NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the thread about fatties and environment.

Some professions have more of an environmental impact than others. Certainly race drivers, pilots, people in construction and many others have a more telling effect on the environment than, say secretaries, teachers, mattress testers, etc. Should there be sanctions on professions based on environmental impact?

What professions have the greatest impact? Which ones are necessary?

Transportation and construction are two huge polluters.

The construction industry is slowly changing itself to become more ecologically sustainable. A lot of architects and engineers from the hippie sixties did a lot of groundbreaking work in terms of sustainable design, and other contemporary professionals have taken it further. It is now at a point that we can start enacting these changes on an industry wide scale using systems like LEED.

I haven't been keeping up with transportation technology development, but we are hampered by the simple fact that all the current negines run on fossil fuel.

These are necessary industries, but they should be curtailed as much as possible. Things like race car driving are very bad for our environment and serve no useful purpose. I habe no trouble with useless things. Some of my favourite things serve no useful purpose. But I don't indulge them when they have definite costs to our health and ecology.

Things like race car driving are very bad for our environment and serve no useful purpose.

Lies. Racing is the foundation of research and development for automotive companies. Where do you think things like direct fuel injection, turbocharging, and other fuel saving (also performance boosting) technologies were discovered and tested?

Besides, if you think major racing where R&D takes place(F1, IndyCar, even NASCAR) has that much of an environmental impact, that's a bit naive.

the biggest thing at the moment seems to be overseas transport of goods which would be rather dandy if we could implement a universal tax on the thing on par with its ecological damage (however because of how borked the ocean is getting you may end up shutting down international trade)

then again space flight also causes a ton of pollution but to tax the thing might cause some trouble what with the tax dodging buggers being in space

Politicians are one of the biggest hot air emmiters I know about.

Lies. Racing is the foundation of research and development for automotive companies. Where do you think things like direct fuel injection, turbocharging, and other fuel saving (also performance boosting) technologies were discovered and tested?

Besides, if you think major racing where R&D takes place(F1, IndyCar, even NASCAR) has that much of an environmental impact, that's a bit naive.

Actually, I think almost all use of automobiles is useless and unnecessary. I would prefer getting rid of most automobile use altogether, thereby negating any need for some sort of polluting sport that also happens to act as a badly run test ground for minor technological advances. Why spend a ton of money finding a way to reduce pollution form cars by ten percent when we could spend money finding ways to reduce automobile use entirely?

Actually, I think almost all use of automobiles is useless and unnecessary. I would prefer getting rid of most automobile use altogether, thereby negating any need for some sort of polluting sport that also happens to act as a badly run test ground for minor technological advances. Why spend a ton of money finding a way to reduce pollution form cars by ten percent when we could spend money finding ways to reduce automobile use entirely?

At this point in time it's simply impractical in most areas due to urban sprawl and lifestyle.

Inspired by the thread about fatties and environment.

Some professions have more of an environmental impact than others. Certainly race drivers, pilots, people in construction and many others have a more telling effect on the environment than, say secretaries, teachers, mattress testers, etc. Should there be sanctions on professions based on environmental impact?

What professions have the greatest impact? Which ones are necessary?
I think the majority of industries that have an environmental impact would have that impacted lessened/improved by lowering demand/consumption. So, GoG mentioned construction and transportation, both of which are vital industries. In almost every urbanized nation, significant improvement to the environment could be made by reducing the number of cars and trucks on highways. This would not only lessen the pollution from vehicle emmissions, it would also lessen the demand for new/expanded road construction with the concomittant impact on water and land. Increasing localized and networked public transit, designing/redesigning urban centers for pedestrian use, using high-volume freight transit systems (like rail instead of long distance trucking), and decentralizing production to reduce the distance over which so many of our goods must be shipped, all would have a beneficial effect.

Likewise with another big (more localized) enviro-bomb -- factory farming. Decentralization of production and reducing demand for certain foods like meat/meat products would likely reduce or eliminate the need for the factory-farm system as well as the long-distance shipping of foods and all that goes into that.

Most industries can be made greener just be altering consumer demand. Some industries that do have significant direct and unavoidable environmental impact -- such as factory farming, mining and energy plants, can be improved by better (read: any, for us in the US) environmental regulation.

I would prefer getting rid of most automobile use altogether

oh hush what your proposing is getting rid of private transportation and thus putting us in the pocket of public transport which does an oh such splendid job

Likewise with another big (more localized) enviro-bomb -- factory farming. Decentralization of production and reducing demand for certain foods like meat/meat products would likely reduce or eliminate the need for the factory-farm system as well as the long-distance shipping of foods and all that goes into that.

yes because a bunch of inbred Welshmen have traditionally been the perfect guardians of environmentalism with vast tracks of land being cleared for their 30 or so sheep

Vat foods are already thought to be commercially viable with the added incentive that it will tear whole families apart within the Green movement the only problem is we are supposed to be going back to some nostalgic time before crop rotation instead of playing with nature

At this point in time it's simply impractical in most areas due to urban sprawl and lifestyle.

Yes. In order to get rid of cars, we'd have to rethink our residential lifestyles. But we have to do that anyways as urban sprawl is not sustainable either. So, if we have to do it anyways, we might as well do this too.

oh hush what your proposing is getting rid of private transportation and thus putting us in the pocket of public transport which does an oh such splendid job

A bicycle is a perfectly good form of getting exercise and private transportation in urban environments.

The only necessary industries are farming, transportation, power generation and home construction.

As a result we should build many micro cities around the country that could be supplied by essentially local farms, and power generators (used only for heating, as electricity is an unnecessary luxury, unless such power can be derived from clean sources such as wind). As everyone will be living in apartment buildings, the energy usage will be reduced dramatically. The average apartment will be the size of a match box, the size of the city will be such that people can get everywhere using a bike at most, but foot travel would probably suffice. All necessary goods would be produced locally, further reducing transportation costs. No unnecessary things should be produced. This is the best way to combat GCC and environmental damage without resorting to wholesale slaughter of large portions of the populace.

The only necessary industries are farming, transportation, power generation and home construction.

As a result we should build many micro cities around the country that could be supplied by essentially local farms, and power generators (used only for heating, as electricity is an unnecessary luxury, unless such power can be derived from clean sources such as wind). As everyone will be living in apartment buildings, the energy usage will be reduced dramatically. The average apartment will be the size of a match box, the size of the city will be such that people can get everywhere using a bike at most, but foot travel would probably suffice. All necessary goods would be produced locally, further reducing transportation costs. No unnecessary things should be produced. This is the best way to combat GCC and environmental damage without resorting to wholesale slaughter of large portions of the populace.

You don't want hospitals or defense?

Lawyers are essential. We don't pollute beyond the massive amounts of methane we release into the air, and we sue the pants off polluters. At least, the cool ones do.

You don't want hospitals or defense?

Well, I wouldn't classify them as industries, but they're not really necessary. The vast majority of life saving measures have been in clean water and vaccinations, I think hospitals could be cut in preference for something smaller, and less encompassing. For example people with a high likelihood of dying should accept their fate, for example those with cancer. Its likely that the cost of supplies and power would far outweigh the benefits. Obviously I am not an expert in everything (read barely anything) so it's hard to say what would be more effective to cut rather than keep. But, we will surely be cutting many things that would normally go to fund some activities that are viewed as "vital", we can't expect to keep all those "vital" things.

The only necessary industries are farming, transportation, power generation and home construction.

As a result we should build many micro cities around the country that could be supplied by essentially local farms, and power generators (used only for heating, as electricity is an unnecessary luxury, unless such power can be derived from clean sources such as wind). As everyone will be living in apartment buildings, the energy usage will be reduced dramatically. The average apartment will be the size of a match box, the size of the city will be such that people can get everywhere using a bike at most, but foot travel would probably suffice. All necessary goods would be produced locally, further reducing transportation costs. No unnecessary things should be produced. This is the best way to combat GCC and environmental damage without resorting to wholesale slaughter of large portions of the populace.
Well, that extreme sounds un-fun, lets ignore all the problems and just pollute all we want and more! I mean little lifestyle changes are useless and big ones sound so icky.

Well, I wouldn't classify them as industries, but they're not really necessary. The vast majority of life saving measures have been in clean water and vaccinations, I think hospitals could be cut in preference for something smaller, and less encompassing. For example people with a high likelihood of dying should accept their fate, for example those with cancer. Its likely that the cost of supplies and power would far outweigh the benefits. Obviously I am not an expert in everything (read barely anything) so it's hard to say what would be more effective to cut rather than keep. But, we will surely be cutting many things that would normally go to fund some activities that are viewed as "vital", we can't expect to keep all those "vital" things.

The technology to keep our hospitals at their current level of efficacy while not destroying the environment is laready available. Your extreme scenario is unnecessary.

Well, that extreme sounds un-fun, lets ignore all the problems and just pollute all we want and more! I mean little lifestyle changes are useless and big ones sound so icky.

Either way there will be sacrifices to make taking any route. Its up to society as a whole to define what sacrifices it wants to make. Only the strongest supporters of changes probably don't want to make little changes in their lifestyle. Such as not owning a car, ending most unnecessary purchases, especially those of things from overseas, eating locally grown food.

By and large any changes made won't stop climate change, which is a far bigger threat(if what we're led to believe is true) than local environmental damage.

The technology to keep our hospitals at their current level of efficacy while not destroying the environment is laready available. Your extreme scenario is unnecessary.

I wouldn't know. How much damage does an MRI machine cause, including production and energy costs? Particularly when your only possibility is to prolong the life of someone who will further damage the environment.

I wouldn't know. How much damage does an MRI machine cause, including production and energy costs? Particularly when your only possibility is to prolong the life of someone who will further damage the environment.

It would depend entirely on how the MRI was designed and built.

And why would the only possibility be to prolong the life of someone who will damage the environment?

It would depend entirely on how the MRI was designed and built.

And why would the only possibility be to prolong the life of someone who will damage the environment?

well, everyone dies, so unless we're going to radically redefine medicine, you will likely be prolonging their life. Further, humans are particularly damaging to the environment, so...

well, everyone dies, so unless we're going to radically redefine medicine, you will likely be prolonging their life. Further, humans are particularly damaging to the environment, so...

Are you trying to make some sort of point?

The film and television industry has a pretty big footprint. Even a reality show without a set will be running four or five pass vans (12-15 passenger vans), at least two cargo vans, two or three rented SUVs and a sedan or two for the executive producers. A minivan or two that will be in almost constant motion with PAs sent out on various missions. Even documentary/magazine style shows have a two or three car caravan.

Then location/set based shooting...there's the Honey Wagon that houses the production offices, the cubes for production, wardrobe, props/art, camera/tech, then the 5 or 10 ton grip truck, the multiple generators, Condors, small fleet of pass vans, flatbed, trailers for cast, catering and craft services trucks, crew vehicles.

It's pretty brutal. There are companies that are trying to help change the way we do it to decrease the footprint like Green Media, mostly for location/set shooting. Not much can be done about the way reality shows are shot because they under staff them enough as it is so you've already got a haggard crew working 16 hour days being driven home by a production assistant operating on four hours of sleep.

yes because a bunch of inbred Welshmen have traditionally been the perfect guardians of environmentalism with vast tracks of land being cleared for their 30 or so sheep

Vat foods are already thought to be commercially viable with the added incentive that it will tear whole families apart within the Green movement the only problem is we are supposed to be going back to some nostalgic time before crop rotation instead of playing with nature

You have no idea what factory farming is, do you?

But apparently you do know what a false dichotomy is, since it seems to be your knee-jerk reaction to something you don't understand.

"Inbred Welshmen"* is not the only alternative to factory farming. There are plenty of commercial farming techniques that are not factory farming.

(*Also, what did the Welsh ever do to you that they deserve to get cast in the role of everything bad about farming that isn't factory farming in your mini-diatribe?)

Ridiculing a comment without presenting a counter-argument does not make you look authoritative.

Snip

Well, let's just ban reality television then. Anybody have a problem with that?

Well, let's just ban reality television then. Anybody have a problem with that?
But -- but -- Project Runway!!! :eek:

I like to breathe and all, but let's not get carried away here. ;)

Well, let's just ban reality television then. Anybody have a problem with that?
Since it's currently about a third of my income, me.

To fully address the problem, you need to find its root, which many people have failed to do thus far. The biggest cause of pollution/ environmental depletion/climate change are emissions, waste dumping, and habitat destruction. Rather than completely getting rid of cars, it would be more practical to invest in H-cars or cars that only emit water. In addition, making stricter sanctions on waste disposal and deforestation would do a world of good. I like the sound of mandatory recycling as well (or it'll be your head.)

The jobs that I feel leave the largest environmental footprint are: pilot, lumberjack, fisherman (especially trawlers,) and truck drivers.

Neither make any noticeable difference, because Global Warming is mainly natural.

Neither make any noticeable difference, because Global Warming is mainly natural.

So, because global warming is, possibly, mainly natural, we should ignore the problems of pollution and habitat destruction? There are other problems that stem from disregard of the environment.

To fully address the problem, you need to find its root, which many people have failed to do thus far. The biggest cause of pollution/ environmental depletion/climate change are emissions, waste dumping, and habitat destruction. Rather than completely getting rid of cars, it would be more practical to invest in H-cars or cars that only emit water. In addition, making stricter sanctions on waste disposal and deforestation would do a world of good. I like the sound of mandatory recycling as well (or it'll be your head.)

The jobs that I feel leave the largest environmental footprint are: pilot, lumberjack, fisherman (especially trawlers,) and truck drivers.

H-cars are a useless technology without some sort of "clean" way to produce the hydrogen they use.

Are you trying to make some sort of point?

I have.

I'd say the profession that has the biggest impact on the environment is oil company CEOs. Just ask the people in the 180 communities that are now forced to move or sink where they live. Some of them have filed a law suit against oil companies. And rightfully so. After all, it was Exxon/Mobil that paid out $16 million in bribes to get scientists to make up AGW hoax theories.

But -- but -- Project Runway!!! :eek:

I like to breathe and all, but let's not get carried away here. ;)

How about a revamp then? Project Forest Gnome or something. And instead of filming it for television, we all just live in the woods and watch it from tree branches and giant mushrooms.

A bicycle is a perfectly good form of getting exercise and private transportation in urban environments.

however getting up super early to cycle to work for a few hours is not all its cracked up to be severely limiting your mobility (think of the poor door-door salesmen!) and screwing with the job market majorly

You have no idea what factory farming is, do you?

industrial level farming duh clue is in the name

But apparently you do know what a false dichotomy is, since it seems to be your knee-jerk reaction to something you don't understand.

I live in the midlands honey, I was raised on the debate of farming practices and totally adopted a pig once in an awareness campaign

"Inbred Welshmen"* is not the only alternative to factory farming. There are plenty of commercial farming techniques that are not factory farming.

however my point of contention is the space of land required for such operations hence the example with the farmer using ridicules levels of land for food production

(*Also, what did the Welsh ever do to you that they deserve to get cast in the role of everything bad about farming that isn't factory farming in your mini-diatribe?)

its an English tradition

Ridiculing a comment without presenting a counter-argument does not make you look authoritative.

oh well then if you want a counter argument how about we allo.... I suggested vat meat in the post iirc

A bicycle is a perfectly good form of getting exercise and private transportation in urban environments.

What if I don't want to live in the city?

Inspired by the thread about fatties and environment.

Some professions have more of an environmental impact than others. Certainly race drivers, pilots, people in construction and many others have a more telling effect on the environment than, say secretaries, teachers, mattress testers, etc. Should there be sanctions on professions based on environmental impact?

What professions have the greatest impact? Which ones are necessary?
You know, if you try to track down and follow all the links and interdependancies in an economy, you're going to get something looking like this (http://meatofthematter.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/fsm-for-reals.jpg), so you may as well just encourage piracy to combat climate change :rolleyes:

...I have.

Right.

however getting up super early to cycle to work for a few hours is not all its cracked up to be severely limiting your mobility (think of the poor door-door salesmen!) and screwing with the job market majorly...

Live closer to work. My morning cycle is half an hour from doorstep to sitting in my desk with coffee in hand.

Door to door salesmen? What decade do you live in?

The job market is going to change drastically anyways.

What if I don't want to live in the city?

Figure something out. A lot will depend on various factors such as your income, how much land you have, what your needs are, etc.

To fully address the problem, you need to find its root, which many people have failed to do thus far. The biggest cause of pollution/ environmental depletion/climate change are emissions, waste dumping, and habitat destruction. Rather than completely getting rid of cars, it would be more practical to invest in H-cars or cars that only emit water. In addition, making stricter sanctions on waste disposal and deforestation would do a world of good. I like the sound of mandatory recycling as well (or it'll be your head.)

The jobs that I feel leave the largest environmental footprint are: pilot, lumberjack, fisherman (especially trawlers,) and truck drivers.
Surprisingly, we do not have to start from scratch in trying to get corporations in such industries to do the right thing. Some of the biggest multinational corporations are already quietly climbing on board the environmental bandwagon and have been doing so for years, out of sight of everyone but their shareholders.

For, example, the paranoia-inducingly named Unilever:

In their skin care division, they announced that as of last year, they were no longer using shark squaline in their cosmetics formulas (which has been a standard ingredient for many years), because of over-fishing of sharks:
http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/30919

Further, in their seafood fishing divisions (until very recently, they owned Gorton's of Gloucester frozen fish company), they have become very active in the movement for sustainable fisheries:
http://www.seafoodchoices.com/whatwedo/champions_unilever.php

And here is Unilever's take on Unilever, as filtered by an organization that monitors "Corporate Social Responsibility":
http://www.csrglobe.com/login/companies/unilever.html

The above site's parent organization, for reference:
http://www.cca-institute.org/

I deliberately avoided citing Unilever's own site in favor of sources who could be expected to be critical of Unilever.

I learned about this in a conversation last night. In that same conversation, I was told that Home Depot, which I had dismissed as the evil hardware giant, is one of the biggest corporate participants in sustainable logging and forest management.

And apparently Kinko's/FedEx, one of the world's biggest individual corporate consumers of paper is a leading player in the movement to promote recycling and reform/clean up the paper manufacturing industry.

I doubt even Call to Power can get away with dismissing the above as a gang of "inbred Welshmen" who realistically can't be expected to accomplish anything.

There's a common argument -- nobody here has raised it yet, but it is commonly bandied about on environment versus industry issues -- is that it is impossible for big business to go green without fatally harming profitability. It is an argument that particularly pisses me off, and I am glad that examples like the above can put the lie to it. I do not believe that Unilever, Home Depot, and Kinko's/FedEx are driving themselves out of business to save sharks and spotted owls. If they are doing these things, then it is obviously possible to be profitable while doing these things.

I do not like nor support the big corporate global business model for several reasons, but I also think it is foolish to think of all such huge organizations as being all of the same kind. When they decide to do the right thing, they can potentially be just as effective as when they decide to do the wrong thing.

How about a revamp then? Project Forest Gnome or something. And instead of filming it for television, we all just live in the woods and watch it from tree branches and giant mushrooms.
As long as Tim Gunn is there, I'm sure we can make it work.

Are you trying to make some sort of point?

If I'm reading correctly, it's summary is: People cause damage to the environment, so it's better off that they die rather than prolong their life.

But one wonders why he doesn't take that to the logical extension and advocate that everyone, not just cancer patients, just "accept their fate" and kill themselves right now.

The only necessary industries are farming, transportation, power generation and home construction.

As a result we should build many micro cities around the country that could be supplied by essentially local farms, and power generators (used only for heating, as electricity is an unnecessary luxury, unless such power can be derived from clean sources such as wind). As everyone will be living in apartment buildings, the energy usage will be reduced dramatically. The average apartment will be the size of a match box, the size of the city will be such that people can get everywhere using a bike at most, but foot travel would probably suffice. All necessary goods would be produced locally, further reducing transportation costs. No unnecessary things should be produced. This is the best way to combat GCC and environmental damage without resorting to wholesale slaughter of large portions of the populace.

Well, I wouldn't classify them as industries, but they're not really necessary. The vast majority of life saving measures have been in clean water and vaccinations, I think hospitals could be cut in preference for something smaller, and less encompassing. For example people with a high likelihood of dying should accept their fate, for example those with cancer. Its likely that the cost of supplies and power would far outweigh the benefits. Obviously I am not an expert in everything (read barely anything) so it's hard to say what would be more effective to cut rather than keep. But, we will surely be cutting many things that would normally go to fund some activities that are viewed as "vital", we can't expect to keep all those "vital" things.


The sad part is, i'm not really sure if you're serious or not. Because when it comes to any discussions related to the environment, no matter how batshit insane or crazy it is, you can never be too sure whether people are just f***ing around or are very serious and very.... nuts.

...
There's a common argument -- nobody here has raised it yet, but it is commonly bandied about on environment versus industry issues -- is that it is impossible for big business to go green without fatally harming profitability. It is an argument that particularly pisses me off, and I am glad that examples like the above can put the lie to it. I do not believe that Unilever, Home Depot, and Kinko's/FedEx are driving themselves out of business to save sharks and spotted owls. If they are doing these things, then it is obviously possible to be profitable while doing these things.

I do not like nor support the big corporate global business model for several reasons, but I also think it is foolish to think of all such huge organizations as being all of the same kind. When they decide to do the right thing, they can potentially be just as effective as when they decide to do the wrong thing.

Fortunately, people who are actually making money in the modern economy aren't so blinded.

Ray Anderson is the entrepreneurial visionary who has remade Interface flooring into an eco-friendly coroporation, and made money doing so (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/14/sustaing.html):

Interface's performance shatters the idea that environmental stewardship is just another cost. During the first three years of the company's drive toward sustainability, from 1994 to 1997, its net income totaled about $84 million. During that time, the company saved $50 million - in reduced materials costs, reduced energy costs, and reduced waste. That money went to the bottom line, not to the dump.

FREE (http://www.free-eco.org/index.php) is an entrepreneurial orgnaisation that attempts to combine entrepreneurialism with intelligent ecological stewardship. They see the creation of new eco-industries, and the greening of existing industries, as a business opportunity.

If I'm reading correctly, it's summary is: People cause damage to the environment, so it's better off that they die rather than prolong their life.

But one wonders why he doesn't take that to the logical extension and advocate that everyone, not just cancer patients, just "accept their fate" and kill themselves right now.

Oh, I see. I was hoping (s)he had made an inteliigent point instead.

Fortunately, people who are actually making money in the modern economy aren't so blinded.

Ray Anderson is the entrepreneurial visionary who has remade Interface flooring into an eco-friendly coroporation, and made money doing so (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/14/sustaing.html):



FREE (http://www.free-eco.org/index.php) is an entrepreneurial orgnaisation that attempts to combine entrepreneurialism with intelligent ecological stewardship. They see the creation of new eco-industries, and the greening of existing industries, as a business opportunity.



Oh, I see. I was hoping (s)he had made an inteliigent point instead.

I agree with FREE. There's gold in them thar bunnies and flowers and babbling brooks, and if there are capitalists out there who can't figure that out, then by the laws of capitalism, it's time for them to fall out of the race.