gregorach said:
Was not sure on that one as I said.
gregorach said:
And "fishermen" and "the green movement" are completely orthogonal, right? Errr, no.
Err, yes. The Green Movement are against fishing, a form of hunting so BAD. Where as the Fishermen, want fish to catch so have actually cleaned the rivers. The water companies knowning this and knowing without them they will not meet their clean water targets, have sided with the Fishermen several times, against the Greens.
gregorach said:
Pardon? What has that got to do with cleaning up industrial pollution?
NOthing, just a river related Green success story. Green movement against animals dying so fur bad. Mink get released and evolution takes over.
gregorach said:
No. Not that it would make any difference if it were - it's still an environmental issue.
No, the thing was no-one seem to care about the Enviromental issues, but the fact that it might actually be killing people seemed to have an effect.
gregorach said:
There still in use though?
gregorach said:
OK, so because it was motivated by the effect that environmental pollution was having directly on human health, rather than some mythical "pure" environmentalism, it's not part of the environmental movement? The robot people have a saying: "does not compute". I agree that we haven't perhaps been as successful as one might like, but would you really rather go back to massive use of DDT?
My problem with the Green Movement is it is all show and no result or an anti-result. This is a good example, we have swaped a dangerous poison for a group of chemicals that no-one, I will repeat that, NO-ONE knows what they do.
You can go and get tested and you will have these chemicals running in your system. There is a diet or lifestyle women who want to conceive can undertake, it takes two years to get this crap out of their systems. They do not kill you, they are monstrogenes and DNA effectors in high enough quanties. We do not know what they do in low quanties or mixed togeather.
They are in the water supply, the food we eat, and the air we breathe, but at least we got rid of DDT in the UK. We import a lot of our food from other countries, wonder what they use?
gregorach said:
I'll grant you, Jevon's paradox is a major problem here. At least we're trying.
No effect, or worse effect.
The only fuel that seems to be effected is petrol, the vehicles that must do the most miles in the world use diesel.
All of the car companies efforts are going towards cars that need massive industry or power stations behind them.
The Green Movement wants us to stop using cars, or to drive newer ones.
Jevon's Paradox is irrelavant. We do not need to stop using fossil fuels because they will run out, at this rate that will be the least of our problems. We need to stop using fossil fuels because they have an effect on the enviroment. We need to do something that effects the world, not just the UK. The obvous solition is Bio-Diesel. Effect the most vehicles in the shortest amount of time, we got rid of five star in next to no time.
gregorach said:
Only if you assume that transport growth wouldn't have happened otherwise. That is a completely unfounded assumption.
We have expensive, next to useless public transport. We have next to no means of safe predestrian transport. We still build roads, and railways the old way.
Transport growth was so on the cards.
Go to Holland, as the Green Movement and others keep saying, thats what we are aiming for. I really want to know the drugs they are taking? I've been to Holland, they have an intergrated transport system, with modern trains, and tracks. Cycle paths everywhere, in the middle of nowhere the footpaths are big enough for bikes and people. I actually saw my second recumbent bike there. A recumbent bike on an uninterupted straight can do 40 miles an hour. Do you know what comes first for their transport planners? People or bikes, not cars.
Plus they have a speed limit of 55. Guess the only time on the whole journey we sat in traffic for more than 15 minutes? Yes thats right, when we got back to England. They have two lane Motorways, it makes no sense, to me still, but whatevers goes on in Europe, as far as transport goes seems to work.
I cycle, I like to go places on my bike, I have been knocked down twice on the pavement.
gregorach said:
Some whale species are in decline, some are in recovery. If it weren't for the efforts to restrict commercial whaling, those species would now almost certainly be completely extinct.
I belive the word you were looking for was 'still' to go in front of 'in decline'. That's the word restrict, the Green Movement has not stopped it, they may have slowed it down, and yet again the change of practice has put another species on the block.
gregorach said:
Cod and tuna fisheries are collapsing due to overfishing, plain and simple.
Yep, another massive success, loads of peoples living and communities ruined, and no effect whatsoever on the fish stocks.
gregorach said:
The environmental movement is not perfect. We have not achieved as much as we would wish, and some of the things we have achieved have had unintended consequences. But I dread to think what the European environment would look like today without what successes we have had.
I have to agree, without the Green Movement, we would already be Norway. My problem is could they actually campain for the right things, the logical things, the things that are going to work. Watch the news and see what gets the most Green press. Fox hunting, animal testing, and car use. All major concerns, when we are under 20 foot of snow.
