Discussion Why should we preserve our environment?

[M3J]

True. Businesses are the ones dumping chemicals and gunk in drinking water without caring, and they're causing so much damage as result. things like fracking aren't helpin either.

 

[kannazuki]

If someone clearly lined up where actual short-term big business interests consistently go against (any-term) ordinary citizen (and to a lesser extent, small businesses') interests not only with the environment but on nearly every issue, like in a series of easily-digestible (but well-supported with references) infographics, the realities displayed there would be stark and illuminating. There are probably enough books out there to fill a library and enough documentaries to have a single-topic film festival about it, but most of it only preaches to the choir. :/

 

[M3J]

There needs to be far harsher regulations on businesses like these because they affect lives and livelihood. How many people have been poisoned or affected by contaminated waters caused by big businesses? How many ecosystems have been destroyed or close to destruction because of all the gunk and oil spillage and whatnot? Sadly it's all about money, and it's enough for most to overlook the consequences, which the big businesses don't really face much of.

 

[kannazuki]

If we dropped GDP (which treats ALL spending as equivalent instead of differentiating between costs and benefits) and started using something like the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), things might improve. This would factor in the costs that unethical large businesses offload onto the public with all the damaging crap they pull but never pay for.

Advantages of Using GPI

1. GDP doesn’t take into account negative externalities of growth. Higher GDP may lead to a large rise in pollution, crime and congestion leaving people with lower economic welfare and lower levels of happiness. Therefore, GDP can be misleading as an account of economic welfare.
2. By focusing on a wider measure of economic indicators, it encourages policy makers to think in broader terms of economic welfare and not just crude GDP statistics.
3. GDP only measures output – not how it actually effects people’s living standards and how it is used in society.
4. Encourages long term planning. i.e. sustainable growth rather than short term measures which increase GDP at expense of damaging environment.

(this site also lists 2 minor disadvantages and a conclusion that both GDP and GPI should be used concurrently by policy makers)

 

[kkck]

Wouldn't the highly subjective aspects of GPI render it basically meaningless though? GDP by no means provide a perfect view of all aspects of what would be considered well being but it does its job at measuring economic performance on a macro point of view. I'm no economist but I'd argue that complementing GDP makes sense but it should be done with numbers not as subjective as the ones suggested by GPI. I guess the issue is that GDP or GPI provide easy to read single numbers while in reality what you need is many different numbers and indexes which have to be understood in context to get a proper assessment of how people are actually doing. And of course, such a thing would not work well on a political level (its easier for a politician to throw a single number than 50 when doing politics).

I mean, with GPI you'd basically be adding a bunch of subjective values into a single number. How do you get meaning out of that? Being subjective, you can't really be "wrong" or "right" about the value of certain things considered in it in a meaningful manner. You could set standards to make certain values less subjective but in adding them together you'd be loosing the meaning you are trying to give to subjective numbers. They'd work better and perhaps even be meaningful if you simply kept them separate. But then again, a bunch of numbers instead of a single pretty one....

 

[kannazuki]

Yes, parts of GPI are somewhat subjective, but so is GDP, in less obvious ways. The guy who invented GDP knew that it could be used as a smokescreen to cover up national problems, and since it isn't their primary concern how the masses are doing, that's exactly what policy makers tend to use it to do today. I think it makes more sense to combine various indicators on the citizenry's overall health and happiness (which environmental health is inextricably tied up in) than it does to take amorphous spending numbers and treat them as if they represent the "health" of a nation.

The concept of GDP was first developed by Simon Kuznets for a US Congress report in 1934.[4] In this report, Kuznets warned against its use as a measure of welfare (see below under limitations and criticisms). After the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, GDP became the main tool for measuring a country's economy.[5] At that time Gross National Product (GNP) was the preferred estimate, which differed from GDP in that it measured production by a country's citizens at home and abroad rather than its 'resident institutional units' (see OECD definition above). The switch to GDP was in the 1980s. The history of the concept of GDP should be distinguished from the history of changes in ways of estimating it. The value added by firms is relatively easy to calculate from their accounts, but the value added by the public sector, by financial industries, and by intangible asset creation is more complex. These activities are increasingly important in developed economies, and the international conventions governing their estimation and their inclusion or exclusion in GDP regularly change in an attempt to keep up with industrial advances. In the words of one academic economist "The actual number for GDP is therefore the product of a vast patchwork of statistics and a complicated set of processes carried out on the raw data to fit them to the conceptual framework."[6]

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


What's included is molded and fine-tuned to fit whatever only economists think is best. GPI (or other multi-dimensional indicators) can take a multidisciplinary approach, with every kind of social scientist, medical/mental health professionals, geologists, meteorologists, zoologists, etc., etc. weighing in on true benefits and losses from shifts in a nation's economy. Whatever measures haven't already been standardized (or have been standardized in only flippant and 2-dimensional ways by economists, such as with the "Guns To Caviar index" or the "Big Mac Index") easily can be. Either way, GDP wouldn't go away anyway.

 

[xanorkid]

I believe that we as humans, in a way, also follows the saying 'monkey see, monkey do.' It often happens when a new trend or technological breakthrough is released. Thing is, we can apply this when it comes to environmental concerns but we rarely see people who really put their minds into doing their share for the environment. I also believe that everything starts in a family, so we could use that to our advantage if we really try.

We live in a world where social media is prevailing over other forms of communication. If we take the time to at least put away our phones and recycle some stuff or do crafts, those things may serve as a way to protect the environment.

 

[kannazuki]

I believe that we as humans, in a way, also follows the saying 'monkey see, monkey do.' It often happens when a new trend or technological breakthrough is released. Thing is, we can apply this when it comes to environmental concerns but we rarely see people who really put their minds into doing their share for the environment. I also believe that everything starts in a family, so we could use that to our advantage if we really try.

We live in a world where social media is prevailing over other forms of communication. If we take the time to at least put away our phones and recycle some stuff or do crafts, those things may serve as a way to protect the environment.

We also live in an era in which the West's "traditional" media is increasingly coopted to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. Used intelligently, social media might be the only route we have left to give a voice to people and issues that are being ignored yet should be heard... such as pollution, global warming, etc.

Incidentally one of the biggest contributors to global warming is livestock-- especially factory farms but also pastured/grass-fed animals as well (not because their emissions are equal but because they take a while to fatten up enough to send to market). Instead of finding ways to make fossil fuels (that even damage the environment just to get out of the ground let alone to burn) sound more "green" than they are, I wish we could find (safe, natural) ways to reduce the impact of livestock on the environment.

 

[kkck]

Well, the most you could potentially do would be handling livestock feces betters but I don't think there is much more that could be done ATM. I can't imagine a safe and natural (and non intrusive) way to handle cowfarts...

Anyways, I don't think it makes more sense for livestock to be the main focus here. The biggest source of pollution is fossil fuels for cars and energy production in general and as things stand its not yet viable for a long time to change to other sources of energy, specially for cars. Sure, electric cars have made significant advances but at this stage it kinda seems like we are trading something bad (CO2 emissions) for something worst (everything about car batteries is ridiculously ungreen even without emissions). As far as I can tell the most practical approach right now would be to focus on electricity production. Advances have been made on green energy sources and nuclear plans are efficient ways to make electricity that do not generate greenhouse gasses. Hydrogen does not even qualify as an energy source at the moment so I don't think it can help at the moment. I guess the issue is if there is a clean way to make it at some point (which as far as I know is not quite the case)...

 

[YumaKuga]

Because without it, we all would be boned. End of Discussion.

 

[kannazuki]

Well, the most you could potentially do would be handling livestock feces betters but I don't think there is much more that could be done ATM. I can't imagine a safe and natural (and non intrusive) way to handle cowfarts...

Actually, I had no idea but it turns out there's the idea of "concentrated feed." Doesn't sound very natural though. :/

Anyways, I don't think it makes more sense for livestock to be the main focus here. The biggest source of pollution is fossil fuels for cars and energy production in general and as things stand its not yet viable for a long time to change to other sources of energy, specially for cars. Sure, electric cars have made significant advances but at this stage it kinda seems like we are trading something bad (CO2 emissions) for something worst (everything about car batteries is ridiculously ungreen even without emissions). As far as I can tell the most practical approach right now would be to focus on electricity production. Advances have been made on green energy sources and nuclear plans are efficient ways to make electricity that do not generate greenhouse gasses. Hydrogen does not even qualify as an energy source at the moment so I don't think it can help at the moment. I guess the issue is if there is a clean way to make it at some point (which as far as I know is not quite the case)...

I wish you were right, I really do, but actually bovine emissions cause MORE environmental devastation than industry or fossil fuels. It just isn't talked about all that often in the popular media.

Spoiler

Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization says that agricultural methane output could increase by 60 percent by 2030 [Source: Times Online].

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm
(Times article quoted above but paywalled)

and

Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric power and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment. Until recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the discussion. Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential.)
The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greenhouse-hamburger/
(yay, more paywall)

 

[kkck]

Actually, I had no idea but it turns out there's the idea of "concentrated feed." Doesn't sound very natural though. :/

I wish you were right, I really do, but actually bovine emissions cause MORE environmental devastation than industry or fossil fuels. It just isn't talked about all that often in the popular media.

Spoiler

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm
(Times article quoted above but paywalled)

and

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greenhouse-hamburger/
(yay, more paywall)

What about the time either spends on the atmosphere? Sure, methane causes more damage within the short term but CO2 on the other hand remains for much longer. Decades or centuries apparently. And we are releasing much more co2 into the atmosphere than we are releasing methane. Assuming feed can reduce methane emissions then its even less of an issue than what it seems even if its short term effects are more damaging. At least, it seems to be a far less complicated issue than fossil fuels which have to do with the vast majority of the world's energy infrastructure.

 

[kannazuki]

What about the time either spends on the atmosphere? Sure, methane causes more damage within the short term but CO2 on the other hand remains for much longer. Decades or centuries apparently. And we are releasing much more co2 into the atmosphere than we are releasing methane. Assuming feed can reduce methane emissions then its even less of an issue than what it seems even if its short term effects are more damaging. At least, it seems to be a far less complicated issue than fossil fuels which have to do with the vast majority of the world's energy infrastructure.

Oh, good point. According to this it's 12 years for methane and 20-200 for CO2. (Other gases are listed as well.) Another thing might be that the destructive practice of hydraulic fracturing (AKA 'fracking') for so-called natural gas is releasing methane into the atmosphere (as well as people's water supplies to the extent that some people can literally light their tapwater) and I'm only speculating here but I wouldn't be surprised if that's not counted as coming from fracking, but from animals.

*edit*
Was looking for fracking emissions info and found this (from January):

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would require energy companies to report to the federal government all greenhouse gas emissions from oil well fracking operations and natural gas compressor stations and pipelines.
The EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program currently requires energy companies to report only those emissions from fracking operations that involve flaring — the industry’s practice of burning off excess natural gas at a well site.
Scientists have called for a more thorough accounting of the energy industry’s greenhouse gas emissions so they can fully understand how oil and gas operations affect climate change. Many studies have shown that methane frequently leaks from oil and gas operations, but too little public information exists for researchers to know the specific sources of the emissions.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/epa-methane-emissions-fracking-18511