I'm all for promoting green technologies in a non-coercive, free-market fashion.

So yeah, the movement as it stands is trash.

I'm all for promoting green technologies in a non-coercive, free-market fashion.

So yeah, the movement as it stands is trash.

>supporting environmentalism
>supporting the free market

Pick one.

It is absolutely essential not only for ethical reasons, but for the survival of our species -indeed, of every species- that we do as much as we can to preserve the Earth's environment as possible. At least until we are able to get resources and colonize other worlds. Then we can do whatever we want with the Earth.

I say we turn it into a giant computer for lels.

Quote from: SecondClass on October 18, 2014, 06:14:30 PM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on October 18, 2014, 05:20:19 PM

I'm all for promoting green technologies in a non-coercive, free-market fashion.

So yeah, the movement as it stands is trash.

>supporting environmentalism
>supporting the free market

Pick one.

I'll choose both.

You can't have both. With a free market, corporations are legally able to pollute the world away. Government regulations are the key to protecting the planet.

Quote from: SecondClass on October 18, 2014, 08:21:12 PM

You can't have both. With a free market, corporations are legally able to pollute the world away. Government regulations are the key to protecting the planet.

People would much rather take their business to a place that doesn't pollute the planet.

If this were true, I'd agree. But it's not; people would much rather take their business to a place that's cheaper. Look at Walmart. It's the most environmentally unfriendly corporation out there, not to mention its atrocious labor policies. But people continue to shop there almost exclusively because it's inexpensive. And it can afford to be inexpensive because it cuts corners elsewhere, mainly in being environmentally conscious.

Being good for the earth costs money, and businesses that thrive on pennies on the dollar profits aren't going to decrease their environmental footprint unless they're forced into it. Just as littering is a crime, so should pollution. The latter is actually much worse for us than the former.

Huh? Without Wal-Mart many people would have no jobs.

I'm not disputing that, but just because a company employs a lot of people doesn't mean that it treats them or the environment fairly.

Also, Wal-Mart is allowed to be as bad as it is due to unfair government policies. The fact is, government does nothing to help the environment, it spreads false fears, holds back progress that would actually help and unfairly punishes people.

I agree that our current government is doing a shitty job. I'm just saying that economic regulation in general is required to some degree in order to protect the environment.

As scummy as people are, I don't think they'd sit by and blindly support a company that was causing irrational harm.

You'd be surprised.

I'm pro Captain Planet.
He's our hero.

Good on some points, bad on others.

As one of my lecturers pointed out, they're protesting by waving plastic signs, a by-product of oil, while wearing nylon/polyester clothes (oil) and then going back to their coal-fire station-powered, centrally heated, well-lit homes to argue about the environment while eating food that may or may not have been grown intensively/ using fertilizers and pesticides. Hypocrisy and Irony at it's finest.

Frankly there's too many people on this Earth to live environmentally-friendly, so protesting about power sources such as Nuclear and Fracking/Shale Gas at this stage is a bit late and pointless unless serious population control is implemented.

False.

I knew the second Icywind said this you were going to mention something along the lines of hemp clothing.

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on October 19, 2014, 06:56:17 AM

You're delusional if you think that government is the solution.

Carbon.

Tax.

Is the government also being taxed?