6 ms·

I wonder how many centuries it might take for the US to start to care about insects or the environment like some European countries do with the recent regress i

I wonder how many centuries it might take for the US to start to care about insects or the environment like some European countries do with the recent regress in policies overall that isn't about ONLY increasing overall GDP in the US. And I say this even not considering Trump, which is a big menace. But democrat candidates in the US also don't care about the environment, not showing much promise. So do the Americans in general with their huge SUVs and completely unhealthy lifestyles(for them and the environment). I wonder how much this shitshow can go on.

pointillistic 6y ago
Some European countries, named here, only very recently cared more about insects than people.
- yokaze 6y ago
  > Some European countries, named here, only very recently cared more about insects than people. How is it "more about than"? What are the costs to people by mandating dimming the light?
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    The GP is referencing the Holocaust since the story is about Germany. Though I don't know what that has to do with this article or the comment he is replying to.
  - hirundo 6y ago
    > What are the costs to people by mandating dimming the light? It makes it harder to see at night.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      That’s not really “more than”, is it? You need to weigh the size of the benefit with the amount of convenience.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  How mature.
- masswerk 6y ago
  Fun fact: they started to care (only), because it's going to affect people. The drop in insect populations has become concerning. Without them, no crops, no fruits, no agriculture, which isn't that great a prospect for humans.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    We can have pollination by swarms of meshed microdrones.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Some European countries, only very recently cared more about insects than people Is not a "us or them" dichotomy. The only possible alternatives are insects-win/humans-win or insects-lose/humans-lose. We can't have agriculture without insects.
johnmarinelli 6y ago
to be fair, every country i've visited/lived in pales in comparison to Germany when it comes to environmental friendliness.
burlesona 6y ago
I often hear Europeans make sweeping judgements about the US that reflect a lack of understanding of the country and continent. In part I think this is because most visitors from abroad only travel to NYC, SF, or LA, which are great cities, but not representative of the majority of the country. Incredible as this may sound, around half of the US land area is completely uninhabited. Fully 1/3 of the land is owned by the federal government, and most of this is managed with environmental considerations at the forefront. The only part of the US that is even vaguely like European population density is the northeast corridor from Boston to DC, which represents a small percentage of the country. People in the US care a lot about the environment, but the issue has been politicized of course and pits different factions against each other. We also have a housing crisis, and it’s very difficult to get humans to worry about saving anything else when they can’t get a roof over their head. The US has myriad environmental problems and needs to do better, but it also has a very different situation on the ground compared to Europe, and thus requires different approaches in some areas.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  You can't compare landmass versus landmass but only the behaviour of people in different places. It makes no difference if you live in a big city in China or in the middle of nowhere in the US on how big a polluter you are when driving your car. The same car is the same car everywhere. It is the same earth we are all on and we share the same air so how much uninhabited land there are is completely irrelevant. Borders doesn't contain pollution. So yes, driving a big SUV is most definitely a sign of not caring about pollution and not "but X is different than Y". Even those who "need a big 4x4" mostly don't. A small 4x4 is often way better in terrain while polluting less.
- blackoil 6y ago
  US tops in per capita beef, petrol and energy consumption. So it is not odd to build such a perception.
tijuco2 6y ago
Have you been to US? I visited some states and I'm now living in Massachusetts for a little more than three years. I've never seen so much green in my life like see here in the US. It's beautiful. The article doesn't mention security measurements that will be taken in order to keep security levels where it is.
- glofish 6y ago
  Exactly, Pennsylvania 100 years ago was completely stripped of trees, today has 17 millions acres of forests (almost 60% of the land is covered with forests!) https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/a-century-ago-pennsylvania-stood-almost-entirely-stripped-of-trees/Content?oid=1848219 https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/a-century-ago-pennsy...
gamblor956 6y ago
The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. The US created the concept of state-protected wilderness reserves and national parks. The US was the driving force behind the Kyoto Protocol, and the originating nation of solar power, wind power, and nuclear power. California leads the world in automobile fuel economy targets, and the US as a whole has cleaner-burning fuel than the EU, which for bizarre reasons settled on diesel as their standard even though it's far worse for the air than gasoline. Europe's pretty far behind in caring about the environment.
- jagrsw 6y ago
  > The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. But that's not b/c of actions of local residents. > The US created the concept of state-protected wilderness reserves and national parks. That's quite incorrect, e.g. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest The forest was declared a hunting reserve in 1541 to protect bison. In 1557, the forest charter was issued, under which a special board was established to examine forest usage. In 1639, King Vladislaus IV issued the "Białowieża royal forest decree" (Ordynacja Puszczy J.K. Mości leśnictwa Białowieskiego). The document freed all peasants living in the forest in exchange for their service as osocznicy, or royal foresters. They were also freed of taxes in exchange for taking care of the forest. The forest was divided onto 12 triangular areas (straże) with a centre in Białowieża.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    A hunting reserve is not a wilderness preserve. The US actually protects its wilderness areas. And the national parks and forests in CA are very much the result of local residents.
- lostmyoldone 6y ago
  If Europe is far behind, it's by some other measure than what is actually considered the most pressing environmental concerns of today. The average American use about three times the fossil fuels the average Swede does, and if the statistics are correct, the ratio has been increasing for decades. Germany is one of the European countries with the highest fossil fuel usage, at about half the US consumption per capita. The European average seems to about half the US average. As for Sweden, we've got strict rules for almost any kind of emission, and diesel cars have never been very common here. California is great, Kyoto was great, but actual environment track record over the entire United States is far from great. Unfortunately. If US has led as much in action as in words, I'd be happy to name you the best. We're only 10 million in Sweden, and it's outright depressing to think how little it matters even if we reduce emissions to zero. It's still the right thing to aim at, and I hope we continue on this track, but it would be much easier if big economies like the US were more heavily invested. It is of course very lucrative to try to convince others to use more expensive energy sources, and yourself use a cheaper one. Which is one perspective of the US involvement in Kyoto that is hard to entirely dismiss because of the somewhat lackluster results overall. The changeover to more gas instead of coal is good, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that US oil consumption alone is more than most EU countries use in combined oil, coal, and gas. I'm all for big wild forest lands, I probably spent the first decades of my life more in forests than outside them, but that has barely anything to do with being environmentally conscious. It has little bearing on acting in the best interests of the environment, and all people who depends on it. It doesn't matter how much you care for the forest lands if excess carbon dioxide cause entire biomes to disappear, which is a significant concern today.
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar, regardless of which nations are at issue. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pointillistic 6y ago

Some European countries, named here, only very recently cared more about insects than people.

yokaze 6y ago
> Some European countries, named here, only very recently cared more about insects than people. How is it "more about than"? What are the costs to people by mandating dimming the light?
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  The GP is referencing the Holocaust since the story is about Germany. Though I don't know what that has to do with this article or the comment he is replying to.
- hirundo 6y ago
  > What are the costs to people by mandating dimming the light? It makes it harder to see at night.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    That’s not really “more than”, is it? You need to weigh the size of the benefit with the amount of convenience.
Dahoon 6y ago
How mature.
masswerk 6y ago
Fun fact: they started to care (only), because it's going to affect people. The drop in insect populations has become concerning. Without them, no crops, no fruits, no agriculture, which isn't that great a prospect for humans.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  We can have pollination by swarms of meshed microdrones.
pvaldes 6y ago
> Some European countries, only very recently cared more about insects than people Is not a "us or them" dichotomy. The only possible alternatives are insects-win/humans-win or insects-lose/humans-lose. We can't have agriculture without insects.

johnmarinelli 6y ago

to be fair, every country i've visited/lived in pales in comparison to Germany when it comes to environmental friendliness.

burlesona 6y ago

I often hear Europeans make sweeping judgements about the US that reflect a lack of understanding of the country and continent. In part I think this is because most visitors from abroad only travel to NYC, SF, or LA, which are great cities, but not representative of the majority of the country. Incredible as this may sound, around half of the US land area is completely uninhabited. Fully 1/3 of the land is owned by the federal government, and most of this is managed with environmental considerations at the forefront. The only part of the US that is even vaguely like European population density is the northeast corridor from Boston to DC, which represents a small percentage of the country. People in the US care a lot about the environment, but the issue has been politicized of course and pits different factions against each other. We also have a housing crisis, and it’s very difficult to get humans to worry about saving anything else when they can’t get a roof over their head. The US has myriad environmental problems and needs to do better, but it also has a very different situation on the ground compared to Europe, and thus requires different approaches in some areas.

Dahoon 6y ago
You can't compare landmass versus landmass but only the behaviour of people in different places. It makes no difference if you live in a big city in China or in the middle of nowhere in the US on how big a polluter you are when driving your car. The same car is the same car everywhere. It is the same earth we are all on and we share the same air so how much uninhabited land there are is completely irrelevant. Borders doesn't contain pollution. So yes, driving a big SUV is most definitely a sign of not caring about pollution and not "but X is different than Y". Even those who "need a big 4x4" mostly don't. A small 4x4 is often way better in terrain while polluting less.
blackoil 6y ago
US tops in per capita beef, petrol and energy consumption. So it is not odd to build such a perception.

tijuco2 6y ago

Have you been to US? I visited some states and I'm now living in Massachusetts for a little more than three years. I've never seen so much green in my life like see here in the US. It's beautiful. The article doesn't mention security measurements that will be taken in order to keep security levels where it is.

glofish 6y ago
Exactly, Pennsylvania 100 years ago was completely stripped of trees, today has 17 millions acres of forests (almost 60% of the land is covered with forests!) https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/a-century-ago-pennsylvania-stood-almost-entirely-stripped-of-trees/Content?oid=1848219 https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/a-century-ago-pennsy...

gamblor956 6y ago

The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. The US created the concept of state-protected wilderness reserves and national parks. The US was the driving force behind the Kyoto Protocol, and the originating nation of solar power, wind power, and nuclear power. California leads the world in automobile fuel economy targets, and the US as a whole has cleaner-burning fuel than the EU, which for bizarre reasons settled on diesel as their standard even though it's far worse for the air than gasoline. Europe's pretty far behind in caring about the environment.

jagrsw 6y ago
> The states of California and Alaska each individually have more wild forest lands than the entire European continent. But that's not b/c of actions of local residents. > The US created the concept of state-protected wilderness reserves and national parks. That's quite incorrect, e.g. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest The forest was declared a hunting reserve in 1541 to protect bison. In 1557, the forest charter was issued, under which a special board was established to examine forest usage. In 1639, King Vladislaus IV issued the "Białowieża royal forest decree" (Ordynacja Puszczy J.K. Mości leśnictwa Białowieskiego). The document freed all peasants living in the forest in exchange for their service as osocznicy, or royal foresters. They were also freed of taxes in exchange for taking care of the forest. The forest was divided onto 12 triangular areas (straże) with a centre in Białowieża.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  A hunting reserve is not a wilderness preserve. The US actually protects its wilderness areas. And the national parks and forests in CA are very much the result of local residents.
lostmyoldone 6y ago
If Europe is far behind, it's by some other measure than what is actually considered the most pressing environmental concerns of today. The average American use about three times the fossil fuels the average Swede does, and if the statistics are correct, the ratio has been increasing for decades. Germany is one of the European countries with the highest fossil fuel usage, at about half the US consumption per capita. The European average seems to about half the US average. As for Sweden, we've got strict rules for almost any kind of emission, and diesel cars have never been very common here. California is great, Kyoto was great, but actual environment track record over the entire United States is far from great. Unfortunately. If US has led as much in action as in words, I'd be happy to name you the best. We're only 10 million in Sweden, and it's outright depressing to think how little it matters even if we reduce emissions to zero. It's still the right thing to aim at, and I hope we continue on this track, but it would be much easier if big economies like the US were more heavily invested. It is of course very lucrative to try to convince others to use more expensive energy sources, and yourself use a cheaper one. Which is one perspective of the US involvement in Kyoto that is hard to entirely dismiss because of the somewhat lackluster results overall. The changeover to more gas instead of coal is good, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that US oil consumption alone is more than most EU countries use in combined oil, coal, and gas. I'm all for big wild forest lands, I probably spent the first decades of my life more in forests than outside them, but that has barely anything to do with being environmentally conscious. It has little bearing on acting in the best interests of the environment, and all people who depends on it. It doesn't matter how much you care for the forest lands if excess carbon dioxide cause entire biomes to disappear, which is a significant concern today.

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar, regardless of which nations are at issue. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html