What is more important, trying to convince people of global warming or actually cleaning up pollution?

Question

I spend a lot of time out doors and in the past years i have noticed that the self proclaimed protectors of the environment IE: the supposed "environmentalist's" that i have had the misfortune to meet seem to have been the bigger polluters and litterers.

Example: A couple of years ago I was camping in the Wilderness area in central Arizona. A group of environmentalist were camping near by. When they vaicated their campsite after a few days they left garbage and litter everywhere. They also destroyed the spring that I many small animals were getting water from, by thowing garbage, rocks and I think fecies into it.

I wish I could say that these people were not the norm of what I have met but I can't. I have gone to a few get togethers because they seemed like causes i supported. A few cleanup partys and that sort of thing. These things usually turned out to be rallys to convince people of global warming.(and i won't mention the mess these people left behind)

Answer 1

Now there's a riveting testimonial if I have ever heard one.

Answer 2

The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

A few quotes from leading GW proponets...

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)

(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."

former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations



Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...

former Vice President Al Gore

(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--

a London-based business that sells carbon credits)

(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)



"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen

(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT)



"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray

(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )

(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)



"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek

(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)

Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.

(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)



"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.

After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs

he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"



"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada

recent quote from the Calgary Herald

Answer 3

your always going to find idiots on the global scale ok. forget them. but us humans trying to live a decent life who have jobs and needs are going to have to use fossil fuels to get to work, and if we want to work we are going to have to pick between the spotted owl and the rat mouse. and the salmon if we want to live. ok. whats more important fish or humans. you may be a trust fund baby but i got to work, ok.

Answer 4

This is a tougher question than it seems. I think the only solution is on a large scale. What we do individually to curb pollution is not enough to solve it. So convincing people like you is more important in my opinion. Because until everyone is in agreement that there is a serious problem, the large scale things that need to be done won't be.

Answer 5

It is more important to do something about the pollution. Because you could spend years telling the world about it and they might not ever listen. So why talk about making an impact and never do it, when you can actually make a change!

Answer 6

The Real Story

It's the story that everyone is trying to bury. It's the story that everyone is trying to spin. It's the story that the media doesn't want you to know.

It's The Real Story:

Offsetting Your Guilt

One byproduct of the global warming mania is what I like to call the "Green Rush." It's kind of like the gold rush, except this time, everyone is trying to spend a fortune instead of making a new one.

The most obvious example of the Green Rush is the whole "carbon offset" phenomenon. This is usually where people who don't want to personally sacrifice instead decide to just give money to a company that does something - whether it's planting a tree or saving a polar bear - to offset their CO2 emissions.

While that sounds like a great idea in theory, the Real Story is that while these offsets may make people feel good; they often don't do much good. For example, it's become stylish these days to say that you've "gone green," so last year the Academy Awards decided to give each presenter and performer a statue that represented an offset of 100,000 pounds of carbon, which they said was the amount of emissions for a typical Hollywood celebrity in one year.

Sounds great -- except that when you follow the money, you see that it went from the Academy, to a third party company called TerraPass, to a variety of projects, one of the largest being a garbage dump in Arkansas. But here's the problem: that dump instituted a program to cut their methane emissions years ago -- way before TerraPass ever started giving them any cash. So the extra money isn't "offsetting" anything, it's just lining the pockets of the dump's owner, which happens to be Waste Management, a $3 billion dollar company.

In fact, when Business Week did a story about this last year, they called the developers of six projects who had received money from TerraPass. Five of them said that they were doing the projects anyway; that the offset money was just, quote, "icing on the cake."

I've said this before but I want to say it again: I care deeply about our environment. I believe we all have an obligation to leave this Earth no worse than we found it. But I also believe that the hysteria over climate change has created a situation in which well intentioned people are being easily separated from their money. After all, for companies that aren't so well-intentioned, the "green rush" isn't really about pollution; it's about profits.

Answer 7

How about doing both?

My home uses less than one-third the national household energy consumption.  I drive a Prius when I need a car, and either ride a bike or an electric moped to work.  I recycle more than I throw in the trash, have a low flow toilet and showerheads, etc. etc. etc.

I don't really care what environmentalists you think you've met.  I'm really tired of 'skeptics' trying to pass the buck just because not everyone else is perfect.  Stop making gross generalizations based on a couple of people and take some personal responsibility for your own actions.

Answer 8

Well to answer your question you should clean up your pollution because that does more damage then your supposed AGW. Look at the creeks in urban areas and the rivers there too, COMPLETELY filled with trash and i don't know how the carp survives there(yes i know their tough fish)  if i had a choice between taking a swim in the creek or having no shower/baths for 1 year i'd take the 1 year.

Answer 9

Yeah, I find those kinds of environmentalists annoying, to put it mildly. You sound like the right kind of "environmentalist"- the kind who just wants a good earth.

Answer 10

honestly

1. i couldnt say it better myself

2. agree 100%

3. it hurts me soo much to see people do that sort of thing. words dont always heal.