[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Because global warming is supposed to bring a climate change.

If youve ever been to mexico city, youd see how real such a problem is. The smog is terrible, and its hot as hell there. global warming is a very real concept.

Global warming a very real concept? Sure it is. A concept is an IDEA.

Ever been to Los Angeles? They have a huge smog problem there too. They have been legislating it out of existence for decades.... Only problem is - LA still has a smog problem.

Government mandating what people do isn't the answer....

Originally Posted by Growler

/headdesk
Can someone - anyone - answer this simple question, without it being in any way related to politics?

What's the harm in taking measures to protect the environment wherein we live? Actual harm, not financial, political, or biblical?

Hold on Growler - financial harm IS actual harm. Having costs rise does create real harm. I am a single dad with 2 kids, you don't think rising costs hurt? If you pay your own bills, you can't seriously say that financial increases in living are not a harm.

The economy sucks with all the environmental damage already done. So doing MORE damage will help how?

The state of the economy is partially a result of the massive amounts of regulation put upon businesses. However, business success is not predicated on harming the environment. Somehow - and I don't fault you for this - but somehow - society has begun to think that it can only be one or the other. That is not the case. We can use resources responsibly, without making it too easy for business to turn a blind eye to eco damage - while not overburdening them with regulations that make them unprofitable.

I'm tired of seeing people's plastic refuse, paper trash, and oh-yeah-let's-not-forget human waste in the Inner Harbor.

I'd be tired of that too. Organize a cleanup, get active, start the work yourself.

I'm tired of suffocating in Baltimore in the summer heat because people won't use mass transit (which is cheaper than the ~$10/day minimum parking fees, not counting the gas wasted sitting in traffic) or can't (which sucks, because there's no political will to encourage people to use it, which would allow it to MAKE MONEY and CREATE JOBS as it expands by ADDING INFRASTRUCTURE).

I have to disagree with this one. I doubt that people not using mass transit are what is causing you to suffocate. Still, lets move past that. Mass transit has a number of problems and issues. First, your depending on a governmental agency in most cases to make it work. If not, its a "private" company with a government contract. If they don't do the job, someone else gets the contract, but you the consumer have very little to no say in the process. Second, this isn't just a money issue. Its a freedom issue. Parent takes the bus to work. Oh crap, little susie is at school and throwing up. Now mom or dad has to go get her. Oh, but they have to wait on the bus, because they didn't drive their car. So little susie sits in the school nurse office puking her stomach up waiting for the bus and her mom or dad. Or hey, you forgot that office birthday party and don't have a gift. Better run out on your lunch hour and get one - but darn, your schedule and the bus do not like each other. Wait, you need to stop for groceries on the way home - so you wait for the bus when you get done at work, then you wait for it again at the grocery store. Until someone figures out teleportation, people in the US (generally speaking) are not going to give up their freedom of travel.

Oh, and lets not forget, it may be cheaper on the bus, but most people would prefer not to be on the bus with those folks who leave their biological wastes in public places, who are sick and still travel, etc etc. You can't tell the stinky drunk who just crapped his pants that he isn't allowed on the bus. He has every right to travel. Are you going to tell the sneezy woman with the runny nose she can't take the bus to the doctor?

Mass transit has its uses - but its not the answer.

Or simpler still - if we, in the US, are to expect others to cut their carbon emissions, maybe instead of being hypocritical about it, we ought to, you know, be actual Americans and LEAD THE WAY. But instead, we have debates and arguments about it, political grandstanding and posturing on both sides, and no real willingness to take risks that lead to growth.

Or we post about how we don't like stuff floating in our waterways.
That is NOT a slam on you Growler, its an observation that we ALL do this. I do it just as much as the next person. That is why I encouraged you earlier to do something about it.

Nuke power is where we need to be looking, until viable large-scale renewable alternatives are financially viable. And the further you live from where your power's generated, the more you pay. That's the cost of living in a modern, wired society, and it would encourage people to do smaller things to save energy - turn off lights, run washers only when necessary, maybe small-scale renewable energy AT the home.

I agree on the issue of nuclear power. However, why should it cost Joe more just because he lives farther away from the power plant? Heck, most nuke plants are on the water - lakes mainly - and so the people who should get the cheapest electricity are the ones who have lakefront houses? 30 Miles away the folks in the trailer park should pay more? Not sure I understand that idea.

We have to get outside of the boxes we've been operating in, both for a cleaner world, and one that's more profitable for us all. Until the politicians, corporations, and their lawyers and cronies get out of the way, there will be no solution, because it's better for them to keep US divided.

I agree as long as you add all special interest groups in there.