3 ms·

I get what you mean. But: You can lean back and discuss for the next decades without making a move in a direction. You can discuss and discuss and both sides w

by buster 16y ago

I get what you mean. But: You can lean back and discuss for the next decades without making a move in a direction. You can discuss and discuss and both sides will bring arguments and you will never find a conclusion. It's a sham. On the other hand it is quite obvious (without discussions, statistics, yada yada yada) that we are polluting the planet. I don't need figures for that, i just need to look out of my window. Germany, for example, is investing quite a lot into green energy. Just for fun? Or probably with a reason? But, what bothers me, is the feeling that most people don't want to think about it. It's easier to accept the argument that everything is fine, not care about it and live as if nothing happened without reflecting. I guess many people are (subconsciously) thinking like that. And reading those "false" claims on twitter may be reason enough for many people to just believe it without questioning it. That's why it's good to have some "counterweight". I don't know if i made myself clear enough, but well... The quintessence is to not look away but do something.

loewenskind 16y ago
>You can discuss and discuss and both sides will bring arguments and you will never find a conclusion. It's a sham. If we can't solve this problem then anything we do to save the environment now is just a band-aid. >Germany, for example, is investing quite a lot into green energy. Just for fun? Or probably with a reason? I think most everyone is on board with polluting less (with the obvious exception of people like the Koch brothers), it's just a question of how. People point out, for example, that creating green technology can be more damaging then the potential savings in using it. I personally don't give this this argument much merit because we tend to get better at things when we do them more, but it just goes to show you that people who care just as much as you do still don't agree on how to tackle the issue. >It's easier to accept the argument that everything is fine, not care about it and live as if nothing happened without reflecting. I'm not sure as many people do this as you think. They may not agree with the severity of the issue but everyone understands that we are destroying at least parts of our environment (e.g. poisoning the oceans). That's not controversial. >The quintessence is to not look away but do something. We are. Not as fast as some people might like, but people are trying things. The reason is simple: there's money in it.

by buster 16y ago

loewenskind 16y ago

>You can discuss and discuss and both sides will bring arguments and you will never find a conclusion. It's a sham. If we can't solve this problem then anything we do to save the environment now is just a band-aid. >Germany, for example, is investing quite a lot into green energy. Just for fun? Or probably with a reason? I think most everyone is on board with polluting less (with the obvious exception of people like the Koch brothers), it's just a question of how. People point out, for example, that creating green technology can be more damaging then the potential savings in using it. I personally don't give this this argument much merit because we tend to get better at things when we do them more, but it just goes to show you that people who care just as much as you do still don't agree on how to tackle the issue. >It's easier to accept the argument that everything is fine, not care about it and live as if nothing happened without reflecting. I'm not sure as many people do this as you think. They may not agree with the severity of the issue but everyone understands that we are destroying at least parts of our environment (e.g. poisoning the oceans). That's not controversial. >The quintessence is to not look away but do something. We are. Not as fast as some people might like, but people are trying things. The reason is simple: there's money in it.