Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Jumps to Fourth in Greenpeace's Environmental Rankings of Electronics Companies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, climate shift cannot be denied, it has happened throughout the history of the planet (the term global warming is naive and misleading) - however man made global warm is far from being proven. 150 years of industrialised civilisation in 64 billion years of a planet's history is hardly a relevant factor.
The air might be dirty, but the planet has been hotter and cooler in the past, far before the advent of mankind. Very little we can do will interfere with a planets natural evolution and the reaction cycle of its nearest star.
Apple and other companies are doing what they can in an affordable and progressive manner - no more packaging/reduced packaging or user manuals, machines made from recycled/recyclable components and materials using less harmful chemicals than before and requiring less electricity to run.
I don't think the computer industry rates as a major player in world pollution.
Let's see an end to the use of fossil fuels - the only thing that will make a significant difference in man made pollution levels.
Yea - nope! After 9/11, air planes were grounded for a few days and within these days, the sun became 5% lighter. There is a long-term evaporation experiment going on in Israel (I believe it was there) which showed a significant increase of evaporation this way. Also: Clouds have smaller droplets due to the high amount of fine dust from air planes in comparison to non-industrial times an therefore reflect more sun light which works against the CO2 greenhouse effect. So, there are cancelling factors but no one knows where our gambling with our resources and environment leads up to. Problem is: If it goes wrong, there is no backup plan. And another thing about pollution is the acidic rain killing forests which then leads to desserts because the forests close to coast lines to not provide re-evaporation to get rains into the center of continents... not even speaking of cutting down forests since millennia. Look at Croatia, for example, where the Greek cut down the forests 3000 years ago: The soil is gone in these areas. Now, you can say we don't know the impact - and that is true to the point that we don't know what the impact will be and how drastic it will be. To ignore that there is an impact is just denying the facts.
I'm not speaking on man-made climate change, but this argument is pretty ridiculous. Unless you think the hole in the ozone layer is a natural phenomenon.
/And where did you ever get 64 billion years as the age of the Earth? A bit over 4.5 billion is the generally accepted age.
Because people, especially Americans, view any changes to their lifestyle or business practices, in order to help other people, as an infringement on their freedom. Most Americans feel that if they can afford to buy a fancy car that gets only 10mpg and pay for the gas, then they have the right to do so.
Furthermore, I've always felt that many people feel that making any such change in their lifestyle or business practices is less than "manly", so doing so hurts their macho pride and reminds them of "wussy liberals". IMO, this is what the negativity towards Al Gore is about. Labeling him as a policy wonk or as a nerd is mostly about making him a joke so that his environmental views are considered to be unworthy.
It's also been hammered home by those who have a vested interest in not spending money to combat pollution that doing so will cost ordinary citizens money. And to rationalize this, they want 100% proof that global warming is man-made the same way as for years those who defended the tobacco industry wanted 100% proof that cigarette smoking directly caused cancer and other diseases, which is impossible to prove.
The problem with those views is that even if you do believe that global warming may not be man-made, everything we would do to reduce it helps the environment, which would make a heathier future for ourselves and our kids (for those people who care about such things and not just the $$$ they're making today.) Personally, I think younger people have no fear of global warming because they feel healthy enough that they don't think it will affect them and old people don't care because we'll kick-off soon anyway and at least a fair percentage of the people in the middle either like having their heads in the sand or are more concerned with getting by in the short term.
The other issue is that an ever-increasing percentage of the American population, because they've been so badly educated, don't believe in science. I think the average person knew more science (or at least trusted it more) back when only a very small percentage of the population received a higher education. The fact that not a single Republican candidate will admit to believing in evolution is a national discrace, IMO.
Uhm... Where are all these plants going to grow? We keep turning our best soil into highways, subdivisions, and big box stores and parking lots. We also harvest loam from forest floors slowing down forest growth.
And it isn't proven that the increase in growth is fast enough to prevent warming. If it was, we wouldn't be seeing the rapid increases in global temperature that we are.
I don't know therefore I believe
Oh, a true believer.
See the current /. poll on What is your position on climate change?
Oh, a true believer.
See the current /. poll on What is your position on climate change?