see more problems with that then anything else.
All our enemies would have to do is hit one with an air strike, and our entire country would be screwed.
Plus the waste(if I'm correct) can't be effectively disposed of.

[Nichi]

Nah; you're not in trouble. I just don't like it when somebody censors what somebody else said in a quote; as it seems kind of rude

As for nuclear power, if its safely managed I'm for it

[Bella]

Sorry guys, but nuclear power is the most powerful "green" form of energy production we have right now. Yes, it would be awesome to have a widespread geothermal, wind, solar or tidal-energy power generation infrastructure, but we don't, and considering the limitations of those technologies it will be a long while before they become major players in the US energy market (you can replace "US" with China, Russia, India, basically any very large / populous nation with a lot of geographic and geological disparity.)

Yes, nuclear energy has a potential to be dangerous, and yes, it impacts the environment. But do you know what's one hell of a lot more dangerous than nuclear energy? Coal energy, which has damaged the environment on a much larger scale and kills up to one million people each year . As well, fossil fuels maim and kill people and decimate the environment like nobody's business, and hydroelectric energy seems pretty safe and innocuous since it doesn't impact air quality directly (although the flooding it entails does release greenhouse gasses), but it has a whole host of negative impacts on the environment, including destruction of aquatic and land habitats, fish die-offs and generally altering waterways for the worse. But not too many people fuss about fossil fuel or coal or hydro-energy because we've gotten so used to those energy sources that they no longer seem like a massive, imminent threat (as opposed to nuclear energy, the mere mention of which will send people into hand-clutching and heart palpitations).

I assume a lot of it is psychological - "nuclear" anything still carries with it connotations of bombs and mushroom clouds and fallout and radiation sickness, and also a sense of being inherently unstable and not fully able to be controlled by humans, when it should probably make people feel FUCK YEAH POWER OF THE SUN ON EARTH (not scientifically correct, but you know what I mean). Never mind the fact that there are only 4,068 deaths associated with nuclear energy, of which 4,056 are associated with Chernobyl and the rest consisting of industrial accidents (i.e., no other actual meltdown-related deaths). Can you imagine if we gave up on trains after 4,000 deaths? Automobiles? Aviation? I'd say we would still all be riding horses, but even horses have killed a fuck-ton more people than that.

[Nichi]

Indeed. As I stated, if it's safely managed, nuclear power is definitely a good thing and I'd fully support it.

[NejinOniwa]

P as in Power, P as in Propaganda. Also L as in Lobbyism, because that's again half the reason we're still so deeply entrenched in the quicksand of fossil fuel.

[Chocofreak13]

@simon: I will swear as much as I please and if you don't like it don't quote me.
Also, a dessert? They were building on ice cream?

@nuclear: I will never support it. Ever. You might claim it's clean "if it's well managed", but the point is it's not. We're humans. We're lazy and look to save time and money, and thus we will always take the easy way out via dumping. After which the land becomes unusable and the surrounding area is contaminated as well. Feel like arguing with me? Take into account the disposal of chemical waste, a similar process, and the incidents at rocky flats and love canal.
That ANYONE should die from exposure to a power source is reason enough to ban it. Coal and nuclear both suck. And saying that we should wait either due to lack of funds or because "it's too early" is nothing but stalling. Why not now? What's stopping us? Money? Laziness? Give me a solid reason why not, instead of the excuses we've been parading for at least 35 years.

[Bella]

To be honest, I support technological progress even at the cost of human lives - especially if said technology hasn't killed very many people compared to competing technologies (a few thousand [mostly in one accident] vs. millions of people and counting, all over the world, every day) and provides far greater benefits. Also, if humans are really as incompetent as you're assuming, there would be far more nuclear accidents each year than there are in reality - the track record of nuclear power is a damned testament to human competency (or rather, the ability of competent people to be elected to positions of high responsibility), and if all power plants were run with as stringent of regulation, I would expect them to be far safer as well.

That ANYONE should die from exposure to a power source is reason enough to ban it.

I'm sincerely curious - do you believe that one death is too many in the pursuit of any emerging technology?