# How much do you consider the environment when voting?



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Elections are coming up in about a week here. All the debates and candidates are focusing on what the public considers the 'main issues':

The 'eurocrisis'. Parties are debating whether if the price of supporting weaker economies is worth staying in the eurozone.

The budget deficit. We have an agreement in the EU to reduce our deficit to 3% within a years time. Parties are debating whether we should bother sticking to agreements, and whether austerity is sensible in these economic times.

Other things also crop up like keeping Healthcare affordable. 

To me... all of these issues pale in comparison to the current environmental degradation taking place all over the world. The natural systems that we rely on for our lives and lifestyles are being destroyed causing an estimated trillions of dollars of damage annually. Yet, people seem more concerned with reversing the small decrease in their wealth, keeping healthcare free etc.... At the same time globally, as a direct consequence of our actions, millions of others face drought, famine and other natural disasters.

I dont deny that the issues debated currently are important, but to my sense of proportion they pale in comparison. It seems to me that humanity is only prepared to look at what effects next years income rather than that of their children.

Its for this reason that in spite of their small influence I continue to vote for the green party.

What do you think?

EDIT: This thread is not intended to be a discussion about politics. I simply want to hear to what extent you are concerned for the environment.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I think that the 'mental vision' of people in actual power everywhere is both myopic and self-centered. Among them no 'distance vision' nor Earth interest nor humanitarian consideration exists. 

And I hope I am wrong, young man.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

The enviornment issue won't seriously hurt us now but it will hurt our grandchildren.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I used to be more environmentalist. Now I tend to react badly to their left-wingism, but although these issues tend to be intertwined, this is probably more to do with the character of environmentalists than an ideological basis.

My current position on the subject is as follows:

The earth exists for man.

Therefore we should use the earth to its maximum potential. However, if destroying the earth means that people will die then this is very bad. What's more we have a duty to animals not to horribly exploit them. Though if it is a choice between animals and humans, then I should always pick the latter. 

I have come to the conclusion that nothing sufficient will be done about environment until the problem comes and bites us on the nose. Probably not too late, but 11th hour sort of stuff. I do think however that governments have a duty to look after there own people today, and that obsession over environment is bad. Ultimately we are going to have to accept the fact that the world is going to look completely different in 100, 200, 500 years time. Nature as we know it may not exist. But as long as it is inhabitable and reasonable and people and animals can live in it, then that is the key issue. We should not kill our children. So I think that certain issues are very important, other environmental agenda I tend to have less sympathy with, or rather I think that they are a much lower priority.

What gets me about our current issues is they are so horribly abstract. I mean, it's not even money (an abstraction from bartering), but loans and loans of loans and shares etc. Surely it's a strange society in which something that is so meaningless can have such an impact on people's lives.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

I consider it and then cry because there is no one who stands a chance of gaining power that will use it for any significant good. One of the big problems, too, is that many of the pro-environment leftists have silly unscientific ideas about things like GM food. You can't trust anyone to be reasonable.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

My take on the subject is that the physical properties of carbon dioxide are such that we should not expect to be able to add very much more of it to the atmosphere than we already have without expecting the world to get noticeably warmer.

I can't see any way around that. It's only a question of how much, by when, and who should pay.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are varying types of environmental problems. I think many people think of climate change as _the_ environmental problem and view that as a future problem (i.e. climate change will effect our children or grandchildren but probably not us). I work in a field that focuses on advanced vehicle technology (hybrids, electric vehicles, fuel cells, hydrogen fuel, electric charging, etc.). There are several reasons to push those technologies. One is to reduce the effects of climate change, but others involve present problems. Air pollution causes on the order of 2 million premature deaths per year worldwide (not all from vehicle emissions). In addition there are cardiovascular and pulmonary detrimental health effects.

The big issue is that there are tradeoffs between reducing environmental problems and increasing costs for products we use. There is much debate over the actual effect of increasing the use of these technologies on the economy. Some believe environmental technologies will slow growth while others believe it will increase short term (and especially) long term growth.

In regards to the OP, I spend parts of almost everyday thinking about environmental issues. While much of that involves my job, I know enough to be greatly concerned about environmental damage effecting large numbers of people today and in the future.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I am concerned about global issues such as famine, natural disasters, etc., but when it comes to global warming I hardly care at all. I think that global warming is based on faulty science and there are many higher priorities for me.

(Even though I guess it doesn't matter what I think because I can't vote! I am still involved a great deal politically though.)


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I love the environment, but I don't think the same way most people think about loving it. I love it because it is a good thing which is vital to our existence, not in just a physical way, but in an emotional way, in that it stirs beauty within us. I am firmly against the changing of the environment into ways that make things ugly. That can include cutting a ton of trees down for little reason, smog, littering, and anything that makes you look at nature and say, "This doesn't look right." Thus, I'm a huge fan of recycling, and conserving materials to the best of our ability for the sake of taking care of this beautiful world around us. But that's not the only reason too.

I have a caveat. I don't love the environment as much as people, and I don't believe loving the environment is _equivalent_ to loving people. Saying you care about the environment doesn't automatically mean you care about humanity. All you might care about is _your_ physical survival! You could love recycling and going green in any fashion, but be selfish, bitter and hateful with other human beings. Is that going to make this world a "better place"?

"Oh, high divorce rate, that's expected, but throwing an oil barrel into the ocean, ugh! How _evil!_" It's only more evil because it more _obviously _hurts someone else's existence.

I'm afraid in decades time that we all won't die from Hurricanes and droughts caused by Global Warming, but that we die from each other. And I'm not just talking about wars. We kill each other with words, ideas, and other actions that kill the heart and soul.

Why live in a naturally stable world that has horrible people, eh?

While some work to preserve the environment, I personally would like_ more_ to help out with the other side of our world's climate, the "climate of humanity."


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

^^^^^^^
An interesting first point, and the rest of it is soooo accurate. A like just couldn't do in this case, sorry.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I am concerned about global issues such as famine, natural disasters, etc., but when it comes to global warming I hardly care at all. I think that global warming is based on faulty science and there are many higher priorities for me.


What reason do you have to think that global warming is based on faulty science? I don't like the idea of it any more than you do, but it follows from the physical properties of carbon dioxide as night follows day. If it's faulty science, all the chemistry textbooks must be wrong, and all of chemistry must be faulty.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Glaciers are advancing, the arctic icepack is spreading, Polar bears are expected to reach Catalina Island next winter. Global warming, pshaw.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Sometimes ranging as far west as Catalina!
Catalina, Catalina... Catalina!


----------

