| fatslob-:O said: What is 'substantial' is totally a matter of opinion ... At most only a legal argument could be had here defining levels of what is and isn't an acceptable amount of pollution ... |
Well. No. It's not a matter of opinion.
Substantial is anything of significance, size, worth or importance.
The acceptable amount of pollution should be one where there isn't a buildup/increase over natural levels, you might not give a shit about living in a toxic environment, that doesn't mean everyone else does.
| fatslob-:O said: I don't think life will cease to exist anytime soon and that also includes human life as well so the industry will be fine for the forseeable future ... Sure you can argue that some inhabited areas are being negatively effected by climate change but the undeniable trend is that the quality of life on earth in general has risen over the past several decades and I don't see climate change causing a regression in the distant future either ... |
Again... I haven't made the damn claim that life will cease to exist soon.
Er... Quality of life does get impacted in areas that are being impacted by pollution and climate change. Again, I have already provided evidence for this.
Rising sea levels forcing island nations to migrate elsewhere is a big fucking impact to their quality of life.
Polluted waterways preventing people from consuming one of the basic necessities for supporting life is a pretty big fucking impact.
Struggling to breathe in smog-thick atmospheres is a pretty big fucking impact.
But nice try downplaying their significance.
| fatslob-:O said: Industrialization at the cost of pollution and anthropogenic climate change is well worth it to the people since it has arguably been proven time and time again that it is comparatively the bigger well of life than maintaining nature who more often than not is cruel towards human life ... |
Are you being serious? That pollution is worth it? Say that to the millions of people dying all around the world every year.
Say that to the endless amounts of people suffering through ailments like cancer.
You really lack some empathy.
fatslob-:O said:
That still doesn't erase the fact that their promoting a very extremist political stance and if they want to make their point heard then they should get a larger representation ... |
Supporting the natural environment is not an extreme position, never has been, never will be.
| fatslob-:O said: I would argue otherwise because there's no consensus regarding the issue and considering this is being mostly pushed by a very fringe political group ... A planet is a far more complex system than a house so I don't think that's an apt comparison there ... |
There is consensus regarding climate change and the damaging effects of pollution.
Evidence for this has been provided prior.
fatslob-:O said:
More companies getting political is often a sign of partisan dysfunction ... @Bold It does and it doesn't work work that way. A company that strongly controls the means of living such as hydrocarbon energy extraction or a health corporation means that consumers have next to no leverage against those types of businesses which are often monopolistic in nature because they provide goods/services with inelastic demand so consumers effectively have no choice but to support those businesses regardless of the political message they are sending ... (unless of course they're okay on living without amenities that makes life extremely convenient) |
Sony doesn't control the means of living... And to be honest, you just sound salty because you can't get your own way. The world is pushing towards a greener direction, which is a damn good thing.
In saying that, even monopolies can topple over when consumers vote with their wallets, simple as that, the remnants of past businesses are everywhere.
| fatslob-:O said: @Bold Yeah, doing energy production cost effectively is easier said than done. It's not practical to be individually energy self-sufficient which is why not many people ever go off the grid or if they do they have sources of hydrocarbon energy nearby to access. The other recommendations are scraping the bottom of the barrel ... And hardly any corporations base their strategy on such speculative distant future. At most, many corporations don't plan ahead for more than 5 years because banking on certain trends happening is not a sound business strategy because it could backfire very quickly on them if the events unfolding aren't happening the way they want it to ... |
Never claimed you had to be energy self sufficient. - It is all about balancing your carbon foot print, that's the entire point.
And the evidence also states you can make/save money in the process. Win win.
Lots of companies and organizations are rolling out solar here, my own fire station had a rollout of solar years ago to equalize it's carbon footprint... Our street lights are all energy efficient LEDs, we now have a thermal solar and wind power generation... List goes on.
We are also one of the cleanest places on Earth, which means our aquaculture produce tends to be highly sought after... And Eco-tourism has been booming with swim with the sealions/sharks and so on.
Money can be made by going green, shame you can't see it.
| fatslob-:O said: @Bold Sometimes it's best not to work together "if they don't want the same things" ... In some cases there is no room for compromise and this is where political unions should "split up" so to speak IMO ... Industrialists demand a world with the highest productivity while the greens demand a world with near endless environmental sustainability but these goals are not compatible with each other so this is case where the two should separate sovereign entities instead of being a unified sovereign entity ... |
Nah.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
