Results 1 to 10 of 70
Threaded View
-
03-27-2009, 08:59 PM #11OPSenior Member
We don't need the government to invest in alternative fuels.
Sorry, can't proof read, have to go to work.
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
The coast is eroding in Southern Louisiana is a legitimate concern. It hurts our economy, doesn't provide adequate protection from incoming hurricanes, etc.
Unfortunately, environmentalists can't seem to prioritize. Not to mention, a lot of environmental actions only harm the environment.
Smokey the Bear sounded positive when he was preaching, "You can prevent forest fires," unfortunately, the fires were an intricate part to our environment. For one, when fires do break out, they are even more difficult to get under control because they are so thick in places. Also, fire is an intricate part in new trees growing and reviving the land.
The DDT ban is another example of how environmental issues make our lives worse. There is no evidence DDT causes health risks, however, it's proven to control mosquito populations. A few supporters of DDT used to eat it daily on stage to prove it was harmless, they died of old age.
Now millions of people die in third world countries from malaria, something that DDT had prevented before it was banned. Not to mention we now spend tax dollars to buy them mosquito nets when all we would have to do is let them use DDT.
From Hoodwinked by Jack Cashill:
There, Edwards got the order to dust every soldier in his company with the DDT powder. For two weeks straight, he did just that, breathing the fog of white dust as he did so. Much to everyone's relief, the DDT worked, and the epidemic was checked (Typhus spread by lice). The surgeon general estimated that the DDT had saved the lives of five thousand soldiers.
Ultimately, it's a harmless insecticide that if allowed, would save millions of lives lost due to disease spread by insects.
The point is, yes, there are areas that could benefit from environmental controls. Unfortunately, environmental concerns often harm the environment.
The truth is, we don't know how to benefit the environment, so we shouldn't even try until we get it right. The environment is an intricate balancing act, but we have no clue how to balance it. When we save one animal, it often whips of major portions of another population, etc. Every living thing has it's purpose in our environment, yet we try and influence it without even fully understanding what our actions will do to our environment.
It hardly sounds environmentally friendly to me.
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
I WANT TO INVEST IN AN ARIZONA DISPENCARY
By massmarkpro in forum Medical Marijuana Co-Op TalkReplies: 5Last Post: 02-01-2011, 07:45 AM -
It's not the marijuana but its prohibition that fuels crime
By WIlDuce1883 in forum LegalReplies: 0Last Post: 06-10-2010, 01:57 AM -
Brett Favre might want to invest in his own cell phone
By Psycho4Bud in forum Sports TalkReplies: 2Last Post: 07-31-2008, 05:32 PM -
Co2 alternative
By Tomthehippie in forum Indoor GrowingReplies: 12Last Post: 03-17-2006, 01:50 AM -
Progress fuels hope for recovery of brain-damaged firefighter
By pisshead in forum PoliticsReplies: 2Last Post: 05-04-2005, 07:57 PM