Reducing pollution Is a noble intent for a myriad of reasons, why are there people here still angrily lashing out pretending it's all a scam? Even if our meddling in earth's climate is negligible, not having air that smells like shit and garbage everywhere is still something worth the sacrifice.
Because people are uneducated loudmouth retards. We need constitutional monarchy so large scale policy is decided by educated professionals managed by enlightened despots.
what kind of animal is this?
It's a semi domesticated version of the wild bush tractor or incertus laborus, photos of them in the wild are more rare but sometimes caught on 60 degree slopes with a big blade spinning around on the back cutting down gorse with a man riding on their back
Nice try klaus, please hurry up and do us all the courtesy of dying
you're right: china and india need to be stopped
because a lot of options are scams to trick people into buy snake oil. solar is garbage because you get very little energy from a panel that doesnt really last that long, and you need to mine for heavy metals which is also incredibility dirty. wind is also trash because they require a lot of plastic to make, which means you still rely on oil productions, when you could just oil as a fuel source instead, they also dont generate enough energy. then both windmills and solar panels cant be recycled so they go into another landfill.
if you really want to save the environment invest in nuclear.
Those farmers need to realize they live in a democracy and this serve the people. If they keep throwing these tantrums, they need to realize the voters can nationalize their shit and pay them minimum wage.
>voters can steal your private property
>government can tell you what to do with it
Subsidy for farmers is a mistake, nothing is free
Then the people can stop moaning about having to pay too much for food.
They would have nothing to moan about, you're right
>water level rising will flood some arid dry areas and turn them into green sub climates
>more areas to live for humans
>this apparently is a bad thing because it will destroy what infrastructure already exist like its a bad thing that most of it is crumbling and has little to no maintenance anyways
>because a slight temperature increase is apparently going to doom the world
HUH? what kind of mindfuck scam is this
Downstream of someone who ate meat too many times a week
Maybe if people just stopped eating then we wouldn’t need so much farmland to make food to feed people. Easier to import rice from Thailand or indomie from Indonesia anyway.
Until they don't send you any rice anymore. A lot of places are protectionist about their trade in food to make sure they have enough local supply, otherwise you can be at risk of literal starvation and famine on the whims of the market and the global situation. Looking at you EU who signs a trade deal with new zealand and only take a miniscule amount of meat and milk in it
Good starvation means less people and that means less pollution. Checkmate flat earthers.
Enough local production, I mean
Reducing pollution is a great idea.
Shifting pollution to other countries, where products are made with less care for the environment, whilst meanwhile increasing cost of products in your country and putting people out of a job in your own country is not a good way to reduce pollution.
yes, just hamstring your national industries and become dependent on other countries for agriculture as you turn farms into more housing for 'refugees'. it will, in no way, backfire. see you in a decade where I call all of you retards out.
>implying holland isn't already completely dependant from foreign exports
>implying it will start housing more refugees once the rest of the population is starving
nobody fucking said about removing the industries, just to change them. like for instance stop wasting fertilizers and turning the land into a poison soaked wasteland that smells like rotten egg.
the rotten egg smell is probably from manure, and almost nothing short of removing cattle completely will fix it. so no more milk, no more beef, no more natural fertilizer all so you can move somewhere without doing due diligence and finding out there is a dairy nearby. and sometimes, the use of herbicides is unavoidable. wild blackberries and poison hemlock will force your hand into using broadleaf killers. large operations, like corn farmers, use roundup ready shit because they are operating on razor-thin margins and want that consistent yearly income. weeding naturally would cost more money in fuel and labor, and it would mean losing money out of principle.
as to your deluded take that such a drastic change to industry wouldn't cull at least some of it: grow the fuck up and read a book.
Both sides are awful at actually caring about the environment.
>Prefers radical solutions
>Has the most annoying activists (Tire extinguishers, road blockers, etc.)
>Cares more about doing activism on tiktok rather than getting results
>Proposes city, state level solutions at the federal level (Such as nationwide amtrak, as opposed to more city busses)
>Wants to make driving more of a pain in the ass without offering better solutions (If my bus doesn't go to work I am forced to drive regardless of how much of a pain it is)
>Often falls for grifters, such as the hyperloop, solar roadways, etc.
>Won't admit that motorcyclists are more eco-friendly than tesla driving suburbanites, so they don't focus on things like lane filtering laws
>Simply does not care
>If you don't want to live near an industrial wasteland, too bad.
>Too focused on the 14% of americans who live rural
>If you can't drive, we don't care.
>Hates the EPA, chooses jobs over environment every time
The left and the right is wrong, join the eco-fash movement. We believe that nature is the property of the state, and while some resources need to come from the earth, we need to strike a balance between what is good for the state and what is good for the earth. Join us.
The way you described it there's not a big difference between eco leftism and eco fascism. The vague points like ''prefers radical solutions'' apply to fascism even moreso. Some other things are hyper specific examples and you're only able to find more examples because eco leftism is a far bigger movement.
We need to remain vigilant against Russian Aggression, as the unrest we are seeing across the world is a result of Putin's global price hike. Ask yourself who benefits from spreading images of western extremist elements revolting and blocking transportation? It is possible that Russia is expanding their online operations to cover apolitical boards. Glavset bots have no place on Wauf.
I really hope this is satire. If not, who benefits from suppressing dissent? The same corrupt politicians that have been in power and trying to do so in western countries for decades. You don't need to look beyond your borders to find a problem.
This. Secretary of State Blinken was correct in placing the blame on Putin’s aggression for the unrest in Sri Lanka. The events unfolding in Europe are part of a wider trend of Russian disinformation and destabilization resulting in real world disruption.
Isn't that exactly what the CIA did in multiple countries and is probably even doing in the Unite
Because there are people spreading disinformation that people like to believe.
The nitrogen crisis is complicated. Nitrogen emissions aren't always necessarily polluting. If what you're trying to maintain is a beech forest for example nitrogen only helps. However the problem in the Netherlands is that the most important natural areas are open herb-grass landscapes that usually occur in early stages of succession, but due to the stabilising effects of humans who don't want floods, fires or any other major changes in the landacape these areas become rarer.
If you add nitrogen there, it will allow species that do well under nitrogen rich conditions to outcompete the species that do well under nitrogen poor conditions, which will eventually turn it into something like a beech forest.
You probably knew all this, but farmers don't. To farmers, nitrogen is what makes their crops grow better. They add nitrogen to the soil to make the plants do better. How the fuck is that supposed to be a problem? Why do they have to give up their profession and way of life to reduce the emissions of something that is good for plants?
The solution would be to explain it to them, but there are politicians who see ways to gain popularity, so they say nitrogen is indeed good for the plants and that there is no crisis. Plus the Germans take less measures against nitrogen emissions and they have no crisis (never mind their lower population density).
Add to that a feeling that everyone sees farmers as stupid and farmers will easily fall for politicians that claim farmers know what is best for nature and that nothing has to change.
Looks like you're making an honest effort to explain, so I'll make an honest effort to listen. I don't think I'm following exactly what the issue is. What is the expected bad outcome if nitrogen emissions remain where they are and why is that outcome expected?
Is it just that there will be more beech forests or is there more to it?
The issue is that we simply won't be able to maintain the rare landscapes like heath or the variety of flowery grasslands. We can't take the nitrogen out fast enough to counteract the input. The problem is that they're already rare systems, and if they disappear it's very likely a whole lot of plant and animal species would go with them.
That alone would be enough for me, but even if rare ecosystems aren't of any interest to you, it could have pretty disastrous results for agriculture as well.
It's estimated that evosystem services are worth over half the global GDP, and a large part of that is in the form of pest supression, which is highly dependent on biodiversity.
Basically the principle is that the more species you have, the more likely that if any pest species increases in number there's a species that can effectively feed on it. The more effective of a predator available, the lower the density that species can reach, reducing the severity of outbreaks or preventing them altogether.
With that, the disappearance of those ecosystems from the Netherlands could severely worsen pests.
Alright, couple questions.
Can you elaborate on the mechanism that's threatening these rare ecosystems? Yeah the issue is elevated nitrogen levels, but presumably farmers are not dumping tons of fertilizer on land they're not farming. So how's it getting there? Is it from runoff after a rainfall? Seeping into groundwater and moving through an aquifer or something? What's happening there?
Second, can you provide some evidence supporting your concerns about reduced pest suppression? Bear with me, but the eco-crowd doesn't have a stellar track record when it comes to forecasting catastrophes, so I'd like a little more information.
Well the issue is mainly nitrogen oxides and ammonium emissions, and then mainly ammonium. Dung from livestock can emit it, and it can either come down on its own or come down with rainfall.
As for the sources, here's one for the estimated value of ecosystem services this is a good one but it's locked behind a subscription: https://www.nature.com/articles/387253a0
This one is available for free:
Much as I like to learn, I’m not going to shell out right now. I did read the free paper and it was a good read, thanks for sharing. I didn’t see it touch on nitrogen soil levels specifically, but I think I understand your reasoning well enough to see how those conditions could lead to similar impacts described in the paper.
At its heart, I’m unconvinced the particular fears you expressed will come to pass. I think I can follow your logic, but when the price to pay will cost many people their livelihood I can’t get behind that without a higher level of certainty.
Even if the danger is real and imminent, I’m not convinced the proposed measures are the best way to go about it. The paper itself says, “The effects are strongly modulated by socio-economic factors, particularly the development of semi-natural elements in agricultural landscapes.” The Netherlands government has been very vague about what exactly these new restrictions will look like, an ongoing point of criticism, so I’m working a little in the dark here. Could there be another way less damaging to existing industry, like developing more of these “semi-natural elements”?
There’s one last point tugging at the back of my head. A farmer has more incentive than anyone to maintain the productivity of his land. If the problem is so clear, why does he need to be forced to take corrective measures? Some people in this thread would say the farmer is a greedy idiot, but that’s foolish. If he’s successfully running a large corporate enterprise he’s very likely far from an idiot. Someone else mentioned Dutch agriculture is all done on land leased from the government, which didn’t seem accurate when I checked, but I could be mistaken. I suppose that would seriously lessen a businessman’s commitment to preserve that asset when he’ll only hold it for a limited time. Maybe that’s a systemic issue to be resolved by privatization.
>If he’s successfully running a large corporate enterprise he’s very likely far from an idiot
You're wrong. The vast majority of farmers inherit everything from their family. Becoming a farmer from scratch Is extremely difficult and usually results in bankrupcy within a couple of years.
If the current farmers are so stupid how is it that newcomers have such a high rate of failure? Farming is a business like any other. Success strongly correlates to intelligence.
Many reasons. First, they don't have a clue on how to run a farm, and farmers are thaught by their parents all their life. Second, banks are notoriously diffident towards agricolturers and it's difficult to have a loan from them, and the meager earning of a kickstarted farm can hardly pay its dues. Third, there's a lot of competition to get your hard earned land and other farmers will actively try to steal It from you, or worse, building companies that will convince your municipality how much more lucrative is to simply build apartments there than growing crops. Then there's the unions, and the lack of any connection will have your activity killed in no time. Then there's the state who doesn't want to give any more gibs and when they do they come too late or too few. Not to mention the usual maladies, pests, market fluctuations ecc. Seasoned farmers work on an enterprise that has been stabilized in much simpler times and even they are always trying to squeeze as much money as possible from it. Because even they are not impervious to the myriad of reasons that may cause their livelihood to go in smoke.
tldr. nitrogen emissions are not based on nitrogen but nitrogen derivatives, ie ammonia. which is toxic.
Well the problem isn't necessarily toxicity, it's that the ammonium and nitrogen oxides end up as plant-available nutrients in the soil, which is more favourable to the plants we don't want than to the plants we want, causing the loss of the plants we want.
It also has a mild acidifying effect which has a similar result. In high concentrations it is toxic but the toxicity is usually buffered by the soil and won't be a problem until it reaches very high concentrations.
this implying that magically the metric fucktons of nitrates wasted by farmers will magically drop consistently in the soil and start growing azaleas, instead of being just washed at sea and causing massive blooms of mucilage and poisoning all the sealife that are not algae and jellyfish.
Was there not a few farms over a 1000 acres that let the field gow fallow for 2 years send the soil regen that are producing higher yeilds while actually diversifying crops (not just much onions qnd mu corn) with no till farming methods?
>Was there not a few farms over a 1000 acres that let the field gow fallow for 2 years
Maybe if you are freehold you can do that but not if you have to pay 12 grand a month just to stay on your land
Isn’t nitrogen the most comment element on earth? How can you remove something that is like 80% of the planet? What is this psyop?
Somebody please explain this retard how mentally fucking stunted he is, i have exhausted my patience
I thought as much
We need to invent sterilizing chemicals and put it in the food.
>implying we don't already
they literally turn the friggin frogs gay
>worth the sacrifice
Easy to say when it's not your livelihood being destroyed.
who gives a fuck about the livelihood of a farmer. the ants that crawl on his asscrack at night are worth a hundred times more than him
And that farmer's worth a hundred times more than you. At least he produces something useful.
like what, traffic jams? farmers' main income comes from exports, and even that is insufficient for them to live, since they're buried in expensive machinery. they leech off gibs. and you that defend them, fuck you.
Don't lay government subsides at my feet. I don't want my money stolen to prop up anyone's industry. But the solution to that is cutting subsidies, not further empowering government to pick and choose who gets to stay in business.
they already do you retard. farmers work on state owned land, not theirs, using state bought tools, not theirs, and buying and selling goods based on the taxes that the state puts, not them. all that is asked from farmers is to stop dumping fertilizers in the fucking sea.
>stop dumping fertilizers in the fucking sea.
they dont, its just that it does scape in rains or storms
The Netherland's agricultural production is largely done by private entities, including cooperatives, holding private assets. They have a strict zoning system and some special rules for transfer of agricultural leases, but I can't find anything saying they price set or that state-owned equipment is the norm for their industry.
Either way, get them off the government dime.
> worth the sacrifice.
To a billionaire, nothing is worth slowing their rise to trillionaire status. Nothing.
>Reducing pollution Is a noble intent for a myriad of reasons
No one will disagree with you on that.
>why are there people here still angrily lashing out pretending it's all a scam?
Because the blame has been shifted a few huge corporations to billions of people. Companies provided us with a cost effective way of life, and then told us that we were wrong for using the things they gave us. Retarded leftists and ecomentalists fell for this hook line and sinker.
You're grossly underestimating the level of incivility the average normie has. They litter everywhere, they drive to make 10 meters, they throw their garbage on the sidewalk, they turn on the AC when it's 25 °C, they let their dogs shit everywhere and their cats roam freely, they don't eat anything that's not wrapped in polyester and eat meat in every meal. The least can go on and on and on. Needless to say, despite what the big corps do to the environment, ultimately the greatest contributor of pollution is the average joe.
I will never understand the mindset of someone who throws a pile of trash out their car window. What is going on in that empty space between their ears
how else does one supress evidence of drinking and driving?
Nothing. There is nothing in their heads. This is something impossible to understand for people with actual internal monologue without a big heap of empathic ability.
when the lesser animal can no longer see something they are no longer cognizant of its existence. although even your dog knows you are still out there when you leave for work, these basic automatons have no object permanence. when the trash is out of sight it has left this plane of existence. when they see trash the next day they don't really know or care when it came from, they just look away from it and then it's gone.
You travel the world and see that there's hundreds of millions who throw their shit in the gutters. But anon, some of those same folks run big companies too
>eat meat in every meal
dis is fine, its all the other stuff that is terrible
>eat meat every meal
Protein fuels gains. You don't get enough from plants alone. Eat your chicken you skeletal bitch.
I get being vain but why do gymfags need to impose their vanity onto other people even when it's detrimental to the planet?
>eating right and being in shape
How fat are you?
you can eat right and be in shape without paying someone for the priveledge to run on the spot or pick things up and put them down again
>can't imagine someone would just run outside
I ask again, how fat are you?
i didnt know we called people who run around outside gymfags
He's fat as fuck. Probably poor too if he can't even afford a basic set of dumbells or free weights. Typical of most people who demand solutions but are unwilling to act themselves.
>Noooo not the heckin veggies!
>Grug only eats meat!
/fit/fags are completely deranged
imagine thinking youre a baller paying someone for heavy things to pick up and put down
What's this even about? Wasn't this originally about meat eating?
Yeah pollution is all about meat. I ate a steak once and now look at my driveway
Turning vegan is beyond retarded. One can be vegetarian and still be healthy. A vegan is an emaciated zealot, maybe not deluded like the jingoistic meatheads but even more dangerous, as It will try constantly to convert or force people into veganism.
>eating less meat makes you fat
What are these retarded mental gymnastics?
>throw trash in trash bin
>throw recyclables in recycle bin
>take it to the dump on friday
>town dump ships it overseas
So what am I supposed to do?
Buy the dump and run it better. Maybe you can work there a few years first to save up the money
i honestly dont care about the environment any more
i used to but its too depressing and theres literally nothing i can do about it
i live a modest life as it is, i dont buy much and what i do buy is usually used or things to repair used things
i have a 20 year old toyota subcompact that i only use to get myself to and from my job and uses about 30 litres of gas per work week
MY JOB involves using thousands of litres of diesel PER DAY on site and a lot of it involves working on previously pristine lands and just stripping them
this isnt even the most depressing job ive had by a long shot compared to jobs like where you import garbage from china and sell it to people who throw it in the garbage
i could forgo working and possessions and all human comforts in protest of this deranged system but it wouldnt make a difference to anyone but me
someone else will fill these jobs and now im just a poor homeless person even more miserable than before
i was at least able to buy some pristine land of my own with the money i made at my lucrative descructive construction job which is more than a lot of us are able
Pay the government every time your dog farts. Or sell the whole place to someone who plant trees all over it and sell carbon credits to an overseas factory. Simple as
look up al gore's carbon footprint
Your point being?
it's huge, he's a hypocrite
Doesn't mean that you cannot do the right thing.
I do what I can while biden closes down american factories with his horrible policies
I have a garden, I grow about half of the vegetables that I consume, I live 10 minutes away from my job, what else do you want me to do?
You already know what they want you to do. Here's the real question, do these fucks think of us as anything other than slaves?
>Politician has mansions and private jets
Wow water is wet. Nobody gives credit to al gore save for matt groening. Regardless the fact that a hot topic is being used as a political tool doesn't mean It doesn't exist. I don't need activists or blabbermouths to tell me that global warming and pollution Is bad
Okay, so let's focus our efforts on convincing china to clean up
>let's ask china to not pollute
>china says to go fuck yourself
>ho home stomping feet and decide not to do anything in your country
Genius move. How would you force them to do it? Mind that polluting for them is in the corps interest as well, they don't want them to stop polluting. China lives off the western industries, their main income comes from cheap exports. If they can't work without regulations or regards for human safety or environmental concerns then they're bound to collapse. And they won't certainly let that happen.
I care about my homeland more.
Farmers are fucking assholes with no regard nor respect for the environment. They are greedy motherfuckers whose name incorrectly suggests that they sweat and toil in the crops all day. Landlords should be more appropriate. poltards love them so much because it's the closest thing to "tradition" they can come up with. And they stupidly believe that a levelled chemically treated patch of crops where gas guzzling monsters roam all day plundering what little Is left is somehow "Natural".
>lets just take all of these non whites and move them into a high 'carbon' area, that will always go great
>lets also turn the literal green areas into a concrete hellscape and destroy the environment!
>brilliant, that's perfect
Fucking have a nice day garden gnome, before someone gets a hand on you and gives you a worse execution than the mexican drug cartel.
one world government is not an eventuality they just say it is to cow people into inaction and complacency
the people have the numbers and should use them blamelessly while we still can
Why do pod people addicted to anti depressants think they know how to run the world when most of them can't even cook?
Most of the pollution comes from shithole countries, but the only ones being asked to change lifestyles are white countries. That's why people with common sense are upset.
Most of the pollution in your country comes from the people in your country. Do you want to become like India? If not clean it up.
My country already cleans its shit up, which is why we're not like India now and won't be tomorrow. Why should my people go out of our way to incur enormous costs and hardship to enable people I don't know and will never see?
No country is free from pollution. Even if it was, you would still have invasive species to worry about.
back to facebook, boomer
>area that isn't densely populated
>area that's extremely densely populated
Also you don't live there. Also wtf is that image quality?? Also this
>Implying i have to live in a shitty shack full of cockroaches to better understand the environment
>Implying that because i'm richer than you philistine labourer i can't have an objective opinion on how truly messed up are animal factories
>Implying i don't recycle, use public transportation and bike, and eat from certified native producers
>Implying that i should go back eating processed shit and gas guzzling my way to work because that's how you do it
>Implying i'm the hypocrite and not you
The people telling you eating too much meat will cause pollution are the biggest owners of farmland in the US worth personally 130 billion dollars or so a lot invested into carbon credits and alternative foods. Here's a better meme people who live here
I have never heard about people trying to control Nitrogen levels.
The people here who are angry about it are oil industry plants
If you disagree with me, you're just one of them
Because it leaves room for a lot of evil and opportunistic people. There's also a lot of straight up bullshit from out of touch politicians who want lower income people to ditch their cars (that they depend on for work) to buy a 60k electric vehicle.
Environmental protection in general, while noble, attracts so many greedy and controlling rats out of the woodwork. It's unbelievable.
The exceedingly wealthy people who claim to care about "saving the environment" and "reducing pollution" are not spending their fortunes to do so.
They're not willing to sacrifice their own wealth to combat these problems. They're not willing to stop flying private jets. They're not willing to stop owning a dozen houses. They're not willing to stop using slave labor in poor countries to produce their products. They're not willing to save the planet if it means they have to live as middle class or poor people. No, they want the poor and middle class to change the way they live. They want the poor and middle class to make sacrifices, not themselves.
Until the wealthy elites start putting their money where their mouth is, until they give up being billionaires and millionaires by spending their fortunes to actually make real change, not just pushing for the middle and lower classes to change, I refuse to accept that pollution and climate change are issues I should care about. If pollution is really such a big deal, but Bill Gates isn't willing to spend 90% of his money to fight it, then I don't care. The rich have the money and connections to solve the pollution problem. They can fund solutions out of their own pockets that would benefit everyone, like building nuclear power plants and robots to clean the plastic from the ocean, but they don't. The top five wealthiest people in the world could solve the problem in a decade, but they won't because then they won't be wealthy anymore, they'll lose all their money in the process of saving the planet. And they aren't willing to do that. They never do anything that doesn't lead to them making more money.
Those who have everything are never willing to spend for the benefit of others, so why should us poor people who have almost nothing be willing to give up what little we have?
The farmers are uber rich greedy fucks NEXT
No private individual can rival the wealth of first world countries. Do you even know the US gdp?
What's psychopatic about a global 2 child policy?
>what's psychopathic about having the government regulate your reproductive system
Honey, it is for the greater good. You are psychotic for not wanting to take part in the greater good, and would prefer Mother Nature die.
And who the fuck are you to tell me what the greater good is?
You are not an expert. We are the experts. You don't understand that what you are doing is against your own self interests. But we do. We know what is best for everyone.
The people who don't understand why the farmers are upset haven't read much, and have the emotional intelligence of a 12 year old. It us no wonder tyrannical regimes of the past valued children so much. Everything the government does had noble intent, and is for the greater good. It is that simple.
gotta agree op, after all it's a pretty major issue
as is proper waste disposal
and of course, plastic endin up in the ocean
ya don't gotta be a turtle to know that
Wtf Sri Lanka? Kek
They have a relatively large population on a relatively small island. 24th most dense country in the world, and they're surrounded by ocean. It's not laudable, but not surprising that they dump a lot of waste in the ocean when it's the cheapest option available.
We already know that China and India are the most polluted counteies, no need to repeat it. You can't change that (or any issue of global scale) in your lifetime, but you can change the impact you have on your local ecosystems and significantly contribute to them. The land that directly surrounds you is the land that you're truly responsible for, and the way you treat it really shows how much you care for nature and biodiversity. Focusing on global issues beyond your grasp is just a sneaky and disingenuous way to dodge your responsibility.
And yet we are being told to do things a certain way or to pay certain taxes to influence global carbon emissions. Global.
What you fail to understand is that lowering emissions has local ripercussions. And as OP said, a cleaner air and a greener country is better than just another industrial shithole that forces itself in a constant economic growth since the end of ww2
Clean air and a green country is great. Doesn’t mean how the government plans to go about it is in everyone’s best interest, for the greater good. It isn’t. It is a good excuse to push through policy that people never asked for and has nothing to do with protecting the environment. After all if you disagree with what the government does, it must mean you want the earth to shrivel up and die, like in wall-E! How unthoughtful of you, you must only care about profit over protecting the land for future generations. You deserve to be punished.
So, what Is your solution, you inbred turbosucking gay? Pretend that nothing happens and gas guzzling your way until you have to wear a gas mask to get out?
Ah yes, now since I don’t trust the government it means I hate the environment and I want the land to become a wall-e hell’scape, with gas masks! As predicted. You useful idiots are all the same.
You're being hysterical.
Not him but my direct solution is making nuclear power our primary energy source.
>Strip mining for lithium bad
>Strip mining for uranium good
Actually yes. Uranium mining isn't as environmentally destructive as lithium mining.
My solution is to let Dutch farmers work. It's better for the Netherlands than what's being imposed on them now.
>You can't change that (or any issue of global scale) in your lifetime
>The world will end if we don't become CO2 neutral in 10 years
Then what's the point?
>The world will end if we don't become CO2 neutral in 10 years
Nah the weather will just get weirder. Sometimes it's not all that bad. Wet tropical summers anyone? Depends where you are
>You can't change that (or any issue of global scale) in your lifetime
So go work at the dump, buy that thing up and teach your kids to be the best garbage men around lol. Its easy to point at problems but harder to fix them. People winge about a cow poo but in don't see them cleaning out the sewers
Serious question, does this count CO2 as pollution? And is it per capita? China and India have a fuckton of people.
co2 is not fine particle matter. It is not a real pollutant.
>still something worth the sacrifice
>Implying the deaths of billions of nigers, goks and latrinos somehow is a bad thing
Because farmers don't want to lose their jobs. We should still fuck them up but we should make sure that yuppies suffer even more. As we're in the process of hurting industries anyway, let's illegalize marketing, put an enormous tax on air travel and put massive tarifs on imports.
They won't lose any job. Farmers are fucking millionaires and leech off gibs. A single tractor is worth twice your house. I know farmers, they spend their day blowing coke and riding sports cars. They're NOT the bucolic happy labourers that pol believes they are. And most of all, they don't give a shit about their land. Once they had to, but now with all the tech available, they don't need to di 90% of what they used to do, just spray away a cubic fuckton of pesticides and fertilizers, build greenhouses, cut off trees to maximise the surface, waste water by the truckload to grow rice in the desert. They don't want to adapt, they want the gov to babysit them.
The sheer misanthropy in those post.
This is how every single response to liberal politics goes.
>nothing bad will happen to you
>and if it does, you probably deserve it
Oh hello there, lonely shepherd. How's the new Lamborghini Gallardo treating you?
These weird ad hominems do not hide your brazen efforts to deindustrialize and impoverish the West.
Asking for less destructive and invasive methods impoverishes the west? In the contrary, It lifts them from the rest. You just feel cozy in this status Quo and don't want to change anything.
It lifts them up by wraping them in endless red tape and contradictory environmental regulations?
Let me ask you something. What happened in China on the 4th of June 1989?
You're either very ingenuous or very disingenuous. Completely detached from reality either way
Anon, any environment lover worth a grain of salt is VEHEMENTLY misanthropic. overpopulation is the mother of all problems on this earth. And don't fucking pretend to love humans because you don't, like when all of a sudden you think of the children just because the lefties rage about the new abortion laws. At least i'm honest about it, i don't hide my real feelings behind identity politics like your boomers politicians you like to lick their boots so much
Sounds like you're using environmentalism as an outlet for your sociopathic personality disorder.
Tell me how natural it is to despise humans when we're suddenly shifting to immigration issues. Then suddenly I have to bend over backwards to preserve the goodness of humankind.
Go ahead and take out all of your neighbor's trash then.
Very natural. But i guess suddenly you're the fucking pope right? First you lash out against china and india, and then say that i'm a sociopath to blame overpopulation. You're a two faced fucking hypocrite
>Go ahead and take out all of your neighbor's trash then
I do plenty of cleaning, planting and monitoring as a volunteer. The time I spent in the woods doing my part for conservation has been extremely positive and rewarding. The fact that you're grasping so hard for excuses to not do your part really shows how little you care about nature.
>leech off gibs
Yeah, we shouldn't be paying for their shit. So why you don't support abolishing farm subsidies rather than miring them further in red tape and destroying their businesses out right. If they can stand on their own two legs it's no skin off either of us.
Most farmers are not nearly so wealthy as you imagine. You've disproportionately come into contact with farmers near growing urban areas, which has given you this warped perception. As urban areas sprawl, nearby land prices are driven way up. A farmer owning a large operation can now sell land he or his family has held for many years for enormous gain. Examining revenue might make you think farmers are all rich, but their costs are equally large. Agriculture, like essentially all mature industries, operates on very thin margins.
>These fucking kulaks are millionaires, my bolshevik comrades tell me
You can't reduce pollution and keep a civilization going without culling a certain percentage of the population.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Because it's easier to pretend it's all a big conspiracy than trying to solve the problem.
>why are there people here still angrily lashing out pretending it's all a scam?
Because they care about identity politics more than pursuing rightful causes.
They prefer to live in a dirtier, uglier and less biodiverse world than conceding a point to their political opponents or working towards a common goal.
This is why I think that environmental causes should be considered above politics. They're a lot more important than whatever bullshit people believe in.
>we must save the planet
>we can only do this by killing entire industries and funneling more cash from the lower and middle class to the ultra-wealthy
>the world's major polluting countries aren't required to do anything tho
>this cause is too noble for you to question our methods
And this is where they cross over into "utter bullshit" territory.
>If developing nations don't do anything then why should i?
>It's da jooz!
have a nice day.
>It's da jooz!
Well it is but I hadn't mentioned that yet, so thanks for outing yourself.
Now fuck off to your Soros buddies and leave our Western nations in peace.
Outing myself? It's you that spout the same fucking trite over and over you moron. Always the same lame excuses in order not to do anything. Go back to your fucking containment board you simpleton, you're too stupid to engage in a conversation here
>It's you that spout the same fucking trite over and over
Trite what? Anyway, as long as a problem exists it will keep being addressed. Am I only supposed to complain once?
You'd make a great physician.
>doctor i've been shot!
>yes, yes. I've heard you the first 15 times. now take this penicillin and go home.
Enjoy not having a job (or economy (or food))
>If developing nations don't do anything then why should i?
If the goal is to reduce pollution, why disregard the biggest polluters?
>It's da jooz!
It's billionaires being dickweeds regardless of their tiny hat club membership status
Absolute childish narrow minded mentality.
Yes yours is. I mean you're not even trying to address the issues and just skip to bellyaching and name-calling.
You're refusing to aknowledge your country's role in pollution because you're obsessed with what other countries may do. You don't want to change out of principle. That's narrow minded childish mentality. Do you think i root for those bastards? Who even told you that?
>You're refusing to aknowledge your country's role in pollution because you're obsessed with what other countries may do.
As in, I have common sense. Thanks for pointing this out.
In a world of fairness and equity there's no point in 20% of the world doing 80% of the work.
>there's no point
There is a point; protecting our natural heritage.
"Work" as in: buying a tesla, only taking the airplane once a year instead of twice a year and eating slightly smaller steaks
Teslas and all EVs are objectively WORSE for the environment than a normal gas car. Lithium mining today is done mostly in China and they basically just strip mine the hell out of the ground and use acid to do so. It is extremely terrible for the environment and if we ramp up Lithium battery production we will hit peak Lithium in under 30 years.
The ONLY futute we have that could be called green is one where we're using nuclear power.
The weird thing is population control or even acknowledging population is a problem will get you hate from both the right and the left.
There’s better battery technology but I think we just don’t know how to cheaply scale it up. EVs literally took well off tinkerers and an internet tycoon to get lithium off the ground. Similar folks got to start playing with mass producing graphene and nanoscale and make things all the rest of us will demand in place of some dumb old Tesla that can only do 0-60 in 2 seconds.
to be fair, if they stopped with foreign aid, you wouldn't have to deal with population, just let nature do it
i also like being told to buy an electric car while also being told to lower/raise me heat and air conditioner to ease strain on the grid
makes no god damn sense
Gee, you sure changed my mind with that complete absence of counterargument
>If the goal is to reduce pollution, why disregard the biggest polluters?
First of all we can't force other countries to do things unless we'll endure the negative consequences
Second of all we're the biggest polluters per capita by far
>but b... b... but.. per capita doesnt count
You're a fucking idiot.
Farmers live on government subsidy for a hard job that is integral to a nations survival.
India and China are exceedingly wealthy, as is the middle east, and they do fuck all.
Hate em but tiny hat club is something I'd probably join tbh
>If developing nations don't do anything then why should i?
Unironically yes. Why should the west be forced to change while China and India continue to metaphorically and literally shit up the planet?
>It's da jooz!
Cool it with the antisemetic remarks
>Why should the west be forced to change
Because it's positive change. If other countries want to sink into hell that's ok, but I want to live in a green country.
Positive change my ass. Sure, lets just offshore all our industry and go totally renewable. Surely there will be zero negative consequences for doing so. What's that? China has 4x the industrial capacity we do and are now steamrolling Asia and the Pacific? Oh God who could have seen this coming.
China Is currently the nation that is investing the most in renewables. And if people here wants to move to other less pollutant systems, it means they still want to produce, you dingus. Offshoring industries is a practice completely unrelated to environmental issues, and It started centuries ago.
When businesses at home are so mired in red tape from environmental regulations that they can't hope to start new productive enterprises domestically it should be expected they'll prefer to invest abroad, so it's very much related.
>USA? Clean as a whistle
Peak jingoism right there.
Anon did not mention the USA even once. This thread is over. Your tactics are tired, your arguments toxic, and your dishonesty is on full display.
>I know! I'll throw out some strawmen and not address the substance of his argument!!!
Suck shit and die. I honestly can't believe so many of you dumb fuckers fall for the lines the global monied elita are shitting down your throat.
They tell you about all the sacrifices you ah e to make while they live in luxury, telling you to accept a lower standard of living while China and India continue to pump more pollutants into the air and water than the next 3 countries combined. You'll do anything, as long as you can delude yourself into thinking your in anyway helping without actually doing anything. Just give more power to corporations and governments, that always works out so well.
Newsflash dipshits, conservation starts at home. You want clean air and clean water? Start with your local area, do some volunteer work, pick up some garbage, plant some trees. But no, you won't do that, you'll sit with your thumbs crammed up your asses and wait for someone to do it for you, because you such a collection of weak fucking NIMBYists.
Fuck all of you, I'll drop dead before I ever take an ounce of conversation advice from you spineless, feckless cowards.
Even the 'evil farmers' that live in my local area plant hundreds of trees without any government or corporate incentive just to make a nice wooded walkway area for their kids and other future generation to enjoy. Meanwhile the fuckers in their ivory towers are trading carbon credits and punishing farmers to save the planet.
I don't know who this one bro is who keeps trying to convince us that farmers are a bunch of wild party throwing playboys, but I'm willing to bet big money he'd be killing Kulaks alongside this stalinist goon buddies.
Planting a london plane by their house doesn't make up for the forests they clear and wetlands they drain to accommodate their chemically treated monocultures, and not all trees are equally useful.
Statistically even farm hedgerows are in decline because farmers have to exploit every square inch of land.
Of they plant trees it's because they want to sell wood. They don't leave trees on the corners of the fields anymore, because it deprives them from space that can be used to extend the crops. Once they let trees grow as it would give them shadow to rest, but now with their 700k tractors with AC they don't need that anymore. Also trees kept the terrain from sliding off and keep the watering canals intact. Now they just use an irrigator so they don't care if canals are suddenly clogged with dirt.
The trees that the farmers I know plant are not for wood. They are mixed native trees to create an area of native forest around a stream and a walkway.
I can assure you that the practices you see in the druid village you're from are not the standard for agricultural sites worldwide.
The native hedgerows, wooded areas and water channels that used surround every farm are being flattened to make space for more crops. Their presence is vital for wildlife, soil and water quality, but it's an inconvenient obstacle for the modern tools of agriculture.
I live in a suburban area of Southern New Zealand, and the farmers here are real nice. Or at least the ones I know are. Some are even scientists and have been involved in some scientific publications to determine yield or someshit when using certain fertilizers or pesticides. They aren't some fairytale villains hellbent on making as much money as possible while sucking the land bare and leaving pollution in their wake.
NZ farmers haven't had a subsidy since the 1980s and its the largest industry in the country so take overseas criticism of agriculture from people who live in cities with more people than our whole country with a big grain of shit
>muh city slicker
how retarded can you possibly be? only when you personally know farmers you can judge them. and i do both, because i live amongst them. they're a fucking cancer and they ruined my land.
>only when you personally know farmers you can judge them
>how retarded can you possibly be?
I'll give you a hint that post before yours that's my dog, that's the 1000 acres I am running next to the massive forest, that's the square bales I throw out by hand every morning. It won't fit in an image without some aerial photography but there's 40ha bush within it too. And no I don't own it so fuck off with the tractor worth a house rhetoric, you think old codgers are running their own places?
You don't live among places like that unless you are on horseback lmao, you probably drive right past them without knowing they are even there
>ruined my land
You stake claim to things that aren't yours while never bothering to wonder why a farmer, who has the mos to gain from properly maintaining his land, would ruin it. You just don't know as much about agriculture as you think you do. Antiquated features like hedgerows are becoming less common in some regions because, as you or another anon previously admitted, the purpose they once served isn't needed now that better substitutes are available.
and is this supposed to negate my statement? they destroyed what countryside was left to maximise profit. not only that, at the first crop market fluctuation they chicken out, sell the land, and let the building companies make rows of commieblocks instead.
Desire to maximize profit is nothing new. You're romanticizing an old image of agriculture. Those hedgerows and canals were no more natural than the farms you see today. Each and every one was put in place by a farmer, or several farmers, looking to maximize their profit.
Housing and its construction follows very similar lines, but I don't see the need to muddle discussion with another topic.
If you want some pretty land, buy your own. You're not entitled to other people's things.
>You're romanticizing an old image of agriculture
fuck no i'm not romanticizing anything. i said that they ruined the countryside, and i'm not wrong. and optimizing the land for profit is a deHispanicable act.i'm well aware that countrysides are not natural and a great forest or natural pastures would be infinitely better, but they don't even have the fucking decency to keep it how it was.
Food security is worth more than a pretty view. Deep down you believe that too, otherwise you'd give up material security to live in the wilderness. But you haven't and you won't. You'll stay right here shitposting on Wauf because you don't have the balls to live by the ideas you claim to hold so dear.
>Those hedgerows and canals were no more natural than the farms you see today.
Of course not, but they were still precious wildlife corridords that mitigated habitat fragmentation. When agricultural lands are surrounded by hedges and canals animals and plant seeds can move through them and continue colonizing remote habitats. Now that all fields are 100% full of crops it's extremely difficult for populations to connect and interact, so many of them face local extinctions.
where i live tractors are 100K €
>conservation starts at home
Tell that to all the people in this thread saying "I don't have to do anything as long as China and India continue polluting"
Utterly delusional mentality
There’s a middle ground between
>let’s do nothing
>let’s shutdown farms and cut off food supply in a time where farms and food processing plants are being mysteriously burned down in the night
It's not let's shut down farms. It's let's buy them plant them up in trees and sell carbon credit to the big corporates. And tax any family land owners who hold out until the idea is more inviting to them. Its $ and with the meddling going on it makes economic sense to plant the most old school carbon neutral farm in a country that's entire emissions from all its factories and transport and farming and what have you is a tenth of one percent on the world scale, plant the fucker up in some exotic trees shut the gates and sell imaginary credits instead of enough food to export and feed 50 million people and support a wealthy economy