|
skibabeage
Deleted
Oct 5, 2004, 1:49 PM
Post #1 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
over_the_hill
Oct 5, 2004, 10:44 PM
Post #2 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 56
|
Yvon Chouinard for President!!!!! If he takes selling pitons out of the back of his car, and turn it into a multi- million dollar company, imagine what he could do for our country!!! You would have my vote. Yvon Chouinard for president!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
lokiraven
Oct 7, 2004, 1:43 AM
Post #3 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 94
|
Sorry to say, but very few things are of any importance if your dead, or unable to feed your kids, or unable to read well enough to support yourself.
I agree that the environment is important, but I cant believe any of us would sacrafice our or our childrens lives, well bieng or education for the things being reported in this article.
Ryan Tuleja
|
|
|
|
|
kqoytae
Oct 7, 2004, 3:26 AM
Post #4 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 12
|
What are you afraid of killing you? Why can't you feed your kids, and why can't you read?............Terriost really gonna get you in Colorado, maybe too many pesticides and not enough water to grow your food, and what ever happened to kids being read to by adults at night before bed?........Please tell me your not voting for Bush......And the only thing you sacrafice by not putting the earth first is leading the good life, which is the only life to lead. I wish this election had an easy clear choice, but for me its again the lesser of two evils. Any body else moving to Canada if the Presidency gets stolen again this year?
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Oct 7, 2004, 8:43 AM
Post #5 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
As an urban and regional planning major, I concur that our treatment of the environment translates into all aspects of society. Propering planning protects the envir', creates communites--> which educates our children... instead of the individualists suburban culture, reduces traffic congest, boasting quality of life...
It all comes back to our policies of how to interact with the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
sublimeclimb
Oct 7, 2004, 6:22 PM
Post #6 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2004
Posts: 49
|
i agree wholeheartedly with you, skibabeage et al. Without a healthy environment where are we going to get all of the resources we depend on for just about everything? i know those futuristic movies depict humans living in giant eco-bubbles that provide us with all humans need, but that's just fiction. we dont live in bubbles, we are intricately tied to our environment. as climbers we should all recognize that. my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
|
old_apple_juice
Oct 7, 2004, 6:46 PM
Post #7 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 54
|
Clean water is directly related to quality of life.
Many of you probably remember being halfway up some multipitch climb and realizing your water supply was rapidly dwindling. Education, the economy (*don't be an economic girlie man*) and perhaps even war were probably the farthest things from your mind.
I think all of you have an idea of Maslow's Hierarchy, it's been overused, but it's fitting.
We need clean air, water, food etc. so that our children can satisfy their base needs and then concentrate on education, getting jobs, fulfilling their destiny... I agree with Yvon Chouinard and the environmental protection election stance.
I suppose I'm Canadian, but American politicians have a big effect on Canada, and if you disregard our political borders and consider ecozones and morphological boundaries, we share a lot of environmental systems.
Patagonia is a terrific company. I used to think the environmentalism was just a front to sell expensive clothing, but after doing some research (and getting some clothes second hand) I learned otherwise. There are few large companies, who actually have the power and cash to push environmental initiatives on the government, who actively pursue these goals.
Sweet.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
leinosaur
Oct 7, 2004, 7:36 PM
Post #8 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 690
|
Amen, mon ami!
Thanks for setting it out so clearly.
Je suis tout-a-fait d'accord avec ce que vous avez dit!
vote the environment!
Leinosaur
|
|
|
|
|
mburke225
Oct 7, 2004, 8:04 PM
Post #9 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 119
|
I believe what Yvon has outlined is very important and should be a focus of anyone who will be casting a vote this november or teaching children how the world should be viewed.
With that said, I feel a point is missed. Today we are making brilliant strides to clean up the earth. Let me say that again. Today we are making brilliant strides to clean up the earth. It is true that there are glaring examples that many people can refute my statement with, but as a whole we are moving in the right direction. We are using cleaner fuels than ever before in human history. Example: Think about what is left in the morning after a campfire. Now compare that with the pollution made from heating your home for one night. I am not saying we are there, but moving in the right direction.
To the remarks about pesticides and cancer:
Pesticides enable us to grow more food on less farmland. About a quarter of what would be needed otherwise is a reasonable estimate. Pesticides we now use have not been shown to cause cancer any more than a naturally occurring fertilizer. Yes its true there were some bad pesticides whenthey were first inented, but they have been discontinued. All pesticides now must pass tests by the EPA which are thousands of times (literally) more strict than conventional fertilizers. The rise in the rates of cancer can be attributed to a ageing world population. Nowadays less young people are dying of starvation and disease. We are not multiplying like rabbits, we have stopped dying like flys.
To wind power/hydrogen as an alternative:
We are quickly getting there. But it is also prudent to remember that
windmills kill 90,000 birds per year. Nothing is perfect.
Yvon notes that the worlds population has doubled to nearly 6 billion from 1960. It also doubled from three billion at the turn of the last century(1900). Most estimates see the world doubling again by 2050 to 12 billion. Yet, the world is a cleaner place, with less disease and a smaller % of its people under the poverty line on the whole than in 1900. There is no reason not to expect that to continue.
Just starting trouble
|
|
|
|
|
lokiraven
Oct 12, 2004, 12:04 PM
Post #10 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 94
|
Please dont misunderstand me and think I'm going with the scare tactics. By Saying Dead starving or illiterate, I am simply pointing out that it is quite easy to sit in our nice cozy houses, drive our nice fancy cars and TALK about protecting the environment.
Noone wants to breath dirty air.No one wants to drink dirty water. And as far as I am aware, no one says "hey I think I'm gonna go out tommorrow and destroy some natural resorces!! Good times"
The simple fact of the matter is that there must be some sort of trade between productivity and environmentalism.If John Kerry is going to make some radical changes in environmental policy, he and those of you who vote for him need to understand that.
I do agree we need to protect the environment, but I dont want to listen to the same people who promote huge changes in policy then turn around and cry foul about bieng laid off or fired by companys that cant afford to make these changes AND maintain the same employee level.
|
|
|
|
|
allarounder
Oct 12, 2004, 3:32 PM
Post #11 of 11
(3936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 174
|
Actually most estimates see world population hitting 9-10 billion and then leveling off or slowly dropping as fertility rates decline and developing countries slowly catch up in terms of education and womens' rights. Fertility rates have already fallen below what is sustainable in Europe.
Many of the technologies touted by environmentalists as the "next greatest thing" aren't. Hydrogen - takes great quantities of energy to convert from water, or it comes from hydrocarbons. So you just transfer pollution from cars to power plants. Fine for the coal miners.
I fail to see why environmentalists shun nuclear power. 90 million pounds of U3O8 was mined last year for worldwide consumption in nuclear reactors, primarily. Compare that to 900 million TONS of coal used in the US alone for energy. 80-85% of coal is carbon, which makes it into the atmosphere as CO2. Never mind the sulfur (SO2).
Humanity has needs - energy, metals, food, etc. They will continue to be met. It a matter of how to do it cleanly, economically, safely. Kerry just fails to realize the economic piece of the puzzle (proposing an 8% royalty on metals mined in the US, among things), the nuclear piece(proposing shutting down the Yucca Mountain project), and so much more that would help increase our independence on other economies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
