Global Warming Hysteria is actually a positive thing

reply to post by Animal


You have a right to live on the planet and pursue longevity and prosperity, your so called right to live free of "environmental depletion", and "pollution" and subsequent impacts to the quality of your life are subjective assertions not at all backed up with any science. Your claim that your right to exist free of this fear trumps the right of another to, in your own words, "consume resources" is demonstrably false. If I or other people have a right to consume resources then you have no right to abrogate or derogate our right to do so. This may be a shock to you but corn is a resource, apples and oranges are resources, water is a resource, and I as well as everyone else on this planet have the absolute right to consume those resources.

This may be another shock to you but the food we digest is a pollutant if the waste is not properly maintained. I have the right to digest food as does everyone else. So yes, you are mistaken and your mistake of fact is that you claim that your right to be horribly afraid of others consumption trumps their right to consume. One right can not trump another right, that is not the way rights work. If it is a right for me, then it is a right for everybody and no rights get trumped, only abrogated or derogated and nobody has the right to abrogate or derogate another persons right.

The natural order to any civilization is freedom, we are not insects, like some sort of ant colony that dutifully labors away for an elite queen ant, we are humans who have fundamental rights and those rights are not granted to us by better people, they are inherent in us from the moment we are born. This is the natural order and any appearance of order that comes from tyranny comes from disguise. Just because Mussolini managed to get the trains to run on time doesn't mean that fascism has a natural order. Indeed, it is arguable that free people are infinitely more capable of getting trains to run on time than any tyranny is. They are more capable of doing so, because they are acting in their own best interest and not out of fear of punishment.

Your disingenuous claim that you are not making any argument that I or others harm you simply because we exist is only undermined by your next argument that claims it is the behavior you have issue with. This might yet be another shocker for you, but with existence comes sets of behavior, and if that behavior is such that it abrogates and derogates your rights then it is behavior unacceptable to a free people. However, you have not proved at all that the behaviors you advocate regulation over are in any way abrogating or derogating your right to life, liberty and happiness, or any other right for that matter. It is not my argument that has failed, but yours.

You have not made any sufficient argument that your right to consume resources is being abrogated or derogated by others over consumption of resources and this argument has no bearing in a thread that is advocating a a manufactured mass hysteria in order to push forth a political agenda for a global regime that at this point has placed the main thrust of its focus upon the regulation of Co2 which is arguably a resource we all have a right to have in abundance.

Your assertion that "the right to produce waste beyond process said waste is a choice that hurts the entire group" is a specious argument often made by collectivists. If one or more people are producing waste beyond the planets ability to process that waste this is not a right, but is an abrogation and derogation of all other peoples rights not as a collective but as individuals. However, until you can become much more specific in exactly what production of waste you are talking about, then we can not have an intelligent conversation about this. If you are talking about the very real dangers of carbon monoxide that is produced by automobiles and other industrial factories then you are correct, however, this praise of mass hysteria in order to ensure a global regime is not about carbon monoxide but is about carbon dioxide, which is an entirely different matter and the only way you or other alarmists can make your vision of regulating carbon dioxide viable is by confusing the issue with very real threats such as carbon monoxide. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Your hording argument is yet just another collectivist argument. Are you suggesting that a corn farmer has no right to call the corn he grew his property? Are you suggesting that corn farmer has no right to refuse to sell his own property if he or she so chooses? What hording are you talking about? Your appeal to authority in regards to Hardin's Tragedy of Commons has no bearing. You can not by right, impose Hardin's hypothetical and dramatically over simplified situation on the rest of humanity simply because you buy into to Hardin's anti-self interest assertions. The difference between Hardin's and presumably your own Marxist leanings, is that in order to implement your theories, a central government must impose that theory upon the rest of humanity, whereas the self interest theories, in spite of your baseless arguments to the contrary, does not impose itself upon anyone and people are free to choose to participate in a system or not.

It is not I, when referring to the vast amounts of individuals who act responsibly every day, who are few in numbers and it is by your own admission the corporate elite of whom you blame as being the source of all this imagined disaster you offer as prophesy, who are the few. Your naive belief that enabling the corporate elite to impose your preferred collectivist ideal upon the masses is better than letting people live and let live is not a right you have to impose. I suggest you give up driving piston engines on a personal level and you respond with an argument that you should just give up all together. As if riding a bicycle weren't an option. As if building a better vehicle that didn't pollute on the same magnitude that piston engines do is not an option. You offer no real solution to the problem other than regulating the behavior of others, apparently reserving the right to yourself, along with the corporate elite to keep doing what it is you want everyone else to stop doing.

Cont...

reply to post by Animal


Continuing...

At the very least, you are arguing that these laws need to be put in place to stop you from doing what you refuse to stop yourself from doing. Either way it is that kind of shirking of responsibility that I am referring to. Why is it you need a law to stop you from polluting? And how is it that such an intrusive law, doesn't compel you to write in some sort of disgust...how did you put it?

"We might as well all go home and do NOTHING ever again if we don't want to benefit the elite at our expense. Dont drive, dont eat, dont drink, dont read, do NOTHING. Becasue EVERYTHING enriches them at our expense."

These laws you advocate come with carbon credit schemes that allowed Al Gore a couple of summers ago to excuse his one month electric bill of upwards of $30,000 dollars because he had purchased the carbon credits to excuse it. Never mind that I don't spend $30,000 in a year on electricity, never mind it takes me close to one year and three quarters to consume that much in electricity, he is better than you and I and he is, along with you and Spooky, trying to save the planet, so these collectivists laws you advocate that will profoundly affect my life adversely and not at all Al Gores, are justified? I don't think so.

In what way can you take responsibility and negate the ultra rich oligarchy's dominance over wealth? Stop buying their products! Is that so difficult to understand? I shop at farmers markets, I purchase goods from street vendors who work hard and long to make a living, I no longer drink Coca-Cola or Pepsi or any corporate soda, I don't even drink soda any longer, and the beverages I do drink I purchase such as teas and coffees are products I buy from local stores selling organically grown products from either local farmers or smaller farmers in other regions. I have made the conscious decision to do this to say NO to the corporate elite, and I just today sent yet another email to Coca-Cola reminding them that I will not ever purchase their product again and will do what I can to convince others to boycott them as long as they continue their unseemly corporate agenda, and guess what? I am doing that right now right here with you, most likely as Coca-Cola's current ad runs above this post!

Did you really need that clarification? Are you truly so helpless that you can't join me now in your thread to denounce Coca-Cola as just another part of the problem and not at all a part of the solution? Or would you disagree and do you advocate the corporate agenda that Coca-Cola pushes upon the masses? If you do, it is certainly your right to do so, and I would never advocate any laws to suppress you or Coca-Cola for that matter, instead I advocate taking personal responsibility and doing what we can as individuals, not as collectives, in fighting the corporate elite. Why should I spend another dime on a Coca-Cola product when they will take the profits they earn from my expenditure and invest it in laws designed to suppress me? Why would you?

Yet, somehow, when I urge you to take personal responsibility you attempt to turn that urging into an illustration of the correctness to your claim of utter helplessness. Please. Your fuzzy math where you claim that if you and many like you do your best without fundamental changes in the group is either a failure to understand simple mathematics or more dis-ingeniousness on your part. A.) If you and many like you are doing your part, that constitutes a group. B.) If you and many like you are doing nothing about the problem and claiming that this is doing all you can, that is disingenuous. Yet, apparently you continue to consume because the people you don't even agree with are telling you to do so, and by consume I guess we can rule out fresh fruits and vegetables purchased from the farmers market, rule out glass products instead of plastic, rule recycled paper instead of non-recycled because these things you can't do as long as others still have a right to purchase them.

Here is yet another shocker for you, when the vast majority of people refuse to buy plastic, then plastic will no longer have an impact upon the market. However, if you and others like you attempt to ban plastics this will create a black market for that product as long as it remains in demand. It is not through intrusive tyrannical legislation that we will find the solution it is through honest and clear discourse, with a strong conviction that as long as we continue to inform and educate others about the problems with plastics or refusal to buy recycled paper only further damages our environment that together we will shape the market place regardless of what economic system is put in place.

As far as defeating taxes I have spoken to this very issue in other threads under American political madness and do back it up. That issue is for those threads and whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant regardless of what you believe, the law is the law and not subject to opinion.

Your sad and simplistic assertion that people can and do affect the environment is the exact same disingenuous argument that Rutten loves to make. Of course we affect the environment and I have made no such claim to the contrary. I am addressing the so called "real science" that Rutten and yourself are advocating, but if you believe in it so much why do you or Rutten or Spooky always avoid speaking to it and instead attempt to put words in the mouths of those who are challenging you. I said what I said, that which you quoted, and I did not say what I did not say, that which you spoke to. Please. You can dismiss my very real concern for the equivocation you and other alarmist engage in as a diatribe, it does not make you any smarter.

I speak to the natural cycles of warming and cooling and you counter with a question asking if I am denying human contribution to the cycle. No, I do not deny it, why the hell do you think I am riding my bicycle to work every day? What is wrong with you? Do you deny that long before the industrial revolution there were natural cycles of warming and cooling? Do you deny that up to 95% of the greenhouse gasses consist of water vapor? Do you deny that Co2 is beneficial to humanity and to plant life?

Continued...

reply to post by Animal


Continuing...

Are you claiming that the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere were different at the time of the medieval warming period than they are now? Care to back that up with some hard science or are you going to argue the very same tree rings and ice cores that Mann used for his spurious "hockey stick" chart say otherwise? Are you denying that this so called "climate science" is not still in its infancy and subject to closer scrutiny particularly when all that can be offered for solutions are global governance?

Oh and then there is the moderation of a good thing. On the one hand, the collectivists will argue that we have a serious problem with overpopulation and the only answer to that population explosion is to curb behavior, instead of allowing nature to take its course and let more Co2 enter the atmosphere so that more plant life can flourish so that the very real concern of shrinking oxygen, and agriculture is addressed through natural solutions allowing the population to continue on its successful path without interference from half baked Marxist collectivists who think they know best. Nope, instead you'll try to impress first by dismissing my own ability to understand a gradient or scale, then by default declaring your own obvious appreciation for this scale, so that you can dismiss the very real scientific fact that Co2 is good for the planet. Wow! Use terms like "tipping point" because lets be honest here, you don't like this increase in population and you think this will bring about a "tipping point" that nature can't handle.

Never mind the fact that at one time nature sustained a planet that held huge monstrous dinosaurs in vast numbers, if we have too many people on the planet consuming away, the planet will reach a "tipping point". This is unbelievable arrogance on you part. Let us never even consider that we will eventually reach another ice age with or without AGW and if we don't figure out how to survive the natural ice age that will invariably come, we're screwed. But, let's not do anything productive like learn how to survive an ever changing universe, let's make laws that curb human behavior instead.

I have said it before and I will say it again, you are welcome to stand by your own silly fears and assertions, and I will never advocate laws that would attempt to curb your silliness, you on the other hand believe you have the right to regulate the behavior of others and this is the fundamental difference between us. You've had to concede the very real science I spoke to and have not at all managed to convince me that the what you claim is science actually is. But, dismiss my efforts as diatribes and feel better about yourself, it is perfectly okay with me, what is not okay with me are intrusive laws that seek to replace self governance with a tyranny.

Reply to:Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Did the rant make you feel better?

Listen, your verbose argument against my point is just that, wordy. You write a lot and say very little.

My points that you have attempted to invalidate stand. For instance, there is AMPLE proof that the environmental impacts of unchecked consumption and waste effect human health in a negative manner, I don't even understand how you can deny this.

You can try to dismiss me with ad hominem attacks or simply try to refute EVERYTHING I say, which I personally think devalues your stance, I really don't care.

I also have no interest in reading your painfully verbose argument either.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal


Absolutely nothing in your last argument has anything at all to do with the original post and its misguided praise for mass hysteria because such fear would allow for a global governance to impose laws upon the people.

You are like the Doug Henning of AGW debaters, using your silly emoticons to show your big teeth in a desperate hope that no one will notice the very noticeable misdirections you are relying upon to advocate global governance. This global governance will not do a damn thing to address the issues you keep bringing up time and time again. You have all ready conceded you have no intentions of doing anything about these problems on an individual level and given that you will not act individually to fix the problems you are not going to convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that your advocacy of a global governance will.

Stop engaging in deceit and be honest, the only thing being addressed by this ill advised global regime is the dubious claim that Co2 will reach a "tipping point" and there is no hard evidence to support that at all. This is why you keep returning to the very real problems of pollution that is harming the planet which is not at all being addressed by this global governance scheme. Be honest! Stop pretending like you care about the planet. I don't buy it, and your advocacy of tyranny says it all.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Animal

 

Absolutely nothing in your last argument has anything at all to do with the original post and its misguided praise for mass hysteria because such fear would allow for a global governance to impose laws upon the people.

Yawn. Okay.

You are like the Doug Henning of AGW debaters, using your silly emoticons to show your big teeth in a desperate hope that no one will notice the very noticeable misdirections you are relying upon to advocate global governance. This global governance will not do a damn thing to address the issues you keep bringing up time and time again. You have all ready conceded you have no intentions of doing anything about these problems on an individual level and given that you will not act individually to fix the problems you are not going to convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that your advocacy of a global governance will.

Really? You need to think about what I am saying and not put words in my mouth.

Stop engaging in deceit and be honest, the only thing being addressed by this ill advised global regime is the dubious claim that Co2 will reach a "tipping point" and there is no hard evidence to support that at all. This is why you keep returning to the very real problems of pollution that is harming the planet which is not at all being addressed by this global governance scheme. Be honest! Stop pretending like you care about the planet. I don't buy it, and your advocacy of tyranny says it all.

I was being very honest. I also was not talking specifically about CO2 which was clear from the beginning but I know your all primed and prepped to use this ONE issue to try to dismiss us 'eco-nazis' so have at it, i hope you had some fun.

reply to post by Animal


There is nothing fun at all about attempting to peacefully find a diplomatic solution with advocates of tyrants. You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA, for as long and as loud as you can stand to. In the end, it is still tyranny you and Spooky are advocating and you have both foolishly praised hysteria as a correct method for achieving Machiavellian ends. This was the point of this thread and I didn't start the silly thread, I am just calling a bad idea a bad idea. It is not ever good to create mass hysteria in order to push forth a political agenda and that you think it is says more than enough about you.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
There is nothing fun at all about attempting to peacefully find a diplomatic solution with advocates of tyrants.

If it makes you feel better to assume that I am an advocate of tyrants, then so be it, despite the erroneous nature of this belief.

You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA, for as long and as loud as you can stand to. In the end, it is still tyranny you and Spooky are advocating and you have both foolishly praised hysteria as a correct method for achieving Machiavellian ends.

Wrong. I am always open to honest debate and am willing to admit when I am wrong. This discussion seems to be more about personal beliefs than about facts so deciding who is wrong and who is right will be hard.

I in no way advocate for tyranny I advocate for progress. While I see your point that the proposed action on carbon is flawed in that it will benefit the elite over the average joe and jane, I have to dismiss this as it is the way our twisted world works. If we can pass a bill that will help to protect the earth then so be it. there are of course limits to this and my willingness to support such actions, but in this case I see the value verses the cost and i find it a worthy trade.

taking on the elite is another battle when won will alleviate the burden of everything else, they are separate fights and should not be confused.

This was the point of this thread and I didn't start the silly thread, I am just calling a bad idea a bad idea. It is not ever good to create mass hysteria in order to push forth a political agenda and that you think it is says more than enough about you.

The thread is actually focused on the importance of protecting the earth and bringing attention to this important issue. While I will admit the argument is extreme I still will admit I agree with the basic premise.

Except it's not ABOUT saving the planet. It's about population reduction.

reply to post by Animal


Neither this thread nor you are in any way focused on saving the planet but rather, this thread is focused on laying blame for a destruction of a planet that hasn't happened, most likely won't happen, on a humanity you have no regard for. You're pretentious preening of saving the planet is nothing more than an excuse to impose your will on others. You have no regard for neither the planet nor humanity and your understanding of the science you claim to support is pathetically shallow and your understanding of natural law even more so.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Animal

 

Neither this thread nor you are in any way focused on saving the planet but rather, this thread is focused on laying blame for a destruction of a planet that hasn't happened, most likely won't happen, on a humanity you have no regard for.

What an interesting point of view. Perhaps if you re-read what I had to say you would see that my point really is focused on the general degradation of the planet. I actually am 'focused on saving the planet' it is, in fact, both a personal and a professional pursuit of mine and not just a 'game'. I also am very fond of humans, that is why my chosen profession is in the fields of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning - because I LIKE people as well as the planet.

You're pretentious preening of saving the planet is nothing more than an excuse to impose your will on others.

First off in what way am I 'gloating' over the issue of environmental problems?

I also take issue with the fact that you would say I am making 'exaggerated claims', at least this what I assume you are trying to say, but I will let that stand as your opinion.

Finally, I have no desire to enforce my will on anyone. I am sorry that my belief that we as a collective whole (as we are one big collective whole of humans living and operating on this isolated globe together) need to have sets of rules that prevent us from doing the earth harm that results in harming the rest of the planets inhabitants. Which does not even begin to address my belief in an environmental ethic that extends beyond humans.

You have no regard for neither the planet nor humanity and your understanding of the science you claim to support is pathetically shallow and your understanding of natural law even more so.

I have only the highest regard for both the planet and humanity. Your accusation is based only on your personal point of view and more specifically on the fact that I disagree with you on some very basic levels. That is fine, we can disagree, however your resort to personal attack is merely an ad Hominem that detracts from the conversation at hand.

You once again are basing your argument on the fact that I am out of my depth because I do not understand the 'science' or 'natural law', which is nothing more than a straw man as it misrepresents my point in this thread.

In my first post in this thread I said this:

I quite agree. It is getting more and more imperative that we reign in the myriad of impacts humans have on the planet.

Followed by:

We have to take action to protect our environment and the standard arguments against doing so are your typical lassie-faire BS. There HAS to be order balanced with freedom. Pure freedom is only going to make our situation worse.

Finishing with:

While it is obvious that the rich screw us every chance they get it is also obvious that the Earth needs us to start paying attention. This is why the current rise in environmental awareness is a good thing.

It is clear I am not talking ONLY about the issue of Climate Change though I make it clear I support that 'theory' at the moment as well. In fact perhaps you remember reading this statement made by me:

While I see the point that the current Hysteria over Climate Change is a good thing as it brings the average person's awareness of the importance of environmental stewardship to a new height, which is good, I can also see the point of those opposed to making Climate Change the #1 point of action.

In a world with so many clear threats to environmental integrity and with the debate concerning the extent to which humans play a part in Climate Change unresolved and ongoing, I can see where our collective energy could be put to more efficient use.

So now that I have clearly laid out for you my position perhaps you can halt the ad Hominem attacks and straw men that misrepresent what it is I am arguing.

While I clearly see your point I think it has more to do with your libertarian leanings than the issue of environmental stewardship or the lack there of. This is fine you are welcome to your own opinions and ideas but so am I.

I know very well that debating on ATS can bring out the type of zeal that we later wish it had not, I am far from free of this sin, however it is important to try to reign in our commentary and stick to the issues at hand.

Regardless of how much you disagree with me I would ask that you talk about the issues at hand and not me. I would also ask that when talking about the issues at hand you do not misrepresent my point of view in your counter arguments.

Cheers

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
Alright everyone. Judging by your answers, I have only one conclusion here:
Let us all just screw the climate. Let us all pollute, cut the trees, kill animals and produce as much CO2 emissions as possible. Let us all rise against the Global Elite and let us all do EXACTLY what they don't want us to do. Let us all pollute and consume. As much as possible. Because Global Warming is just a scam anyway and because we the people know the Truth.

Let us all stop caring about the planet Earth. Hooray for the freedom of mankind.

Let us fight for our right to pollute this planet.

You misinterpreted my posting and others as a suggestion that pollution is just fine. It isn't. I don't like pollution and hate how our environment is getting trashed. I'm almost just as offended as any EcoNazi would be by a lot of things that happen.

The problem with your mindset in solving the problem though is that your "solutions" make the problem a lot worse. Take the rainforests for example. The most significant attack on the rainforests is because of poor people feeling that they have no choice but to cut down the rainforests. Why are they poor? Because of government policies like taxes on energy. So the solution to those people being less poor is to give them vast economic freedoms. Then they will not longer have a desire to cut down rainforests and like you will be more concerned about saving them.

Harmful pollution is already illegal. What needs to start happening is that when people get damaged by pollution they need to sue the polluters. Those toxic chemicals leeching into the environment do damage. Genetic mutants leeching out into the environment do damage. Killer bees are due to a genetics lab accident. Those that were responsible for the mutant killer bees in South America were never held responsible for the damage they did after their creation escaped and contaminated two continents.

The biggest and most obvious solution is to hold polluters responsible for their actions, but again the eco-fascists focus is on getting politicians to work with them as if such dirty politicians really care. Stop begging governments to do this for you and start organizations that cut down on pollution using innovative ways that don't involve violent force (while cutting the governments out of the picture). You could also join or start an organization designed to help victims of pollution to be compensated for the damage done.

You can start collections to purchase rainforest areas and buy them. Politicians couldn't care less about rainforests and never will. If they did they could have easily bought up nearly every acre of rainforest in the world for the purpose of saving it. It is mostly very low-cost land. So do yourself a favor and don't count on the government to ever help you to do anything and everything will start working out a lot better.

I could think of an idea a day to help the environment. But rather than even try that what people with your mindset do is figure politicians can do all this for you. Well, no they can't. They never have been able to nor will they ever help you out. But what an individual with strong willpower can do is amazing one they set out to do something by relying on help from strangers rather than help from the government.

Originally posted by truthquest
You misinterpreted my posting and others as a suggestion that pollution is just fine. It isn't. I don't like pollution and hate how our environment is getting trashed.

I am in total agreement with you, and you me. This is a critical issue that I feel is far too often overlooked in this debate, as it is so intensely focused on 'Climate Change' and I thank you for your clarification.

I'm almost just as offended as any EcoNazi would be by a lot of things that happen.

This is where you loose me and many like me. I am, at least for your purposes and those who argue along the same lines as you, what yu choose to call an 'eco-nazi'.

Not only is this an ad homenim attack, and a rather disgusting one, it is very insulting. Such slanderous and hateful remarks only incite aggression, conflict, dislike, and retaliation. They have no place in intelligent and civil debate.

The problem with your mindset in solving the problem though is that your "solutions" make the problem a lot worse. Take the rainforests for example. The most significant attack on the rainforests is because of poor people feeling that they have no choice but to cut down the rainforests. Why are they poor? Because of government policies like taxes on energy. So the solution to those people being less poor is to give them vast economic freedoms. Then they will not longer have a desire to cut down rainforests and like you will be more concerned about saving them.

I assure you it is not 'taxes' on energy that is causing those living in and around the rain-forests to cut them down, they have much more basic worries than paying taxes for energy. They worry about feeding their families and providing basic shelter and goods. Energy is a luxury that many of them can not afford.

Causes of Rain Forest Destruction

Why is the Brazilian Amazon Being Destroyed?

Rainforest Facts

Look over these links, you will see that it is clearly poverty and exploitation that are the primary cause of deforestation, not 'taxes' on energy.

Harmful pollution is already illegal. What needs to start happening is that when people get damaged by pollution they need to sue the polluters. Those toxic chemicals leeching into the environment do damage. Genetic mutants leeching out into the environment do damage. Killer bees are due to a genetics lab accident. Those that were responsible for the mutant killer bees in South America were never held responsible for the damage they did after their creation escaped and contaminated two continents.

There are thousands of untested chemicals in wide use today. It is had to know what chemicals is causing what ailments if any in today's world.

New Bill to Protect Children from Untested Chemicals

The law that directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct safety reviews of chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was passed by Congress in 1976. Since then, the EPA has investigated just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemical compounds available to manufacturers today.

Many Common Chemicals Untested

Health Threats of Untested Chemicals

These should clear up the notion that we can even deduce what chemicals we are encountering or what their potential impacts are on our health.

The biggest and most obvious solution is to hold polluters responsible for their actions, but again the eco-fascists focus is on getting politicians to work with them as if such dirty politicians really care. Stop begging governments to do this for you and start organizations that cut down on pollution using innovative ways that don't involve violent force (while cutting the governments out of the picture). You could also join or start an organization designed to help victims of pollution to be compensated for the damage done.

Take a look around. There are THOUSANDS of organizations focused on dealing with everything from chemical safety to rain-forest destruction. While they have an impact it is only through changing the status-quo and the predominate paradigm of our day that will ultimately make the necessary changes.

Governments will HAVE to be part of the solution, like it or not. Anything other suggestion is willfully ignorant of the reality of our world and how it operates today.

You can start collections to purchase rainforest areas and buy them. Politicians couldn't care less about rainforests and never will. If they did they could have easily bought up nearly every acre of rainforest in the world for the purpose of saving it. It is mostly very low-cost land. So do yourself a favor and don't count on the government to ever help you to do anything and everything will start working out a lot better.

Funds to buy up rain-forest already exist.

The Rain-Forest Site

World Land Trust

Ecology Fund

As to the notion that governments don't care, your wrong, look:

Brazilian Government Protects Amazon Rain Forest

Costa Rica

Costa Rica has an ambitious conservation program, perhaps one of the most developed among tropical rainforest countries, that protects more than 10 percent of the country. One protected strip of forest runs uninterrupted for 40 miles through nine ecological zones from sea level to 12,500 feet. In 1995, the government presented a plan to protect 18 percent of the country in national parks and another 13 percent in privately owned preserves. Areas targeted for protection are those with high biodiversity. The government funds the project by issuing landowners forest protection certificates which will annually pay landowners about $50 for every forest hectare (2.5 acres), with the agreement that the forest will be protected. Around two-thirds of Costa Rica's remaining rainforests are protected.

Nature Conservancy and Governments

UK Helping Guyana to Protect its Rain-Forests

UK Helping ot Protect Congo Rainforests

I could think of an idea a day to help the environment. But rather than even try that what people with your mindset do is figure politicians can do all this for you. Well, no they can't. They never have been able to nor will they ever help you out. But what an individual with strong willpower can do is amazing one they set out to do something by relying on help from strangers rather than help from the government.

People, with my mindset at least, realize that although personal and collective action is vital in protecting the environment so too is the involvement of the government. Lets face it, there are plenty of polluters and users who do untold damage and without intervention would continue to do so. This is why we need rules that protect the planet from the greedy and careless. It is a sad truth but a truth none the less.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Animal]