Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Cynthetiq · 07-25-2008, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Cynth....at a personal level, voluntary conservation is great for whatever motives one may have.

But at the societal level, would a reliance on industries to voluntarily dump less waste and toxins in the air and water have accomplished as much as the environmental laws of the 60s and 70s with their tough and enforceable regulatory standards?

I think not.

Are the waterways and air significantly cleaner than 40 years ago as a result of those laws? Was the US economy adversely impacted by those laws?

I think the answers are indisputable.

I'm not so sure about that, cleaner is relative right? There are many indications that cleaner waterways have huge algea blooms that have killed off wildlife just as pollution had. The Chesepeake watershed is an example of this isn't it? The crabbing industry doesn't think so from what I read a couple weeks ago in the NY Times. Stocks have declined steadily since the 70's. Culprit is algae blooms living off the run off from the over developed areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

I also try to do these kinds of things, and I enjoy doing them--it feels less wasteful to me, and whether or not it effects global warming, etc, I like to know that all the crap I am producing with my modern lifestyle (bottles, newspapers, printer cartridges, batteries, etc) will not be taking up eternal space in a landfill. It's just my personal feeling.

But the really discouraging part is that a single, long-distance flight will pretty much overwhelm everything you could possibly do to "save the earth" in one year. Pollution from commercial flights is one of the worst environmental offenders out there, and it's so huge that basically any small things you are doing on a day-to-day basis, mean nothing if you travel by plane even once a year. This is very hard for me to swallow, because travel is one of my top priorities in life, and I fly a LOT--not to mention that Iceland is an island, so getting anywhere by "land" would be pretty nuts (there is one ferry that takes a week to get to Europe, lol). So until the airlines manage to find a way to reduce their gargantuan carbon emissions, all of us frequent flyers will continue to leave massive carbon footprints just by virtue of stepping onto those planes...

Agreed. Which is why I'm not interested in paying anymore than I have to for my tickets. The costs are already skyhigh and with less service and more attitude. Carbon credits paid for directly by me seems like an Indulgence to me.

I'm not going to stop travelling any time soon. The planes go to these destinations with our without me. I'd believe the whole owning the carbon footprint a bit more if I was chartering a flight, but I'm not. The transportation infrasctructure moves with or without me.

I read somthing interesting the other day, that there is a tipping point about travelling wherein even with the most economical vehicle an airplane gets the best miles per person per gallon. In effect, it is a very economical way of travelling with regards to fuel econonmy. Do I believe it? I'm not sure yet.