(06-19-2015 04:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Number #6 is the opposite of everything else on that list.

It does seem like it, but if we can make oil and gas use more efficient, that will also help the environment. It is silly to say we should stop using it completely or dramatically and instantly cut back our usage. While creating greener energies that are renewable, we should aim to raise efficiency of our current fuel resources and avoid the erroneous arguments that are used to fight against oil and gas. I think conserving some or stopping drilling in environmentally unstable areas is a good idea but we shouldn't say "No more oil and gas" just for the sake of saying it. You have to have solutions first.

(06-19-2015 04:03 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  So to list out things that I think aren't asking too much -

1. Supporting replanting forests and slowing deforestation
2. Creating natural sanctuaries for at-risk or very vulnerable species
3. At home endeavors like beekeeping, donating a small amount to conservatory groups, etc.
4. Keeping lights off when they're not needed to conserve energy
5. Promoting alternative and renewable energy sources
6. Decreasing the negative incentives towards using our planet's oil and gas resources
7. Creating more energy efficient technology to lower carbon emissions
8. Challenging poaching of vulnerable species
   

The list could go on and on. You asked for solutions, here are some basic ones that I came up with that I would like to see.

Ok, this is what you'd like to see. What have you done, specifically, to help alleviate the potential for mass species extinction.

As an example to help you understand how to walk the walk and stand behind one's claims, I have extensive gardens on my property devoted to Monarch butterflies and to a lesser extent, bees. And I have had all this in place long before a discredited environmental hack published a 'Conservative study indicates 6th mass extinction underway'. I will put my environmental bone fides up against 99% of climate and extinction alarmists and win Every. Single. Time.

It's almost (but not always, I know a few dyed in the blue liberals who are truly environmentally conscious) always the left that demands environmental action but doesn't put their money nor their actions where there mouth is - it's always what someone else has to do.....

As smarter people than myself have stated, repeatedly:

I’LL BELIEVE IT’S A CRISIS WHEN PEOPLE WHO TELL ME IT’S A CRISIS START ACTING LIKE IT’S A CRISIS:

(06-19-2015 04:54 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It's almost (but not always, I know a few dyed in the blue liberals who are truly environmentally conscious) always the left that demands environmental action but doesn't put their money nor their actions where there mouth is - it's always what someone else has to do.....

As smarter people than myself have stated, repeatedly:

I’LL BELIEVE IT’S A CRISIS WHEN PEOPLE WHO TELL ME IT’S A CRISIS START ACTING LIKE IT’S A CRISIS:

Kind of like this:

http://dailyreckoning.com/right-to-hunt-...al-rights/

Quote:Here’s a fact the animal rights crowd doesn’t like to hear, or to admit:

There wouldn’t be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist. Funds generated by license fees and federal excise taxes on outdoor gear pay for these lands by an overwhelming margin. In fact, these monies dwarf all other sources combined — including the nearly nonexistent contributions of animal rights organizations (more on this in a minute). That means outdoor sportsmen are overwhelmingly the largest source of conservation funding in the United States….

Quote:Here are the numbers, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and other public sources:

** $746 million — Annual amount of money spent by hunters in the United States on licenses and public land access fees alone. Sportsmen’s licensing revenues account for more than half of all funding for state natural resource agencies

** $300 million — Additional monies contributed to wildlife conservation every year by the more than 10,000 private hunting-advocate organizations, like the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

** $4.2 billion — Amount of money sportsmen have contributed to conservation through a 10% federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and gear since the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act established the tax. Millions of acres of public-use land has been purchased, preserved, and maintained with this money.

From an ecological point of view, here’s what all this translates into– The needs of wild animals — especially endangered and threatened species — are immeasurably better served by the millions of acres of well-maintained, patrolled habitat that hunters’ dollars are paying for than the lies and propaganda dished out by animal rights groups. In fact, their efforts are among the most destructive forces facing wildlife of all types today…

Why? Because if the animal rights crowd got its way and hunting were outlawed, there’d be no money for the preservation and expansion of the habitat that houses not only game species, but the endangered, threatened, and recovering species as well.

Quote:In case you’re wondering how much money animal rights groups devote to habitat preservation and the welfare of wild species, take a gander at PETA’s 2004 financials. Straight from its Web site, I discovered that PETA’s prodigious revenue of over $29 million bought:

** 2,700 media interviews

** 703 organized demonstrations

** Nearly 11,000 mentions in print

** Coverage on at least seven major TV networks

** 150,000 “vegetarian starter kits” disseminated to the public

** Enough “educational materials” for 235,000 teachers and 11,000,000 students…

But not a single acre of land for wildlife preservation — not even for endangered species!

Hmmm. Seems that PETA and friends just don’t realize that what critters of every stripe need more than billboards, picket lines, ad campaigns, and celebrity advocates are places to live and thrive. Without the immense revenue of hunting-related dollars, these lands simply would not exist. That’s a hard pill for them to swallow. And as if it isn’t bad enough that animal rights groups — for all their high-profile anti-hunting bluster — don’t seem to pay for ANY true wildlife conservation efforts, they also spend a good deal of their time and resources obfuscating the truth about where conservation money does come from. Case in point:

In a 2003 news release aimed at opposing the New York Bureau of Wildlife’s plans to promote hunting and trapping in publicly owned sections of the Catskill Mountains, the notoriously militant Fund for Animals (ironic name, since I could find no evidence that they spend any money on wildlife conservation, either), stated that: “Although [the Bureau of Wildlife] is financed by millions of dollars of the public’s tax money, the nonhunting public’s viewpoint is consistently ignored…”

Yet according to the New York Bureau of Wildlife’s own financials, its primary source of funding is hunting, fishing, and trapping license fees, public land usage fees, and fines for violations of fisheries and wildlife management policies. Less than 12% of its operating budget comes from state tax revenues. This is a similar ratio to other states’ natural resources agencies’ funding. In fact, nationwide, sportsmen’s dollars outpace tax dollars for conservation efforts by a ratio of 9-to-1!

Can you think of ANY other federal government program that divines only 10% of its budget from the general fund?

Quote:A lot of people probably don’t realize exactly how vital sport hunting is to the U.S. economy (animal rights groups know it, they just don’t want YOU to). Here are just a few examples:

** $24.7 billion — Amount of money hunters spend every year on their sport at the retail level. This money reaches all retail segments, including hard goods, travel, gas, trips, food and drink, supplies, vehicles, leases, lodging, and guide services

** $955.4 million — Annual amount of sales and fuel tax revenue directly attributable to hunting in the U.S.

** 575,000 — Number of American jobs sustained entirely by hunting

** $16.7 billion — Total annual salaries and wages paid to those who hold hunting-related jobs in the U.S.

** $2.25 billion — Dollar amount of combined state and federal income tax revenue generated by hunted-related employment in the United States every year.

How do these numbers compare with other high-participation outdoor sports? For some perspective, compare hunting with another popular gear- and travel-intensive sport, skiing. According to the Census Bureau’s Statistics of U.S. Businesses and other sources, the skiing industry annually:

** Employs approximately 127,000 people (less than a quarter as many as hunting)

** Pays gross salaries of around $1 billion (about 6% of what hunting pays)

** Yields just over $500 million in ski equipment sales (hunters spend more than this on their DOGS).

See what I mean? Hunting is big business in the United States. So big that animal rights groups could never even come close to matching, dollar for dollar, the positive impact sportsmen have on America’s bottom line.

(06-19-2015 02:25 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Like, this is one thing I literally cannot comprehend how you folks just joke about it. We have these facts -- species are dying out, going extinct -- in rates that are just like other mass extinction events that caused extreme biological change on our planet. This is a huge freaking deal. Hiding behind a shroud of cowardice is just signing your own death warrant.

Every thing is gonna die one day and your current angst over species extinction is not even a flicker in the dark emptiness of the universe and time.

You do realize the sun will burn out one day don't you? You wanna talk extinction problems....that's gonna be an issue

Survival of the fittest. Let the weak die.

(06-19-2015 05:23 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Survival of the fittest. Let the weak die.

The world is still trying to recover from the absence of dodo birds. My life is impacted daily.

(06-19-2015 05:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 05:23 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Survival of the fittest. Let the weak die.

The world is still trying to recover from the absence of dodo birds. My life is impacted daily.

As long as we can get BBQ, the animal world is ok.

(06-19-2015 05:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 05:23 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Survival of the fittest. Let the weak die.

The world is still trying to recover from the absence of dodo birds. My life is impacted daily.

I think we're all pretty lucky that the terror bird is extinct. This dude fed on anything the size of a horse.




Seriously though, for those who want to donate to excellent organizations that actually do protect sanctuaries of the endangered species (both on their land and help private landowners do so on their own land), the Nature Conservancy is a good choice. I have donated and worked directly with the Alabama chapter, as that state is home to some of the rarest plant species on the planet. The guys in Alabama are a very hard group.

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/reg...where.list

(06-19-2015 02:23 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  -- because science is not political --

(06-19-2015 07:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:23 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  -- because science is not political --

Like I said, it's pretty hard to be liberal or conservative when you are talking about species that have gone extinct. Either they have, or they haven't, lol.

#5 and #6 are right out

As for the rest of it, I turn my lights off when not in use and turn the water off while I brush my teeth. So, apparently, I've done my part. We can all thank HOD for the bright green future.

Another year, another prediction of catastrophic environmental collapse predicted by people who practice soft science. Reminds me of religious groups always claiming to know the date of the next rapture. Personally, I'm waiting for Paul Ehrlich to confirm the prediction of mass extinction before I act.

All Panic and no solutions. Same thing with the drought in California.

(06-19-2015 04:03 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  A few things to say here --

First, what's with all this socialism nonsense? First of all, I am not a "socialist" nor a Marxist and I know some of you talking avatars on here throw it around as a derogatory term, but if you're gonna say something at least get it straight. I'm nowhere near the most liberal one on this board, and for you to slander me like that by lying and making outlandish claims is quite frankly unbecoming. On a lot of views, yes I tend to be socially liberal - on other things, not so much. Economically, I like the ideal of social democracy - which is not the same thing as Marxism or socialism or whatever you'd like to call me. Look up the difference if you're really interested in fixing what you're saying about me. Now, on to the real business.

The reason I posted this article was not to shame people into changing their entire lives to fit some strange environmentally crazed lunatic's dream of not using anything from the earth to survive. I'm saying, we need to pay attention to this stuff because if we don't, who knows what the next species die-off will be - it could be us. Honeybees are one important species dying off for whatever reason and that could have immense impacts both economically and environmentally.

This article really doesn't state anything too controversial as a reason for heightening extinctions except for climate change, which has a large base of deniers among right-wing politicians and at-home scientists. I for one would like to see my power go towards helping organizations that replant forests, provide sanctuaries for at-risk or very vulnerable species of animals, and I think building a beehive at home is a very noteworthy endeavor (I am, unfortunately, allergic to bees so I am a little hesitant about that), since especially with a species like bees, anything you can do will hopefully help.

So to list out things that I think aren't asking too much -

1. Supporting replanting forests and slowing deforestation
2. Creating natural sanctuaries for at-risk or very vulnerable species
3. At home endeavors like beekeeping, donating a small amount to conservatory groups, etc.
4. Keeping lights off when they're not needed to conserve energy
5. Promoting alternative and renewable energy sources
6. Decreasing the negative incentives towards using our planet's oil and gas resources
7. Creating more energy efficient technology to lower carbon emissions
8. Challenging poaching of vulnerable species
   

The list could go on and on. You asked for solutions, here are some basic ones that I came up with that I would like to see. Call me an environmentalist if you want, but I think using our planet's resources smartly and efficiently should not only be the goal of an advanced human civilization but also the goal of an ideal market economic system.

Yet you are the forum flag bearer for the only Presidential candidate the describes himself as a socialist.

K.


http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/15/social...-platform/

Quote:Bernie Sanders doesn’t run away from the socialist label.

Perhaps thou protest too much.

I think it is a valid endeavor to be good stewards of the planet and its inhabitance. There are for sure some species that we should be concerned about becoming extinct, especially in regard to food sources and the food chain...but...Im skeptical that extinction now poses such a dire impact on humans as environmentalists claim. Further more...extinction has been occurring naturally that has zero to do with human influence. Id even submit that extinction of many species have had a positive impact upon man. Ridding the world of mosquitos, ticks and fleas would eliminate a large amount of human suffering.

The one area I do agree with environmentalists and am most concerned about is the over fishing and pollution of our Seas and water sources. I do think that eventually this is going to cause humans real problems.

Thanks for that link BTW. Lots of interesting stuff on that site.

(06-20-2015 12:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yet you are the forum flag bearer for the only Presidential candidate the describes himself as a socialist.

K.


http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/15/social...-platform/

Quote:Bernie Sanders doesn’t run away from the socialist label.

Perhaps thou protest too much.

That is a common incorrect assumption. Sanders is NOT a socialist in the classical "Red Scare" American notion. He is a democratic socialist who is in line with "social democracy," which is about welfare state systems in a capitalist economic system. Sanders's beliefs are almost as capitalist as any other member of the Congress - he instead believes in social programs including a universal welfare state and collective bargaining and reforming inefficient and unproductive market systems.

Quote from Wikipedia:

Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy.

Notable social democrats include:
- Bernie Sanders
- Indira Gandhi
- Nelson Mandela
- Mikhail Gorbachev
- David Ben-Gurion
- Francois Mitterand

He differs from social democrats--at least those in modern Europe--in one significant way. Social democrats are not proponents of massive wealth redistribution through the tax system. Modern European tax systems are generally less redistributive than ours. That's why businesses and investment go overseas to those countries.

They tried redistribution on a massive scale after WWII, it failed miserably, and they learned. Here's hoping we can learn from their experience without repeating it.

One other comment - just because I like Bernie Sanders does not mean I agree with him on everything, nor that I am a socialist. Out of all the Democrats he is the one I like the most, primarily because of his authenticity and his separation from big bank and lobbyist influence.