Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
The tuna fishermen didn't change their habits because they wanted to kill less dolphins, they did it because they couldn't sell any tuna to people who wanted a dolphin free tuna purchase.
|
So you're saying "leave every environmental issue up to the people and hope they get it right in time?"
Quote:
|
People aren't riding bikes just because they want a cleaner environment, some because they don't want to give money to oil companies.
|
I would guess that the percentage of bike riders who ride bikes for political reasons rather than that they can't afford the gas or don't want to pay for the gas without any political ulterior motives is quite small.
Quote:
|
As far as the whole idea about the future people, well we're able to decipher the Rosetta stone and put up the Voyager Golden Records. We're able to make a pictogram that transcend written language and still get point or idea across. I think that the very idea as that stopping is ludicrous at best.
|
The Rosetta stone is 2200 years old, not 10,000 or 1 million. And the reason we were able to decipher it is because it happened to be a translation matrix that included classical Greek, which we were still able to read. Without the Rosetta stone, we'd have been unable to decipher hieroglyphics (also 8,000 to 998,000 years younger than the warning signs will be), and I should point out that hieroglyphics are pictograms. So basically under your idea we have to provide our own Rosetta stone, and hope that in 10,000 years or 1,000,000 years, assuming humanity is gone and another civilization has taken our place, that someone still knows how to read English.
Quote:
|
France must have figured something out to do with that waste, as have other countries that have nuclear facilities. So again that idea doesn't float with me.
|
France also has comprehensive national health care. Are you advocating that we do that, because France does it?
To the point, France still doesn't know what to do with its nuclear waste. They're fighting the same storage oppositions that the nuclear industry here is fighting. True, they do have a nuclear waste recycling program which delays the date that a given chunk of fuel will become waste that needs to be stores, but it also produces as a byproduct, plutonium. Having a bunch of plutonium lie around is very, very bad idea.
Quote:
|
If I have to change, you have to change too. It can't be no compromise from the other side.
|
I already told you I'm totally fine with nuclear energy as long as we know what to do with the waste. Saying "well France isn't solving the waste problem either but they're going full steam ahead and therefore so should we," is not a solution.
Quote:
|
Or is that the way that it works best, because that's what I tend to understand from the greenies and liberals, "I don't have to change, YOU have to change."
|
Sometimes. To cherrypick your example, one side said "stop killing the dolphins," and the other said "I don't want to have to care if I kill dolphins." The compromise of "kill only half as many dolphins" wouldn't really have made anyone happy.
Quote:
|
What about the fact I can't just toss out my cellphone batteries, laptops, TVs, comptuers, other electronic waste? Since I can't get rid of those, I don't think that these hybrid batteries will have any different conditions.
|
Saying that you can't throw them in the garbage and therefore you "can't get rid of them" demonstrates a shocking lack of knowledge of the situation. Of course you can get rid of them. Take them to a recycling center. Many battery stores will take them to the recycling center for you. It will be the same with the hybrid batteries.
Saying that you can't ever get rid of something because you can't put it in the trash is like saying you can't ever defecate again because you aren't allowed to do it in the neighbor's yard.