It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What will happen when the US is too much of a burden on the environment for survival?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Seriously we are already disliked by other countries for our using of so many of the earths resources and add to that the over pollution to the earth by the US, and we become liabilities eventually when the pollution is starting to heat up the earth, the air is becoming harder to breathe, the water unfit to drink and depleting. what happens then? Will they nuke us to get rid of us?

Seriously its going to maybe get that bad eventually given what is already happening, many scientists have already said that the damage to the earth is irreversable. We have not ratiified the Kyoto Protocol.
en.wikipedia.org...




www.ctv.ca...

Earth has suffered irreversible damage: study

CTV.ca News Staff

Updated: Thu. Mar. 31 2005 5:55 AM ET

Humans are damaging the Earth at such an unprecedented rate that the strain on the planet may destroy about two-thirds of its ecosystem services, according to a landmark international study.

The consequences of humans' activities are severe and include: new diseases, sudden changes in water quality, creation of "dead zones" along the coasts, the collapse of fisheries, and shifts in regional climate, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report.

"At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning," said the 45-member board.

"Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it said.




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I doubt anyone will nuke the U.S. off the map, all i can see happening is nobody is going to do anything at all of any real significance. If something is done about it, even if its tomorrow, it is possibly already too late.

The planet will just wipe most of us humans out and start afresh.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Compared to most of the rest of the world the environment in the U.S. is getting better, not worse.

The rest of the world should be following our lead, not throwing rocks.


BTW-- kyoto is a deeply flawed treaty that was rightly rejected by the Senate. just as it is being ignored by many of the countries that previously jumped on the ratification bandwagon before realizing what the treaty meant. Our Senate, for once, was smart enough to read it before voting -- which is why they unanimously rejected it.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
dave_54 I can't believe that with all the enviromental laws Bush has changed for the worse that we can be anything but one of the biggest and worst contributors to the pollution problem. Not to mention that we have always been one of the worst offenders to the pollution problem.

The way I see this, is the earth is like a ship, she can only support so much life but the ship is overloaded and for the people who uses the least resources and supplies aboard to survive they got to toss the ones using the most of the supplies overboard.

Also found this while searching, you can put in your own zipcode to research your own area. Use the quickstart on the left.

www.epa.gov...



[edit on 16-5-2006 by goose]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The U.S. is no more a burden on the planet than any other country. Environmental destruction comes in many forms. Industrialization and fossil fuels arent the only burden to the environment.

Destroying natural habitat to clear land for farming is on par with industry for destroying the environment. Expansion of human habitat in overpopulated countries is also destroying alot of natural terrirtory. Look at India, Brazil, and Countries in Africa, just to name a few. Too much farming, too much building and expansion, overexploitation of natural resources happen in every country.

The main problem is of course, overpopulation. Too many people reproducing too many times too quickly.

But one way or another, the earth will survive. Either through our destruction through acts of nature, or we will wise up and start doing things more efficiently.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
It cracks me up how everybody goes off on pollution and over-population. I sometimes wonder if these same people have ever left the city they live in? I travel alot around our country and I can tell you that people for the most part only pollute and over-populate the cities they live in....that's about it. Once you're out of the city it's plains, rolling hills, mountains and beauty for as far as the eye can see. You people need to get out more often.....



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotolerance
It cracks me up how everybody goes off on pollution and over-population. I sometimes wonder if these same people have ever left the city they live in? I travel alot around our country and I can tell you that people for the most part only pollute and over-populate the cities they live in....that's about it. Once you're out of the city it's plains, rolling hills, mountains and beauty for as far as the eye can see. You people need to get out more often.....


And thats your area.

urban sprawl is a global phenomenon. Those country roads and rolling hills you so love will probably disappear in 20 years because of the encroachment of urbanization. I used to live in San Jose. I remember how much of the valley was cherry orchards when I was a kid. The hills were uninhabited, there was plenty of wildland in the bay area.

Now, close to thirty years later, open space has completely disappeared. Those nice rural and wild areas are now built up as the city population exploded. Now the Bay area is so crowded that development is spilling into central valley, where I lived much later. Where |I lived was surrounded by almond orchards. This was ten years ago. I returned there a couple years ago, and found that the orchards around the farm i lived on cleared and housing developments sprouting everywhere. 15 years ago manteca was a very small town with virtually nothing. Now its getting built up as the bay area spreads.

Ive seen the same thing happen in the Seattle metro area as well. And all around.

So enjoy your idyllic countryside while you can. In 20 years it will be gone as population explodes and urban sprawl all over the world whacks and clears away natural habitat for farming, devlopment, and exploitation.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The U.S. is no more a burden on the planet than any other country. Environmental destruction comes in many forms. Industrialization and fossil fuels arent the only burden to the environment.

Destroying natural habitat to clear land for farming is on par with industry for destroying the environment. Expansion of human habitat in overpopulated countries is also destroying alot of natural terrirtory. Look at India, Brazil, and Countries in Africa, just to name a few. Too much farming, too much building and expansion, overexploitation of natural resources happen in every country.


True. The single largest cause of deforestation worldwide is fuelwood gathering for cooking and heating (50% of all wood consumed globally). Forest cover in the U.S., as well as most of the industrialized world, is increasing. Contrary to the intentional disinformation regurgited by the environmental industry the amount of old-growth forest in the western U.S. is increasing -- exceeding historical levels in some areas. In the U.S. the air and water are cleaner than 30 years ago. Energy consumed and waste produced per dollar of GDP is less now than any time in the past.

The U.S. would be at zero population growth except for immigrants and first generation immigrants. They are the cause of all the population increase. 2nd and subsequent generation Americans have smaller families than the replacement rate.

If you want to blame someone for environmental villainy don't point your fingers at the U.S. -- China, India, and the few remaining socialist states have a far worse track record.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The west started industrialization and the pollution that came with it, but its now at a sufficient stage where techonolgoy can controll it to a degree and the necessity of building up industry isn't over riding.

China and India, however, aren't at that stage, and have a much MUCH bigger population than the west during industrialization.


The West started the problem, but there's about to be an enormous output of pollution from India and China that people aren't even going to care about the stuff comming out of the US.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The U.S. is no more a burden on the planet than any other country.


Exactly! Surprisingly to some here, the old Soviet Union and China and India are far worse when it comes to soot and particulate matter. The US is a major greenouse gas contributor, but not the only one.

What we need is a president who's more eager to take care of the environment. And as Nygdan said, we're at a point where we can control it better.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
dave_54 I can't believe that with all the enviromental laws Bush has changed for the worse that we can be anything but one of the biggest and worst contributors to the pollution problem. Not to mention that we have always been one of the worst offenders to the pollution problem.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by goose]


Please tell me your not a American…let me give you a bit of advise, think before you say things like that and blame people for things they do not fully understand. Bush is the leader of the military and has nothing to do with writing laws he has the power of veto that’s all. So if you have to blame people blame congress and then the house b/c they can over throw the presidents veto! The phrase checks and balances comes to mind



All I have to say to this is wow look at the ignorance! There is no solid data to prove with out a doubt that man is “killing” the earth the only way we will know for sure is the minute it is to late. I love all the anti American craziness…..look at china with 1 billion people and a huge industrial boom…they have very little in the way of environmental precautions. Lets look at the Kyoto protocol. Did you know about the corruption revolving countries selling there pollution “credits”. Humm or what about when china ratified it and has had a massive increase in gas production WOW that did a lot of good….the fact is its another way for countries to use the system and the UN does nothing…like that really good idea of oil for food.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Yes,

But bills, and laws follow the particular bent of the administration that is
in office at the time. It is the administration in power that gives bills a running
start in congress.

With that being said, I believe however that the US is not the major concern for
for Environmental unfriendlyness. There are plenty others far worse (Former Soviet bloc) it's just easy to kick the US around.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by TheHorseChestnut]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ

Please tell me your not a American…let me give you a bit of advise, think before you say things like that and blame people for things they do not fully understand. Bush is the leader of the military and has nothing to do with writing laws he has the power of veto that’s all. So if you have to blame people blame congress and then the house b/c they can over throw the presidents veto! The phrase checks and balances comes to mind

All I have to say to this is wow look at the ignorance! There is no solid data to prove with out a doubt that man is “killing” the earth the only way we will know for sure is the minute it is to late. I love all the anti American craziness…...


First of all I am an American and you might want to check out the President's job description. I agree with you, that he our current President does not fully understand much. I took that from your comment and blame people for things they do not fully understand.



teacher.scholastic.com...
Job Description

The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.


You might want to notice the terms, develops federal policy, prepares the national budget and appoints federal officials. He is more than the leader of the military. So yes the president has a great deal of influence on the environment. Depending on what federal officials he appoints overseeing the different departments in gov., whether those appointees are concerned with environmental issus, to how much money he allocates to programs dealing with the environment, to appointing Supreme Court Justices who may or may not be concerned with environmental issues.

So yes the president has a lot of influence on these issues. Not to mention his leadership influences the people making those laws. You might want to check this out which is also about Bush Administration's record on the enviromental.

www.defenders.org...
yodasworld.tripod.com...
www.motherjones.com...

As to your comment on there is no way to know whether man is killing the earth you might want to check out the first website I listed in the very first post of this thread.

I live near a river that has been so polluted by a company upstream that you can't eat the fish that come from it for fear of being poisoned by mercury. For safety reasons due to pollution, you can't swim in it and the pollution has been carried downstream to another state. I don't need to wait until the earth is so toxic one can't survive to figure out mankind is having a huge impact, the impact is already in my backyard. So, yes mankind is polluting the earth and it is doubtful this river will ever recover. Unfortunately everyone probably has a story similar to this.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The title question might be more pertinent if one replaced "US" with "China" or "India" or "insert up-and-coming world power here."

The way I see it, America might just be at her apex, for better or worse. Now is the time to suggest that other nations don't retread the same path.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
The religious wars will begin, with the people of the United States being seen as the enemies of God by all the of the World's poor.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Hmm, nuking the US, that's a good idea, I'll forward it to Tony. It's not that the US is over pollutng (which it is, but so are most other countires around the world), but your average American lives such a lifestyle that if we all lived like that we'd need 50 Earths or something to power it for a while.

As for a religious war, I doubt that very much, what would happen exactly?

[edit on 29-5-2006 by Nexus]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
i live in china and i gotta tell you ..it SUCKS! its wayyyyyy over polluted then america thats for damn sure you should see these plps they just throw their garbage into rivers and stuff jeez cant wait to go back to america this summer




top topics



 
0

log in

join