no because most environmentalists arent pro-environment. they are anti-business.

I am here to speak as an educated environmentalist. I have a degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Management. I see people have already jumped on the all environmentalist are wackos and anti-business. If people were actually able to educate themselves instead of regurgitating talking points then they would realize that most true environmentalist believe business and nature can coexist. Some of the original founding environmentalist in the USA believed this and have passed this down to those who have taken the same degree path as me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Leopold

Then of course you have the likes of John Muir which had vast disagreements with Pinchot.  The extreme environmentalist probably take a more hardline John Muir approach than Pinchot since Muir was deeply opposed to commercializing nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir

How about you guys do some research first instead of having Fox News feed you bs all day.

One funny thing about that statement is that there would be no humans without the environment.  

Also, DDT was outlawed in response to bio-accumulation. Bald Eagles couldn't reproduce anymore because the chemical made it's way up the food chain. The higher you are on top of the food chain the more chemical accumulate in your body. The mass concentration of DDT in Bald Eagles made their shells thin and easy to break. So when they tried to incubate the eggs they would end up breaking them. Eagles are now recovering greatly after stopping DDT. Thanks goes out to Rachel Carson for writing the book Silent Spring to bring awareness to the problems of DDT.  Basically, this man made pesticide almost wiped out our national symbol.  Way to go chemical industry!  I am also pretty sure that it is illegal to use in the USA but it still isn't illegal to make and sell to countries where it isn't illega for them to usel.  So I believe they are still pumping out this toxic chemical and giving it to third world countries.  Sometimes lessons are never learned.

With short-sighted businessfolks, no. But with those who are thinking in the big picture, certainly

no because most business-men arent pro-business. they are anti-environment.

*rolls eyes*

Common sense pretty much shows that most environmentalism, no matter how well meaning is pointless.

Even if you got the US and EU on board, you'd never actually get China, India or any other transitional government on board, and you would only get third world nations to sign on until they'd made enough money off the deal to where they'd be exceeding the caps given to them.

We'd essentially be giving up a lot of economic growth, or with the economy the way it is now... a lot of economic not shrinkage to push against the tide. Especially if we've already hit the "breaking point".

Cause global essentially magnifies itself. It gets warmer, which melts ice, which releases greenhouse gases in the air, which makes it warmer, which melts ice.... etc.

Granted having reached the breaking point is now less likely after research has shown that the worst case scenarios passed around as fact were likely grossly exaggerated.

Whatever your view on global warming, if it's happening or not, or what's causing it... it should be obvious that the current methods discussed to try and stop it are foolish wastes of time.

Efforts would be better spent on approaches that are effectively unilateral like Geo Engineering.

You guys can stick to global warming talking points all you want. What bothers me most about the environment is pollution, destruction of wetlands and rainforest. You can sit there all day long and have a pointless debate on whether humans are impacting the Earth through CO2. What is well known fact is that human release harmful chemicals onto the planet everyday, or you can look at the way USA has treated their wetlands. Let's fill in the wetlands and put up new housing developments. Sounds like a very smart idea!!! Oh shit it rained a lot and now the houses are flooded. Let alone let us not think about the damage we did by removing the wetlands. Wetlands can protect the inland from hurricanes by receiving the brunt of the blow but no let us build on them instead and see the true destructive power of a hurricane. I can keep going on my rant but to simply think the environmental issue as global warming is pure idiotic. There are many areas humans can improve to coexist with this planet, but no let us just stick to the entire fucking global warming topic.  Oh yea and don't get me started on the plastic water bottle topic.

Yea, I wasn't really jumping on anyone except maybe Kasz a little. It just gets to me when the environment gets brought up that most people that don't really care (I know they really do though) just go to the global warming issue right away. It is like they can just by pass any destructive behavior humans are doing to the planet by merely going to global warming debate.

I'm surprised that you covered pollution runoff of fertilizer and pesticides in the op. This topic hardly ever gets any coverage yet it is a major source of pollution (especially in water). Let along brings up why the hell are we dumping all these toxic chemicals on our planets debate. There obviously is another way to grow crops without use of man made chemicals. Factory farms just love dumping this shit onto their crops though. We could look at factory farms for livestock and the pollution run off from huge chicken farms, etc... Let's look at the way we treat cattle in most of the factory farms. Wouldn't it be better to let the cattle roam and eat grass / shrubs like it supposed to instead of having it stand in knee high shit all day and eat corn / chicken shit. There are many industries that are leading to the destruction of the environment. Most humans have lost touch with nature or simply turn a blind eye.

I think our politicians disagree.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546422160891728.html