Is there an environment crisis?

[Axxman]

There are many environmental issues...there are long-term issues and issues that affect us on a daily basis. Just check out the health effects of living near a busy road, or in a city with poor air quality.

Iryssa...those are not "environmental crisis" as the topic refers to. Living near a busy road is a minor issue, with minor (if any) effects. Same with air pollution. Is air pollution the 'ideal' scenario? No...but its not like you can't go to Los Angeles. People live there for crying out loud...lol. Furthermore...people have every right to NOT move to houses on busy streets, or to congested cities. Its simply not a crisis scenario. Its a minor issue that individuals can deal with as they wish...it should not be legislated as a means to tell people how to live.

[Iryssa]

There are many environmental issues...there are long-term issues and issues that affect us on a daily basis. Just check out the health effects of living near a busy road, or in a city with poor air quality.

Iryssa...those are not "environmental crisis" as the topic refers to. Living near a busy road is a minor issue, with minor (if any) effects. Same with air pollution. Is air pollution the 'ideal' scenario? No...but its not like you can't go to Los Angeles. People live there for crying out loud...lol. Furthermore...people have every right to NOT move to houses on busy streets, or to congested cities. Its simply not a crisis scenario. Its a minor issue that individuals can deal with as they wish...it should not be legislated as a means to tell people how to live.

My point is this: if those localized factors are so harmful to humans, imagine the wide-scale impact those things create. These same pollutants talked about in those articles don't just up and vanish into some void...these problems build up and spread, and the longer we ignore them, the wider the area they will affect. Also, YOU may have the option of living in a quiet area, maybe even in the country...but imagine the impact this has on people who live in countries far more densely populated than the US.

[georgesbluegirl]

Myth: Forests are in rapid decline.

Are you in denial? This is one of the most obvious ones. If you don't believe it, just check out the satellite pictures, bro.

Actually, any environmentalist worth her salt will tell you that since the Clean Air Act, a lot of things have gotten better. However, indoor air is still a major problem in the US, and there are certainly major air problems in developing nations such as China and India (ever heard of the Chinese city you couldn't see via satellite for the thick smog? Actually, there was/is more than one). Obviously we're not done with the issues of smog or general air pollution in the US either - look at LA, and look at eastern states who have horrible AQIs because of Midwestern states (raises hand. thanks, Ohio)

It's more symbolic than anything else. In the long haul it won't have much affect on CO2 concentrations, but politically it paves the way for international discussion and action on the issue. As it was requested that we pretend that anthropogenic climate change does not exist, I'll leave it at that.

Eventually, we're going to need to. Hubbert's peak is of course a fallacy - the issue isn't that we'll run out of oil, it's that we have to move into places less and less accessible to get it. Eventually, it's cost prohibitive. And - ignoring CC again and without launching into too much of an energy diatribe - there are already great ideas in the works. Hydrogen fuel cell technology should be pretty cool. Regardless, isn't it a good idea to stop depending on energy from overseas anyway?

And you'll find a great diversity of opinions about them within the environmental community, ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative.

Pollution and drinkable water is more the issue. And it IS an issue in a lot of places. Basically don't waste water. Is that so weird?

Sooooo...I take you buy into all the garbage.

I never realized how much "being able to see from outer space" meant to enviro's. Maybe they should move the camera around up there cuz they obviously aren't getting the whole picture.

In 1920, US forrests covered 732 million acres; today 737 million acres. Inspite of a population increase of 170 million people. Sounds to me like that Greenpeace satellite is out of focus.

There is plenty of freshwater...really the only concern is accessability...not quantity. Therefore, its not an environmental issue, its an engineering issue.

I mean I could go on...but whats the point. You clearly are getting your info from enviro liberal progressives who care more about controlling people than telling the truth about these issues. There is no enviromental crises. There are minor environmental issues that can be dealt with at the local levels if people CHOOSE to do so. It shouldn't be imposed forcefully by some imperialistic progressive socialist agenda.

In response to your forest point, specifically: I'm not sure where you're getting that number from, but it doesn't really matter. The most extreme US deforestation occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries. We're actually experiencing regrowth in a lot of previously cleared areas (like a lot of Maine). That doesn't mean that forests today aren't in trouble. Iryssa is right - you're going to have to look beyond the US on this one.

I wasn't arguing the "amount of water" thing, I was refocusing the question.

Regardless, I've spent a great deal of time on these issues and I've looked at a lot of numbers, opinions and scientific studies. If you really want to go issue by issue, we can. But don't talk down to me. I care enough about these problems - and about the people affected by these problems - to learn about them, and I want to spend my life trying to fix them. I am an environmentalist. I get my information from science and from well-documented sources, as well as from what I can see happening around me.

I don't deny that we've done a lot of good things in the United States since the reforms in the 1970s. But nationally and definitely globally, we have a long way to go.

[forrestkc]

Oh...and can I get the scientific study that says 50k people die from pollution. I don't want the lib blog that said it...i wanna know the source of this bunk.

50k is actually a conservative estimate.

A 1994 study by Pope estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Americans died yearly from the effects of outdoor particulate air pollution.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/...Lung_Cancer.asp

[forrestkc]

Several of the Big myths according to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce:

Myth: Forests are in rapid decline.

No, Forests in the United States are not in rapid decline, this primarily due to the increased number of protections on forests in the United States. However, Old Growth forests are very threatened in the United States and only a tiny percentage of them remain. There is also the problem of southeastern "pine plantations" rapidly replacing mixed hardwood forests.

Myth: Air quality is getting worse.

Actually, air quality has improved significantly in the United States due to the Clean Air Act and its amendments in 1990. This is a success story for the environmentalist movement actually.

Myth: The Kyoto Protocol will successfully reduce levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Actually, its not designed to reduce C02 levels, the CO2 currently in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for several hundred years. However, Kyoto would curb carbon emission growth and growth in CO2 PPM in the atmosphere. Its certainly not enough, but its a start.

Myth: Oil can easily be replaced by renewable energy.

I don't think that anyone thinks it will be easy.

Myth : Genetically modified (GM) crops are

[forrestkc]

Sooooo...I take you buy into all the garbage.

I never realized how much "being able to see from outer space" meant to enviro's. Maybe they should move the camera around up there cuz they obviously aren't getting the whole picture.

In 1920, US forrests covered 732 million acres; today 737 million acres. Inspite of a population increase of 170 million people. Sounds to me like that Greenpeace satellite is out of focus.

There is plenty of freshwater...really the only concern is accessability...not quantity. Therefore, its not an environmental issue, its an engineering issue.

I mean I could go on...but whats the point. You clearly are getting your info from enviro liberal progressives who care more about controlling people than telling the truth about these issues. There is no enviromental crises. There are minor environmental issues that can be dealt with at the local levels if people CHOOSE to do so. It shouldn't be imposed forcefully by some imperialistic progressive socialist agenda.

You know, being that she is an ecology major, you might could actually learn something about environmental issues from her.

For example, the issue in the United States is not deforestation, largely that has been reversed since the days of the timber barons a hundred years ago. The problem in the United States is forest fragmentation due to increased development, diverse mixed hardwood forests of the southeast being replaced by pine plantations, and protecting the last old growth forests still remaining in the United States from logging and development.

[Iryssa]

*grin* You're on a roll, Forrest

[forrestkc]

*grin* You're on a roll, Forrest

Conservation is one issue that I care a lot about. There is hardly a weekend that goes by that me and our son are not out fishing, camping, hiking, or going on a backpacking trip. I love the outdoors and want to see it protected so every generation after us has the opportunity to enjoy it as much as we do.

This is how I see it. I think it was 1968 when an Apollo mission was able to turn the cameras around and take a picture of the entire world just sitting there in space. Think about that, from the dawn of man all the way until 1968 no one but God ever was able to see the entire earth at once. This lead to the modern conservationist / green movement.

If we took our largest rocket and launched a mission to the nearest star as fast as we could get there, assuming we actually had the fuel, it would take 100,000 years to make the journey. Here we have this place just teaming with life and it is that far from anything else. If you were lost at sea and you came upon a small island, I bet you would try to conserve every resource on that little island and use it as sustainably as possible. Yet here we are, over 6.5 billion of us on this little planet, this little island in the middle of space, and a lot of us just don't get it.

[hepatocyte]

If you look at it from a Biblical perspective (because you know, anything that remotely resembles liberalism is evil), we are to be good stewards of earth. After all, God created all flora and fauna, and He called them "good". So we should do what we can to preserve what He has created.

Not all environmental conservationists are hippies or mother earth-worshipping nuts.

[forrestkc]

If you look at it from a Biblical perspective (because you know, anything that remotely resembles liberalism is evil), we are to be good stewards of earth. After all, God created all flora and fauna, and He called them "good". So we should do what we can to preserve what He has created.

Not all environmental conservationists are hippies or mother earth-worshipping nuts.

God did not create the world and everything in it, and then told us to "take, rape it, its yours". Our relationship to creation is like a tenant. I made the scriptural case for Christian Environmentalism before, but I will do so again here since its topical:

Let's start with Genesis 1:26

Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

Leviticus 25-23-24

"The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine, and you are but aliens who have become my tenants. Therefore, in every part of the country that you occupy, you must permit the land to be redeemed.

So we are created in the spiritual image of God, and we are given dominion over God's creation. Otherwise to be stewards of Creation. Now what is a steward? A steward is someone who looks after something on behalf of someone else. Therefore, we are to look after God's creation on behalf of God.

The Creation is for us to use but but not exploit:

Jeremiah 2:7

"When I brought you into the garden land to eat its goodly fruits, You entered and defiled my land, you made my heritage loathsome."

James 5:5

"You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter."

What happens if we are good stewards of God's creation?

Leviticus 26:4-6

I will give you rain in due season, so that the land will bear its crops, and the trees their fruit; your threshing will last till vintage time, and your vintage till the time for sowing, and you will have food to eat in abundance, so that you may dwell securely in your land. I will establish peace in the land, that you may lie down to rest without anxiety. I will rid the country of ravenous beasts, and keep the sword of war from sweeping across your land.

What happens if we are poor stewards of God's creation?

Revelation 11:18.

"The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

What is the purpose of God's creation? It is to glorify God.

Psalm 96:11-13

Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice; let the sea and what fills it resound; let the plains be joyful and all that is in them. Then let all the trees of the forest rejoice before the LORD who comes, who comes to govern the earth, To govern the world with justice and the peoples with faithfulness.

Isaiah 43:20

Wild beasts honor me, jackals and ostriches, For I put water in the desert and rivers in the wasteland for my chosen people to drink,

What about individual species, plants and animals? Let's look at Genesis again:

Genesis 1:11-12

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was.

Genesis 1:20-21

Then God said, "Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky." And so it happened:

God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw how good it was,

Genesis 1:24-25

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened:

God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was.

So God sees his creation, the plants and animals from the smallest organisms to the largest animals walking the earth, as he created them as good.

So lets break this down:

God created the earth and all life on it to Glorify Him.

God sees his entire creation as he created it as good.

God created man in his spiritual image and gave him dominion over his creation.

God's creation is his, not ours, we are to be stewards of his creation.

We can use his creation, but not exploit it.

We are to live simply (I did not quote the scripture on this one, but there are hundreds of references to this in scripture).

If we are good stewards of his creation, then God's creation will provide for our needs.

If we are poor stewards of his creation, then we will bear God's wrath come judgement.

One final point, The Great Commission tells us that we are to teach others to "obey everything I have commanded you". Thus, since environmental stewardship is a command of God, we are practice it and teach it to others that we bring the Gospel to.