Why doesn't anyone give a shit about it? This year, 50,000 square miles of rainforest fell to loggers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020201002.html). Nobody gave a shit, except for whack-jobs and anti-capitalists. The ocean is acidifying (http://www.google.com/search?q=ocean+acidification), killing coral reefs and destroying biological diversity. This event is unrelated to global warming and is happening independently of it. Nobody gives a shit.

We could stop deforestation. We could stop ocean acidification. We start by giving a fuck. It is now cool to hate global warming proponents, and by proxy, the environmental movement as a whole. This is what passes for good discourse these days and it's sickening.

Start fucking caring, people. We might or might not be causing the earth to heat up, but that's not the only thing we're doing to fuck the environment up. This isn't a movement, this isn't a trend. This is taking pride in the space we live in. And right now, we don't have any.

Rant over.

This isn't a movement, this isn't a trend. This is taking pride in the space we live in. And right now, we don't have any.

.

No, we don't.
Every day on my way to work I pass through an outland woods. It used to be a pretty drive--years ago.

Now the sides of the road are littered with trash. The other day someone dumped a COUCH there.

Several times a year hardy volunteers get out to clean up the road. When they're done, it looks great--for a few days. By the end of the week, the trash is back, and the melting snow reveals more.

Sad, sickening. Frightening.

This is beautiful country. It's a shame more people don't appreciate that.

You're absolutely right, Nappy. This is one of the huge things I hate about the global warming debate - people who "disagree with Al Gore" apparently think that they can just ignore all environmental problems by saying "Humans aren't causing global warming!" There are plenty of things we ARE DEFINITELY CAUSING, but of course not one talks about that.

As I said to you over IM, Nappy, people don't care about the environment because people have been trained to think that environmentalists are extremist nutjobs. Why? Well, because environmentalists by and large are extremist nutjobs. The environmentalist movement is less pro-environment anymore than it is anti-capitalist. If more actual environmentalists made points like this, then these kinds of things probably wouldn't happen.

The other part, of course, is lazy thinking. Some people simply don't care, because they don't see how it affects them.

What do you suggest we do, Nappy, send in troops to souvreign countries to keep them from cutting down THEIR trees?

Well, because environmentalists by and large are extremist nutjobs.
We're all environmentalists. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

What do you suggest we do, Nappy, send in troops to souvreign countries to keep them from cutting down THEIR trees?
Alas Frogger-military action solves very very few problems in the world.

What do you suggest we do, Nappy, send in troops to souvreign countries to keep them from cutting down THEIR trees?
There's plenty of ways to dis-incentivize human actions. We must only figure out how. Of course, you don't give a shit, so all you can see is why it can't be done.

Start fucking caring, people. We might or might not be causing the earth to heat up, but that's not the only thing we're doing to fuck the environment up. This isn't a movement, this isn't a trend. This is taking pride in the space we live in. And right now, we don't have any.

Rant over.

You're talking to the wrong crowd. Generally, the people on these boards think the only environment that is necessary is that which sustains American capitalism.

Case and point, Travh actually questioned whether species extinction was a bad thing on the board recently and I was the only one who seemed to find his remarks absurd.

In fact, my response (a remark about how Trav should be a spokesperson for DDT) drew several responses which talked up the merits of DDT.

Yeah, it's safe to say that Allforums as a group does not give two shits about the environment.

I never said extinction was not a bad thing. I never said it was a good thing, I simply asked who it was that decided that after billions of years of species going extinct that now, at this time, species should no longer go extinct? After billions of years of species going extinct without the aid of man made causes, why is it now that any creature that goes extinct is solely the fault of mankind? Is it possible for a creature to just go extinct naturally anymore or is everyhting that happens on this planet directly realted to man and his endeavors??

I guess my biggest problem with much of the environmental movement is that they treat us like idiots. They think they can just say whatever they want and not be questioned on any of it. When they are wrong they never apologize or admit they were wrong, they just move on to the next crisis and start beating the drum over there. They also never seem to take into account anything that has happened in earth's past. It is like everything that happens in their lifetime is happening on this planet for the very first time, and is such a crisis we must act now or face destruction.

And it's bullshit to say we don't give two shits about the environment. Many of us who you claim care nothing for the environment do just as much as you and napster do to keep our space clean, the only difference is we dont talk about it or feel the need to try and guilt others into it. We use the reuseable grocery bags, we use the CFL light bulbs, we turn our thermostats down and recycle. Of course I guess htat means nothing if you dont back it up with a healthy dose of enviro-rhetoric.

There's plenty of ways to dis-incentivize human actions. We must only figure out how. Of course, you don't give a shit, so all you can see is why it can't be done.


I don't know what has happened to you lately, Nappy, but you have become downright nasty.

You have no idea what my views on the environment are. I don't purchase products from endangered species. I am in favor of saving the rain forest. I think the environment is important.

Your problem is that you seem to confuse nastiness with eridition and deep thinking.

I don't know what has happened to you lately, Nappy, but you have become downright nasty.

You have no idea what my views on the environment are. I don't purchase products from endangered species. I am in favor of saving the rain forest. I think the environment is important.

Your problem is that you seem to confuse nastiness with eridition and deep thinking.

Nappy does his part for the environment... he doesn't go to work, to school or out on dates... think of all the gasoline he saves!!

:lolhit:

Haha-thats good SMW.

And it's bullshit to say we don't give two shits about the environment. Many of us who you claim care nothing for the environment do just as much as you and napster do to keep our space clean, the only difference is we dont talk about it or feel the need to try and guilt others into it. We use the reuseable grocery bags, we use the CFL light bulbs, we turn our thermostats down and recycle. Of course I guess htat means nothing if you dont back it up with a healthy dose of enviro-rhetoric.

Trav, I think it's great that you try to do as much as the rest of us, but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about who does more for the environment in their personal lives. A) There's no way to verify anything anyone says and B) the most important environmental issues (e.g. habitat destruction, species extinction, global warming) of our time aren't controlled by personal action nearly as much as public action.

The rift between us arises when you dismiss any public comment about protecting the environment as unnecessary or "enviro-rhetoric." IMO, the foremost thing anyone can do for the environment is publicly support environmentally-friendly action, because I believe that our biggest environmental problems are so deep-rooted, widespread, and international that the only final solutions can come from changes in public policy. I suspect that this is why you condemn Al Gore for having a high electric bill while I praise him for raising public awareness, regardless of a high electric bill.

No matter what your personal habits are, it doesn't change the fact that you are one of the foremost posters to attack every environmental concern expressed on these boards. Frankly, between you and Frogger's constant barrage of anti-environmental propaganda, I find y'all demoralizing on issues that I'm quite passionate about.

What amazes me is that you tout these things you do - recycle, use reusable bags, save electricity. Yet, you seem to ignore a glaring reality - that each of these actions became widespread due to "enviro-rhetoric." Thirty years ago, no one cared about recycling and saving electricity; it took a whole lot of that "enviro-rhetoric" to get the message across.

Equally amazing is the fact that you seem to believe "we dont talk about [environmental issues] or feel the need to try and guilt others into it." On the contrary, Trav, you talk quite a bit about it. In fact, I would probably name you as the most reliable poster when it comes to environmental issues. Moreover, I would argue you're as consistent as dharma when it comes to your responses on these issues - you never fail to side against environmentalists.

In fact, my response (a remark about how Trav should be a spokesperson for DDT) drew several responses which talked up the merits of DDT.

The point was that recent science has indicated that perhaps the case against DDT was overblown and secondarily that even if the original allegations were true, the lives saved by using it most likely would have outweighed the consequences. The response to that point is apparently ridicule. Maybe that's why so many people don't care to have these discussions.

The point was that recent science has indicated that perhaps the case against DDT was overblown and secondarily that even if the original allegations were true, the lives saved by using it most likely would have outweighed the consequences. The response to that point is apparently ridicule. Maybe that's why so many people don't care to have these discussions.

I'm sorry if my response came off as ridicule. At the time, I felt like debating whether species extinction and DDT were not bad things for the environment would be effectively taking environmentalism back to the Stone Age.

With that said, frankly, I'm not sure what "recent science" you're talking about. I know there is some science out there that says DDT is harmless to humans and some that says otherwise. Maybe that's an acceptable situation for widespread use of a chemical to you, but that's not for me, particularly when we have alternatives that have so far shown to be harmless.

Even if we completely ignore the probable carcinigenic properties and all other environmental consequences of DDT, I think the extinction of the bald eagle alone is an unacceptable consequence of using DDT the way we were (I know you acknowledge that we overused it, but I don't see how you draw the line or how you could expect people in the 70's to draw the line, knowing what they knew).

As for the saving lives argument, yes, malaria is terrible and out of control in some countries. But I hate to say it, DDT is not the answer to malaria. It's an aid in fighting the spread of the disease, but mosquitos can evolve a resistance to DDT so it's not a long term solution. Thus, the claim that DDT saves lives is a bit of a stretch to me. At most, you can say DDT saves lives in the short term. Either way, malaria is not a problem in the U.S., so I'm not sure why we would advocate its usage here when we have alternatives.

The Good Earth
The planet is greener and cleaner than you think.

Now, That's Good News

So here's the good news: Our air is cleaner, our lakes are purer, our forests are healthier, endangered species are recovering, toxic emissions are down, and acid rain has diminished dramatically. And yet, if you've looked at a newspaper or watched the evening news lately, you -- like most Americans -- might think our environment is under siege. Media coverage of the environment is heavy on doomsday, but the truth is not at all bleak: Nearly all environmental trends in the United States are positive and have been for years -- if not decades.

Eco-legislation, green organizations, corporate cooperation and new inventions have all quietly steered our environment in a positive direction. We can't afford to be complacent, though -- especially when it comes to greenhouse gases, since global warming is the one huge problem we haven't really tackled. But almost every measure taken by government agencies and grass-roots efforts to improve the environment has shown encouraging results -- usually faster than expected and at a lower cost. Now that's good news.

Scientists and environmentalists think that even the worrisome fact of global warming can be ameliorated. There is a strong scientific consensus that the global warming threat requires action, but if current environmental trends persist and the reduction of most pollutants continues to be accomplished faster and more cheaply than expected, we may be able to control and reduce greenhouse gases in both affordable and practical ways.

Consider some of the environmental improvements the United States has witnessed over the last three decades. (Most environmental trends in Europe are positive too; the developing world, however, is a different story.)

(more)

http://www.rd.com/special-reports/the-environment/the-good-earth/article.html

Sorry to inflate your bubble, Nappy. But if the environment was in the same shape MY generation inherited, you'd have something to whine about. Of course I realize you truly believe nothing that happened before you were born is important, but trust me... alot of people have been working to clean up mother earth for decades now. Just so you can scream, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

*photobucket is down for maintenance... insert crying baby pic here*

The Good Earth
The planet is greener and cleaner than you think.

Now, That's Good News

So here's the good news: Our air is cleaner, our lakes are purer, our forests are healthier, endangered species are recovering, toxic emissions are down, and acid rain has diminished dramatically. And yet, if you've looked at a newspaper or watched the evening news lately, you -- like most Americans -- might think our environment is under siege. Media coverage of the environment is heavy on doomsday, but the truth is not at all bleak: Nearly all environmental trends in the United States are positive and have been for years -- if not decades.

Eco-legislation, green organizations, corporate cooperation and new inventions have all quietly steered our environment in a positive direction. We can't afford to be complacent, though -- especially when it comes to greenhouse gases, since global warming is the one huge problem we haven't really tackled. But almost every measure taken by government agencies and grass-roots efforts to improve the environment has shown encouraging results -- usually faster than expected and at a lower cost. Now that's good news.

Scientists and environmentalists think that even the worrisome fact of global warming can be ameliorated. There is a strong scientific consensus that the global warming threat requires action, but if current environmental trends persist and the reduction of most pollutants continues to be accomplished faster and more cheaply than expected, we may be able to control and reduce greenhouse gases in both affordable and practical ways.

Consider some of the environmental improvements the United States has witnessed over the last three decades. (Most environmental trends in Europe are positive too; the developing world, however, is a different story.)

(more)

http://www.rd.com/special-reports/the-environment/the-good-earth/article.html

Sorry to inflate your bubble, Nappy. But if the environment was in the same shape MY generation inherited, you'd have something to whine about. Of course I realize you truly believe nothing that happened before you were born is important, but trust me... alot of people have been working to clean up mother earth for decades now. Just so you can scream, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!
Believe it or not, I actually agree with this.
*photobucket is down for maintenance... insert crying baby pic here*
But I think this is unnecessarily petty, trite, and overused. It wasn't funny to begin with, and it still isn't funny.

Maybe someone should tell the planet that its all rosie in the garden, cause it sure as shit aint listening.

SMW is right. I only know this on a local level, but things have really cleaned up (in the U.S. at least) in the past 30 years or so. My parents said that if I were to see the Potomac River in the 60s or 70s I would be amazed - they said it stank and there were dead fish floating on the surface and it was just generally filthy. We have come a long way towards combating air and water pollution. Of course that doesn't mean we should stop, and we have other problems... Deforestation of the jungles of South America especially worries me.

Trav, I think it's great that you try to do as much as the rest of us, but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about who does more for the environment in their personal lives. A) There's no way to verify anything anyone says and B) the most important environmental issues (e.g. habitat destruction, species extinction, global warming) of our time aren't controlled by personal action nearly as much as public action.

I disagree. We can only do what we can on a personal level. We can talk about changing things on a global level, but there is no way to verify that is is happening. Besides, all of the public things that are happening pretty much revolve around everyone doing something, usually buying a certain product, that will help stop global warming.

The rift between us arises when you dismiss any public comment about protecting the environment as unnecessary or "enviro-rhetoric." IMO, the foremost thing anyone can do for the environment is publicly support environmentally-friendly action, because I believe that our biggest environmental problems are so deep-rooted, widespread, and international that the only final solutions can come from changes in public policy. I suspect that this is why you condemn Al Gore for having a high electric bill while I praise him for raising public awareness, regardless of a high electric bill.

I dismiss the "enviro-rhetoric" because they dismiss and attempt to destroy anyone who disagrees with them, even if that person is right. There is no discussion, there is no debate. Dissent is ruthlessly crushed. If you are not in lock step with them, you are the enemy. Or even worse, if you are not in lock step with them, you WANT to destroy the environment! Isn't that sort of caveman attitude Bush is dinged for?

As far as Gore goes, he is epitome of the rich, "do as I say , not as I do" celebrity that rubs myself and many others the wrong way. We would't listen to a rapist preach to us about women's rights, we wouldn't listen to Rush limbaugh tell us about prescription drugs, why should we listen to a over the top energy user tell us to cut back on our energy consumption? Or even worse, try to sell us sham carbon credits so as to ease the guilt we may feel over living our lives? The whole thing just stinks to high heaven. If you can see through all that and still praise his public outreach more power to you. When I look at Al gore I see a snake oil salesman.

No matter what your personal habits are, it doesn't change the fact that you are one of the foremost posters to attack every environmental concern expressed on these boards. Frankly, between you and Frogger's constant barrage of anti-environmental propaganda, I find y'all demoralizing on issues that I'm quite passionate about.

I call out bullshit where I see it. That's all. I care not for societies sacred cows if there is bullshit hiding behind it.

What amazes me is that you tout these things you do - recycle, use reusable bags, save electricity. Yet, you seem to ignore a glaring reality - that each of these actions became widespread due to "enviro-rhetoric." Thirty years ago, no one cared about recycling and saving electricity; it took a whole lot of that "enviro-rhetoric" to get the message across.

lol, I am not "touting" anything. I mentioned them because you claimed myself and others who do not agree with the man made global warming hype "Don't give two shits" about the environment. Since I am a believer in actions speaking louder then words, I listed some actions, that you would associate with saving the planet, that I do. I suppose I could just come in here and copy and paste articles and give the appearance that I give two shits, but that is just not my way. And even if it started out as enviro rhetoric, it makes sense. Throwing a bottle in the recycle bin and sending it to be remade into another bottle over sending it to the land fill to take up space makes sense. Having a giant world wide concert or a UN summit in a tropical paradise to stop a natural occuring phenonenon such as climate change is just down right stupid.

Equally amazing is the fact that you seem to believe "we dont talk about [environmental issues] or feel the need to try and guilt others into it." On the contrary, Trav, you talk quite a bit about it. In fact, I would probably name you as the most reliable poster when it comes to environmental issues. Moreover, I would argue you're as consistent as dharma when it comes to your responses on these issues - you never fail to side against environmentalists.

Again, I call out bullshiters when I see them. Trying to convince people that if they buy hybrid cars or curly light bulbs or even carbon credits that the climate will stay perfect for ever and ever (for the kids of course) is bullshit of the highest order.

No doubt things are better environmentally on a local level in most north American and north European nations,and things need to be kept improving all the time.
Unfortunately, as Leper said, theres a mind set at work that needs to be changed, especially in the United States.
Take your All American automobile. Their simply gas eating machines, yet the demand for diesel powered units is very very low.
If demand for diesel auto's increased, it wouldnt be long before the giant car makers started supplying a Turbo Diesel varity, like is done in Europe.

In many EU countries now, all vehicles with an engine size over 2.5 litre [I think] are hit with a green tax and cost an extra couple of thousand dollars to try and put people off buying them.

Also,in EU you have to pay road tax every year, I dont know if that applies in US but these sort of approaches need to be tested, tho highly unpopular.

Turbo diesel cars are already offered, but you're right, there's not much demand. And we also pay road taxes.

I thought you were against all the green taxes paul?

Believe it or not, I actually agree with this.

But I think this is unnecessarily petty, trite, and overused. It wasn't funny to begin with, and it still isn't funny.

You just couldn't resist getting in that little critique, eh, Borg. Always the consummate schoolboy.

(BTW, I could say the same thing about your lame avatar. Are you ever going to change that, or what?)

I thought you were against all the green taxes paul?
I am against the green taxes.Thats why I said 'unpopular' decisions.

The thing about green taxes in EU that gets up my nose is that they arent spread out evenly.

Example.
In N Ireland I would pay £1:10 a litre of diesel. approx 56p goes direct to the HM Treasury in London.
36p goes to the gas company and whatever is left over goes to green tax.

Rep of Ireland [convert from euro] I would pay 76p a litre of diesel.
Gas company still gets its 36p, Dublin gets about 35p and green tax gets the rest.

Now the UK is an oil producer, and all oil imported into the Republic comes from Norway, yet the UK screws me when I fill up.

This is what I hate about green tax.

You just couldn't resist getting in that little critique, eh, Borg. Always the consummate schoolboy.
I'm attempting to demonstrate to you that even when I agree with you, your style is still overbearing and obnoxious. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, etc.
(BTW, I could say the same thing about your lame avatar. Are you ever going to change that, or what?)
How's my avatar trite or overused? Only in the sense that avatars are attached to every post, but that's kind of the point of avatars. It also isn't petty, considering that I use it merely as an example of a funny picture. I'm not actually flicking you off, you realize.

Poor old Trav will have to change his to 'Blue State California' but thats for another thread :D

I'm attempting to demonstrate to you that even when I agree with you, your style is still overbearing and obnoxious. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, etc.

How's my avatar trite or overused? Only in the sense that avatars are attached to every post, but that's kind of the point of avatars. It also isn't petty, considering that I use it merely as an example of a funny picture. I'm not actually flicking you off, you realize.

If it weren't for adjectives, you couldn't talk at all, could ya, Borgie?

I'm not trying to catch flies. And I don't NEED you to keep 'attempting to demonstrate' to me. Please cease and desist. And BTW, your avatar is goofy and I've looked at it for over a year now without complaining. Get outta the sci-fi comic books and into real life. Oh wait... isn't BorgHunter a cartoon character too?

Nevermind. I suppose boys will be boys.

:bike:

Get outta the sci-fi comic books and into real life.
You will sadly never know the depth of irony in this statement.

You will sadly never know the depth of irony in this statement.

Spare me, dear... I'm sure I'll live without knowing.

:flowers:

all i want to know is what i need to do to have a pciture 537x306 as my profile pic....

The Good Earth
The planet is greener and cleaner than you think.

Now, That's Good News

So here's the good news: Our air is cleaner, our lakes are purer, our forests are healthier, endangered species are recovering, toxic emissions are down, and acid rain has diminished dramatically. And yet, if you've looked at a newspaper or watched the evening news lately, you -- like most Americans -- might think our environment is under siege. Media coverage of the environment is heavy on doomsday, but the truth is not at all bleak: Nearly all environmental trends in the United States are positive and have been for years -- if not decades.

but trust me... alot of people have been working to clean up mother earth for decades now. Just so you can scream, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!
Some people and some groups take steps and make the effort..
and then there's stuff like this..

The world's rubbish dump: (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html) a garbage tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan (http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00015/05RubbishGraphic_15022a.jpg)
"A "plastic soup" of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said.
The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting "soup" stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan."

The "soup" could be contributing to global warming too. Since ocean phytoplankton are the largest consumer of CO2 in the world, making an area twice the size of the US uninhabitable for them by coating the ocean in garbage could severely reduce the amount of CO2 absorbing phytoplankton in the ocean. Man, I should have been a global warming scientist.

I won't deny that America itself is cleaner than it was twenty or so years after the Industrial Revolution. We are running a much tighter ship than we did back then. But, like my opening rant states, the world isn't just America. We cut the industrial bag loose, and now industrial processes all over the world are fucking up our back yards. I apologize for snapping at you, Frogger, but the problem I'm seeing here is a lazy, "can't do," mindset in regards to the environment. All we seem to be able to do is bitch about this, bitch about that, "the Kyoto protocol doesn't do enough," "we're trying to bankrupt business," yada, yada, yada, on and on and on. We've turned environmentalism into a huge fucking worthless debate on whether we're causing global warming or not, while smaller, undeniably human caused problems quietly destroy huge swaths of our ecosystem.

It's true, we've mostly cleaned up the area that the US physically resides on, so now we need to play big brother and get the rest of the world in line too. We need to dissuade the Chinese from poaching all of their endangered species in the name of "medicine." We need to stop South Americans from burning their forests down. We need to come up with a way to take CO2 out of the oceans so the coral reefs don't die. We can do these things, but it takes more than buying cans of dolphin safe tuna and participating in the GW debate du jour. We need to make the environment a bigger part of our election issues. We need to make these things issues, instead of letting the media pick our issues for us. Does anybody even know where the candidates stand on any of the things I mentioned above? Even getting politicians to pay lip service to the real environmental issues facing our times (not GW) would be better than what we do now.

Even if we completely ignore the probable carcinigenic properties and all other environmental consequences of DDT, I think the extinction of the bald eagle alone is an unacceptable consequence of using DDT the way we were.

Maybe you value the lives of Bald Eagles more than the thousands who died because we stopped using DDT but I feel differently. If we could save ten thousand lives, and it was many more DDT would have saved, I would trade all the Bald Eagles in the world for that.

Nappy,,,,,,how much better off do you think we would be as a country environmentally, if Gore was wrapping up his second term instead of Mr. President Bush?

Nappy,,,,,,how much better off do you think we would be as a country environmentally, if Gore was wrapping up his second term instead of Mr. President Bush?
he never would have had a second term after surrendering to OBL.

The "soup" could be contributing to global warming too. Since ocean phytoplankton are the largest consumer of CO2 in the world, making an area twice the size of the US uninhabitable for them by coating the ocean in garbage could severely reduce the amount of CO2 absorbing phytoplankton in the ocean. Man, I should have been a global warming scientist.
never to late! every other one just poofed-up being an "expert", why can't you?:lolhit:

Take your All American automobile. Their simply gas eating machines, yet the demand for diesel powered units is very very low.
If demand for diesel auto's increased, it wouldnt be long before the giant car makers started supplying a Turbo Diesel varity, like is done in Europe.


Two reasons diesels aren't very popular here:

1) In the late 70s and early 80s, GM made diesel cars that were so godawfully shitty, it set back the diesel cause 30 years.
2) Diesels don't meet our emissions regulations without a lot of expensive equipment. What's better for the environment - using less fuel or creating fewer emissions per gallon burned? I dunno.

Nappy,,,,,,how much better off do you think we would be as a country environmentally, if Gore was wrapping up his second term instead of Mr. President Bush?
Probably about the same.

Probably about the same.


I have been in discussions where people believe Gore would of been the champion of the environment,had he gotten his to terms. I find that a little hard to swallow myself.

Bush's environmental record has been derided by a lot of environmentalists, but the reality is, he never made any serious environmental concessions to industry. I don't require Bush to accept the Kyoto Protocol, I don't require him to accept global warming. He has passed legislation to accelerate the cleaning of brownfields, and the Great Lakes. I am disappointed that even though he said more research was needed to determine whether global warming was human caused or not, he didn't fund any such independent research. Such an action could have greatly helped with the current debate, and allowed us to move on to other issues.

Maybe you value the lives of Bald Eagles more than the thousands who died because we stopped using DDT but I feel differently. If we could save ten thousand lives, and it was many more DDT would have saved, I would trade all the Bald Eagles in the world for that.

I know you would. Personally, I don't think people dying in Africa and Indonesia is caused by malaria as much as it is poverty. I know you would be happy to wipe a magnificent animal off the face of the Earth to spray DDT all over the planet, but thankfully, most people know that that's wrong.

If you feel so strongly about the issue, feel free to donate some mosquito nets to some Africans and see if that seriously changes their lifespans over there. But I know you'll keep driving your expensive American automobile before you donate a little money to "save lives" in Africa....but don't worry, I have no doubt you'd be happy to wipe bald eagles off the face of the Earth before you traded in your automobile for mosquito nets.

That's why we disagree so much when it comes to environmental issues - Your priorities are as follows: your relatively extravagent lifestyle>lives of people in third world countries>planetary environment. It's a bit twisted IMO, but I'm glad those priorities make you feel morally righteous.

I disagree. We can only do what we can on a personal level.

My ass! You would agree that we don't pass laws and make international agreements on a personal level, right?

If so, you ever here of the following international agreements?

Alpine Convention together with its nine protocols
ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution
Antarctic Treaty
Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora[
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty
Basel Convention
Carpathian Convention Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians
Convention on Biological Diversity
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
EMEP Protocol
Nitrogen Oxide Protocol
Volatile Organic Compounds Protocol
Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocols 1985 and 1994
Heavy Metals Protocol
POP Air Pollution Protocol
Multi-effect Protocol (Gothenburg protocol)
Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially As Waterfowl Habitat
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1983 (expired)
International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994
Kyoto Protocol - greenhouse gas emission reductions
Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants.
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 1996
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Western Regional Climate Action Initiative

And I haven't even started on national laws!!!


We can talk about changing things on a global level, but there is no way to verify that is is happening. Besides, all of the public things that are happening pretty much revolve around everyone doing something, usually buying a certain product, that will help stop global warming.

Are we talking about global warming specifically now? I really don't want to talk about it, because it's pointless with you.



I dismiss the "enviro-rhetoric" because they dismiss and attempt to destroy anyone who disagrees with them, even if that person is right. There is no discussion, there is no debate. Dissent is ruthlessly crushed. If you are not in lock step with them, you are the enemy. Or even worse, if you are not in lock step with them, you WANT to destroy the environment! Isn't that sort of caveman attitude Bush is dinged for?

That's such bullshit. I've used plenty of data to support my arguments with you, and I don't think you've EVER used objective criteria to support your positions. You just have hypothetical, and often irrational, disbeliefs, so there's no point debating with you. That's why you have a perception that people don't debate with you.

As far as Gore goes, he is epitome of the rich, "do as I say , not as I do" celebrity that rubs myself and many others the wrong way. We would't listen to a rapist preach to us about women's rights, we wouldn't listen to Rush limbaugh tell us about prescription drugs, why should we listen to a over the top energy user tell us to cut back on our energy consumption? Or even worse, try to sell us sham carbon credits so as to ease the guilt we may feel over living our lives? The whole thing just stinks to high heaven. If you can see through all that and still praise his public outreach more power to you. When I look at Al gore I see a snake oil salesman.

Analogizing Al Gore to a rapist? Exaggerate much? You can find imperfections in any environmentalist, because a human's mere existence taxes the rest of the planet. It's all a matter of degree.

I call out bullshit where I see it. That's all. I care not for societies sacred cows if there is bullshit hiding behind it.

That's a laugh. I've never heard you call out bullshit when it comes to our current president, and he may be the most infamous bullshitter in the past decade.

Face it. You only call out bullshit when people talk about something you don't like - e.g. environmental problems.

lol, I am not "touting" anything. I mentioned them because you claimed myself and others who do not agree with the man made global warming hype "Don't give two shits" about the environment.

Fair enough. Perhaps I exagerrated a little. You give maybe a shit or two. Not much more tho.

Please note that I was referring to Allforums posters collectively tho - including myself. My point was that I believe we, as a group, are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to caring about the environment.


Again, I call out bullshiters when I see them. Trying to convince people that if they buy hybrid cars or curly light bulbs or even carbon credits that the climate will stay perfect for ever and ever (for the kids of course) is bullshit of the highest order.

For someone who abhore's bullshit so much, you sure dispense a lot of bullshit yourself; No one who buys hybrid cars or efficient light bulbs is expecting to make the climate perfect forever.

Two reasons diesels aren't very popular here:

1) In the late 70s and early 80s, GM made diesel cars that were so godawfully shitty, it set back the diesel cause 30 years.
2) Diesels don't meet our emissions regulations without a lot of expensive equipment. What's better for the environment - using less fuel or creating fewer emissions per gallon burned? I dunno.
In this country a car over 3 years old must pass a safety test once a year or will not be allowed to be taxed.
During this test after the usual brakes-steering-lights are passed an emmisions test is done-tho diesel cars are exempt.

The thing with diesel is the amount of fuel burned,compared to a 4x4 is nothing.

Maybe some consumer and Federal presure on car manufacturers would help get you guys out of the gas addiction.

Maybe some consumer and Federal presure on car manufacturers would help get you guys out of the gas addiction.

Consumer pressure would help. Federal pressure rarely makes people change their minds.

Yeah fair enough. But I thought that the manufacturer and the Gov could get together and push diesel.
Some tax breaks for the manyfacturer and some money off the price of diesel cars/pick ups maybe.

I know you would. Personally, I don't think people dying in Africa and Indonesia is caused by malaria as much as it is poverty. I know you would be happy to wipe a magnificent animal off the face of the Earth to spray DDT all over the planet, but thankfully, most people know that that's wrong.

If you feel so strongly about the issue, feel free to donate some mosquito nets to some Africans and see if that seriously changes their lifespans over there. But I know you'll keep driving your expensive American automobile before you donate a little money to "save lives" in Africa....but don't worry, I have no doubt you'd be happy to wipe bald eagles off the face of the Earth before you traded in your automobile for mosquito nets.

That's why we disagree so much when it comes to environmental issues - Your priorities are as follows: your relatively extravagent lifestyle>lives of people in third world countries>planetary environment. It's a bit twisted IMO, but I'm glad those priorities make you feel morally righteous.



This post is beneath you, Leper. Twisting words is something I expect from certain other posters, not you.

I would not BE HAPPY TO WIPE BALD EAGLES FRO THE FACE OF THE EARTH. I would be willing to do so though if it meant thousands of human lives could be saved. Do a bit of research on the effects of not using DDT in Africa before you try to equate its use with mosquito netting in the saving of lives.


You don't think malaria is as much a cause as poverty when it comes to the loss of human life. So what. Even of poverty is a greater cause, and I am not saying it is, malaria still kills thousands upon thousands. Just how many human lives is a Bald Eagle worth? Is it worth a ten thousand lives, a thousand, five hundred, just how many?

This post is beneath you, Leper. Twisting words is something I expect from certain other posters, not you.

I would not BE HAPPY TO WIPE BALD EAGLES FRO THE FACE OF THE EARTH. I would be willing to do so though if it meant thousands of human lives could be saved. Do a bit of research on the effects of not using DDT in Africa before you try to equate its use with mosquito netting in the saving of lives.


You don't think malaria is as much a cause as poverty when it comes to the loss of human life. So what. Even of poverty is a greater cause, and I am not saying it is, malaria still kills thousands upon thousands. Just how many human lives is a Bald Eagle worth? Is it worth a ten thousand lives, a thousand, five hundred, just how many?

Don't get mad at me because I point out your hypocrisy.

http://nothingbutnets.net/nets-save-lives/

One net can last a family for 4 years, Frogger! And it will only cost you 10 dollars!

How many $10 bills will you keep before you protect a family of 4 from malaria, Frogger?

We both know the answer to that. Why? Because in our heart of hearts, we know protecting those people from malaria is not going to change anything.

As for your question, there is no flat quantitative answer. You have to consider all circumstances...several spring to mind: human overpopulation, eagle population, the relationship between the human population and the eagle population.

Africa is too intractable a problem for any quick fixes. We should be focused on three things, technology, the environment, and genocide. The Sahara desert is growing at unprecedented rates, and endangered species are nearly wiped out. Most of our economic efforts should go towards those two areas, as well as distributing technology like mosquito nets, water purifiers, laptops like the one developed for the OLPC program, and communication devices like cell phones . These things are being done now, but we need an order of magnitude expansion of these programs. And we absolutely have to stop genocide, and the killings going on due to diamond mining.

I dont think desertification has ever been successfully halted has it.
The Iranians sprayed oil on it for a year, with no effect.
Apart from that,isnt desert part of the natural cooling process of the planet.

Speaking of deserts,here is an interesting article about the Sahara.

Oddly enough,about once or twice a year, cars in Ireland get a dusting of Saharan sand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7228081.stm

I dont think desertification has ever been successfully halted has it.
The Iranians sprayed oil on it for a year, with no effect.
Apart from that,isnt desert part of the natural cooling process of the planet.
It's never been shown to be impossible, either.

Why doesn't anyone give a shit about it? This year, 50,000 square miles of rainforest fell to loggers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020201002.html). Nobody gave a shit, except for whack-jobs and anti-capitalists. The ocean is acidifying (http://www.google.com/search?q=ocean+acidification), killing coral reefs and destroying biological diversity. This event is unrelated to global warming and is happening independently of it. Nobody gives a shit.

We could stop deforestation. We could stop ocean acidification. We start by giving a fuck. It is now cool to hate global warming proponents, and by proxy, the environmental movement as a whole. This is what passes for good discourse these days and it's sickening.

Start fucking caring, people. We might or might not be causing the earth to heat up, but that's not the only thing we're doing to fuck the environment up. This isn't a movement, this isn't a trend. This is taking pride in the space we live in. And right now, we don't have any.

Rant over.
I CARE!!!!! I GIVE A SHIT!!!!

Which Is Why Im Always Trying To Raise Awareness In My School And Community About Environmental Problems!!!!

Which Is Why Im Always Trying To Raise Awareness In My School And Community About Environmental Problems!!!!
And You Apparently Speak In Headlines.

what?

ok well i gotta go so bye.save the environment!....i guess.:) goodnight.

ok well i gotta go so bye.save the environment!....i guess.:) goodnight.
don't worry about the Earth, worry about what the Earth does to us. no matter what we do, she will correct it herself. if we are still around to see it is the question.

don't worry about the Earth, worry about what the Earth will do to us.

Like the tornados day before yesterday. There's no stopping Mother Earth when she goes on a rampage.

Speaking of which, during the 1950's there were several outbreaks of F-5 tornados. One hit Flint, Michigan and other areas that normally don't have a lot of tornadic activity.

This made a few scientists think that the nuclear testing out West was responsible. As far as I know, that theory has since been debunked.

John Kerry has blamed the tornados on global warming already.

Despite years and years of research, even guys like Dr. Bluestein and Dr. Rasmussen still don't know the exact causes of why a tornado forms, or even how they form....some of them actually spin counterclockwise.

My understanding of Tornado's is the cold air coming down from Canada clashes with warm up coming up from the Gulf, where they clash rotation develops and a Tornado is born.

But what do I know.

That's kinda the dynamics, paul, but why do some fronts produce these storms and others don't??

Well-without any evidence on the matter I always thought Geography came into play.
A small hill-a depression in the ground-something that just tips the scales.

Could be--but they'be been know to cross actual mountains and it's also untrue they never strike in valleys or cross rivers.

They just don't know a dang thing about them--they're the ultimate challenge for a meteorologist.

How cool would it be to storm-chase?
Very cool!

Id love to see an F5 from a safe distance-going away from me :)

I'm not mad at you, Leper. I'm disappointed in you. You knowingly made the false statement that I would enjoy seeing the Bald Eagle killed off. You know that is not what I said.

You also seem unbelevably naive thinking that mosquito nets can take the place of DDT in combatting insect borne diseases.

I am especially surprised by your statement where you seem to indicate you think it is okay to deny people DDT because there are more people than there are Bald Eagles. I hope you are not trying to equate the life of a human with that of a bird.

I'm not mad at you, Leper. I'm disappointed in you. You knowingly made the false statement that I would enjoy seeing the Bald Eagle killed off. You know that is not what I said.

You also seem unbelevably naive thinking that mosquito nets can take the place of DDT in combatting insect borne diseases.

I am especially surprised by your statement where you seem to indicate you think it is okay to deny people DDT because there are more people than there are Bald Eagles. I hope you are not trying to equate the life of a human with that of a bird.

Spare me. You seem pretty eager to exterminate bald eagles in order to save lives to me. Call that a false assessment if you like, but that's the impression you give me. Personally, I think it's sheer stupidity to suggest permanently exterminating anything in order to achieve some temporary, short-term assistance for a small portion of the human population who have far, far greater problems in their lives that are going unaddressed. In fact, it demonstrates the very short-sighted thinking that lead to truncating the Giving Tree.

Either way, it's a moot point because malaria and bald eagle habitats do not overlap....the reason DDT affected bald eagle habitat was for agricultural purposes, not for fighting malaria. That being so, I still don't see why you would advocate DDT when the world is doing fine using other, less toxic alternatives.

And once again, I will point out that mosquitos can and have generated an immunity to DDT over time, so DDT will not be your answer to stopping malaria.

And ONE more thing, it's amazingly ignorant to act like mosquito nets are not effective in combatting malaria. Go to the website if you really think that....they supply the information for you. Ten dollars! That's ALL you have to give to do your part to combat malaria if you really are willing to put your money where your mouth is, which I know you aren't.

Like the tornados day before yesterday. There's no stopping Mother Earth when she goes on a rampage.



Absolutely. Men really need to see the bigger picture, we are but parasites on this earth and I have no doubt Mother Nature will clean house in her time.



Could be--but they'be been know to cross actual mountains and it's also untrue they never strike in valleys or cross rivers.

I was in Nashville in 2001 and talked to a few folks there about moving and prime locale. They had told me when I did, don't buy land between nashville and Knoxville, other wise know as Tornado alley.

They say that the other day is the worse in history., over 69 tornadoes reported seen, in Feb, no doubt!

Aj and I went out after the threat was over, here are a few pics I took. We got strong winds, rain and hail. It really was cool to watch the sky change. Once it was pure white and very eerie.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/tormented/P20608801.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/tormented/P20608711.jpg

Nice pics Imp-keep safe.
Oddly enough-the sky here would look like that most days-this time of year.

Spare me. You seem pretty eager to exterminate bald eagles in order to save lives to me. Call that a false assessment if you like, but that's the impression you give me. Personally, I think it's sheer stupidity to suggest permanently exterminating anything in order to achieve some temporary, short-term assistance for a small portion of the human population who have far, far greater problems in their lives that are going unaddressed. In fact, it demonstrates the very short-sighted thinking that lead to truncating the Giving Tree.

Either way, it's a moot point because malaria and bald eagle habitats do not overlap....the reason DDT affected bald eagle habitat was for agricultural purposes, not for fighting malaria. That being so, I still don't see why you would advocate DDT when the world is doing fine using other, less toxic alternatives.
And once again, I will point out that mosquitos can and have generated an immunity to DDT over time, so DDT will not be your answer to stopping malaria.

And ONE more thing, it's amazingly ignorant to act like mosquito nets are not effective in combatting malaria. Go to the website if you really think that....they supply the information for you. Ten dollars! That's ALL you have to give to do your part to combat malaria if you really are willing to put your money where your mouth is, which I know you aren't.



You've become quite the smarmy little prick haven't you.

No, I'm not eager to exterminate the Bald Eagle and if you had honestly read my posts you would have known that. I was saying that the life of the Bald Eagles is not worth the lives of tens of thousands of people who have contracted malaria and other insect borne diseases because of the discontinued use of DDT.


Maybe you think its sheer stupidity to say that human lives are worth more than bird lives but I don't agree. If wiping out the Bald Eagle or the Bonobo, or the White Rhinocerous would mean that tens of thousands of lives could be saved then I would advocate wiping them out. Unlike PETA I think human lives are worth more than animal lives. You seem to think differently.

For your information the world is not doing fine using pesticides other than DDT. DDT was the safest and most easily used by undereducated people of all the major pesticides. There is no other pesticide that fully replaces it.

Mosquito nets are effective only if you are under them. That means they are ineffective for people who live and work around swampy areas, areas with stning water, areas with other insect vectors that travel during the day and not just at night when people are sleeping under their mosquito netting.

Stop being a little shit and telling me where I do and do not spend my money. You don't know squat.

If you want to continue being an insufferable prick do it with someone else. Don't address my posts. You ignore me and I will ignore you.

Like the tornados day before yesterday. There's no stopping Mother Earth when she goes on a rampage.

Speaking of which, during the 1950's there were several outbreaks of F-5 tornados. One hit Flint, Michigan and other areas that normally don't have a lot of tornadic activity.

This made a few scientists think that the nuclear testing out West was responsible. As far as I know, that theory has since been debunked.
it was the Beecher Area, just north of the city limits;)

Don't address my posts. You ignore me and I will ignore you.
I always find such statements laughable, particularly when they come from self-effacing pricks like Frogger. Someone finally gives it back to Frogger the way he gives to everyone else, and he complains to high heaven.

Frogger simply cannot see that, quote, "I was saying that the life of the Bald Eagles is not worth the lives of tens of thousands of people who have contracted malaria and other insect borne diseases because of the discontinued use of DDT," is exactly the same as what Leper wrote, "Personally, I think it's sheer stupidity to suggest permanently exterminating anything in order to achieve some temporary, short-term assistance for a small portion of the human population who have far, far greater problems in their lives that are going unaddressed." It's exactly the same. Bald Eagles are not worth the lives of tens of thousands of people. (roughly one person out of a hundred thousand on the face of the earth)

Exactly the same.

It never ceases to amaze me that a subject like 'The Environment' which affects us all similarly can end up a name slanging match.

No, it's not exactly the same, Nappy. In fact it is not at all the same.

Yeah, you care real hard for the environment, Frogger. You buy dolphin safe tuna, and skip the giant panda steaks when you go to Golden Palace.

Forgive me if I lump you in with the morons I talked about in my first post.

Bald Eagles are not worth the lives of tens of thousands of people.
They're really not. I'd kill all the bald eagles in the world, by myself, if it saved the lives of just five people, much less ten thousand.

This depresses me greatly, because I know it's not an isolated opinion.

They're really not. I'd kill all the bald eagles in the world, by myself, if it saved the lives of just five people, much less ten thousand.

I wouldn't, Borg. Without these birds controlling the population of small rodents, a population explosion would ensue, ensuring dire consequences for all mankind, not to mention other wildlife.

Seems to me there should be a peaceful co-existence with them and us.

I wouldn't, Borg. Without these birds controlling the population of small rodents, a population explosion would ensue, ensuring dire consequences for all mankind
We can deal. We've had much more dire things happen to us; the extinction of a species is not, in the grand scheme, that significant. Species go extinct all the time.

Besides which, I think you're vastly overblowing the situation. If eagles eat rodents and they all go away, that means one of two things: Either some other species will step in to eat those rodents, or the rodents will flourish, providing an overabundance of food which will eventually attract some other predators which will, yes, normalize the population of rodents. Having no bald eagles simply won't affect things as much as you think.
not to mention other wildlife.
They'll evolve.

I'd kill all the bald eagles in the world, by myself, if it saved the lives of just five people, much less ten thousand.I can think of five people I'd rather see dead than one bald eagle.

Any we know

They're really not. I'd kill all the bald eagles in the world, by myself, if it saved the lives of just five people, much less ten thousand.


Exactly the point I'm taking, Borg. Bald Eagles are great, they are beautiful, but if it comes to Bald Eagles or people I will choose people every time.


Rendova,

Bald Eagles are basically scavengers, not impressive rodent killers. They tend to eat dead fish and carrion. Snakes and hawks along with small, predator mammals do much more in the fight against rats. Every Bald Eagle in the world could disappear and it would have very little effect on the rodent population.

If I had sedan's choice between killing ten anti-environment assholes and one bald eagle, ten families will have to find new fathers. Greedy-ass uncaring, irresponsible jackasses.

Bald eagles don't eat rodents, except muskrats. They eat mostly fish, and carrion when available.

That's where we differ, Nappy, you value an eagle's life over that of a human who holds a view different from yours. I value human life over a bird's. Hell, I even value an idiot like you over a bird.

Bald eagles are helpless against humans, whereas I'm not. Your valuation is misplaced.

If I had sedan's choice between killing ten anti-environment assholes and one bald eagle, ten families will have to find new fathers. Greedy-ass uncaring, irresponsible jackasses.
What has a bald eagle done for you, or anyone else, recently? Why is there a difference between a dead bald eagle and the dead cow that provided you with a steak?

What has a bald eagle done for you, or anyone else, recently?
I reject utilitarianism as an ultimate judge of worth.

I reject utilitarianism as an ultimate judge of worth.
And the second half of my post?

We farm cows. Cows are domesticated. Wild cows don't exist anymore.

We farm cows. Cows are domesticated. Wild cows don't exist anymore.
I thought you just said that you rejected utilitarianism as an ultimate judge of worth? Now you're saying that it's cool to kill cows because we eat them, but a bald eagle is worth ten peoples' lives. Your position seems rather inconsistent.

Not an ultimate judge. Quit over-simplifying things in the name of logic.

Not an ultimate judge. Quit over-simplifying things in the name of logic.
I don't think I'm over-simplifying anything. You're fine with all the cows, chickens, pigs, lambs, and fish that are killed so we can eat, but you have some curious attachment to bald eagles. They're not even endangered. What's the big deal?

Why are we even having this debate? Using DDT in the United States saves no lives and kills bald eagles. Using DDT in developing nations in Africa saves a lot of lives and kills no bald eagles. It seems to me like there's no reason to have to choose between eagles and people.

They're not even endangered. What's the big deal?
Can you even follow a debate? Someone brought up bald eagles as an example. It could be any animal, endangered or not. Quit being stupid.

Why are we even having this debate? Using DDT in the United States saves no lives and kills bald eagles. Using DDT in developing nations in Africa saves a lot of lives and kills no bald eagles. It seems to me like there's no reason to have to choose between eagles and people.
And bald eagles are also Least Concern. I have no idea when that particular species became relevant to this debate.

Can you even follow a debate? Someone brought up bald eagles as an example. It could be any animal, endangered or not. Quit being stupid.
No, it couldn't be any animal. My point, which I know you did not miss, is not specific to bald eagles. You're fine with killing animals to eat, but killing other animals somehow damages the environment. I still have yet to figure out how this is.