I think there is some truth in the fact that human activity can damage the environment - no question. However, I think this is being played upon and exaggerated by Governments for their own ends. I know that sounds like some conspiracy theory, but there are so many examples of obvious waste that it is very clear that the situation is not as dire as some would have us believe.
In Britain, we hear things such as:
- we are told we will need to change our diet (meat based) as large populations of cattle are bad for the environment via the huge amounts of methane they emit (via flatulence lol).
- despite Britain’s fuel (for cars) tax always having been sky high, the environment is being used as a retrospective justification, and an excuse to push petrol prices even higher. The price for a liter of petrol has roughly doubled in a decade, from ~70 pence to ~ £1.40. The vast majority of that is tax (the total amount, not just the rise). This is despite motoring being responsible for less than 2% of all emissions. Some people openly want the Government to literally tax people out of their cars, despite Britain’s pathetic excuse for a public transport system.
- that we should cut down on the power we use for domestic purposes - for cooking, heating our homes, heating water to wash ourselves etc
Now, if the environment really was in dire trouble, these things would sound entirely reasonable measures for a Government to take.
But this advice is given against a backdrop of:
- most City councils having a dismal record of recycling (especially compared to continental europe) . Despite citizens using recycling collection facilities, often Councils still send it all to landfill, because it is cheaper and easier for them.
- massive amount of paper junk mail. Often, I get 3,4 or 5 of the same pizza menus, loan offers, adverts etc in the post at once (for example). All those trees cut down, processed into paper, driven to printers, driven to customers, then driven around the country by the post office. A massive carbon footprint, for junk mail which goes straight in the bin unread.
- continual reliance on coal burning power stations to provide the bulk of our energy. (because they are scared of nuclear, and renewable energy just doesn’t cut it in terms of providing an economical base load)
- massive amounts of obvious waste of electrical power. The same Government which says I use too much power to heat my home still wants all its public buildings lit up at night with pretty decorative lights. Walk into any department store or cosmetics shop. Look at the massive amount of pretty lights used to light up the displays of make-up and perfume etc. There are so many lights, that I often find it uncomfortably hot in these places.
- as mentioned, the UK has an absolutely pathetic public transport system for a country of its wealth and status. It is very limited in scope, very unreliable, very expensive and has limited operating hours. It’s guff. It is also dirty and dangerous (I myself have been seriously assaulted by a drunk, on public transport - booo! lol). How can we cut down on fuel use, if there is no decent, affordable, 24 hour transport system to take the place of our cars? I would love to live in (eg) Berlin, with its awesome network of trains, trams and buses. But in Britain, I am forced to rely on my car.
So, while I am willing to believe that we can damage the environment, I cannot see that things are as bad as people say, while this massive amount of obvious waste continues around me. This is waste the Government could easily eliminate with legislation - but they do not. So, either the situation is exaggerated, or the Government is placing all the burden for change onto the public - as opposed to themselves and Industry.
Governments could often make easy, quick improvements to our way of life via legislation, but instead they often choose a taxation approach instead. (eg good public transport will get people out of cars more effectively than will expensive petrol And. r shops using recycled paper bags will help the environment more than making people pay for plastic bags. Taxing tobacco is another example of this approach). Governments never follow ideals, but rather money making schemes dressed up as ideals.
There have been several instances of environmentalists caught lying or exaggerating already. Himalayan glaciers and hong kong water levels are two examples where they lied (in studies) to create a problem. Previously, scientists who did good work earned the respect of their peers and the gratitude of their government. But now that celebrity and riches can also be expected, they have every temptation to twist their findings to suit their own purposes.
Regardless, everyone has a moral duty to respect and care for the environment. Ideally, there should be no difference in our human behaviour, if global warming is true or not - because we should always seek to eliminate waste and live responsibily, not just when we are forced to. So, in that sense, the actual truth of the situation is a moot point.
As it turns out, trends of the earths temperature (since records began) correspond pretty well with trends of sunspot activity for the same periods. I happen to believe that its more likely that the sun - the main source of the earths heat - is what mainly affects the earths temperature, far more than does humanity.
