I agree. A million people recycling or cutting back on gas usage may help a little, but these things usually just distract people from the fact that huge factories dump slug into their air and drinking water, or that car companies continually fight fuel efficiency standards tooth-and-nail.

Fixing those two problems would have a far greater impact that millions of individual effort.

"I don't think the Government should be evolved[sic] in forcing people to reduce their carbon footprint... I just don't think it's the governments place."

But you do think the government should force people to have children if they get pregnant, prevent people from drinking alcohol, prevent people from smoking marijuana, prevent people from smoking tobacco, and prevent gays from getting married?

Sounds to me like you have a classic case of Conservative Cognitive Dissonance™. You should see your doctor, they have this new drug out called Truth® made by Logic and Rational Thinking inc.

I just want to get this straight in my head. You think the government has no place in preventing people from doing something that harms the entire world, but you think it is okay for the government to prevent people from doing things that harm only themselves?

What does that have to do with cars that look like they are from a Dr. Seuss book? Better fuel efficiency can be accomplished without a fundamental change to car's structure. Electric cars charge by solar power are the future.

And allowing global warming to continue does harm everyone, so why don't you think the government should be able to reduce carbon emissions?

Also if you think the government should prevent things that harm anyone do you think that unhealthy foods should be made illegal? What about rock climbing, bungee jumping, or abalone diving?

Tapout, now darlin'.

Now listen, if we don't enforce that people recycle and whatnot, then many wont. And the effect of people abusing the environment does add up. These are facts. It's only logical that guidelines be set for people to abide by so that global warming can be slowed.

I never use plastic bags, and the other day the checkout lady asked me, "why? it's too late anyway." But no... it's not too late as long as we're still trying.

Regulations are put in place to govern people too ignorant to govern themselves. The police arrest people who are stupidly driving drunk, and now I believe we should be able to punish people to ignorant to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.

I'm going to, for once, pretend that I agree with you. Global warming doesn't exist.. cough sorry I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Anyway. That doesn't mean that other symptoms of global warming don't exist. Americans produce way too much trash. Our landfills are over flowing. Our oceans are seas of plastic bags and chemicals that the wildlife is suffering and dying. Our air is polluted so much that in some part of the world people can't breathe. The oil reserves are dwindling, and pretty soon we will need alternative resources anyway.

Weather we all die of global warming is futile, if this other stuff persists it will make earth unlivable.

Think WALLE.

Well you just contradicted yourself. I know you love to point out when people do that, but you seem to love to do it too.

If you really make a difference here you should go after the grocery companies to stop using plastic bags all together.

You want people to conserve on their own, but you wont not use plastic bags unless they make you?

There is government needed. Because at this moment people are being encouraged to reduce, reuse and recycle and yet they don't.

I hate having to repeat myself, but you never listen so:

Regulations are put in place to govern people too ignorant to govern themselves. The police arrest people who are stupidly driving drunk, and now I believe we should be able to punish people to ignorant to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.

I'm ecstatic that you do what you can. Thank you. But being in Texas, I bet you leave your AC on all day in the summer... there are other things you probably do that you don't even think about.

Some people just don't give a damn. Those are the people I'm worried about.

wow, more name calling? give me a break please.

Deciding what to do with landfills and forcing people to recycle are two different issues.

How is that possible? How can you force people to recycle? What are you gunna give everyone a ticket if they don't recycle?, or if they leave their AC on!?

Yes, exactly.

At Ikea they charge for plastic bags, I love that idea. To conserve water in southern California they charge up the ass for going over your alloted amounts.

They even have people here who go through your recycling to make sure you're doing it properly.

"Having to decide what to do with the landfills is a direct result of people not recycling."

Right! So go give each and every person who doesn't recycle, a ticket.

"The answer here is mandatory Reducing, Reusing and Recycling."

So lets do it, without the government.

That sucks. I like freedom.

I like freedom too, but some laws are necessary.

"That sucks. I like freedom."

This is what I am talking about. Another example of your cognitive dissonance. Don't say you like freedom, that is a lie. You like the freedoms that you want. But if you don't want something you think it should be illegal.

Examples: Abortions, alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, gay marriage, prostitution.

You are undeserving of even uttering the word freedom if you are a social conservative.

"Global warming doesn't exist."

Oh I forgot the Association of British Drivers knows more than almost every scientist who has studied global warming.

Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has claimed that global warming isn't true. But what do those geeks know?

Individuals can definitely help to influence others to join in the effort, but one person or family cannot significantly lower greenhouse emissions or save natural resources on any scale. In order to conserve the environment, many people must get involved, all over the world.

Listing freedoms that you don't desire that you do support does not take away from the fact that there are many personal freedoms that you support restricting.

I love how you think everyone who disagrees with you is unedcuated. How arrogant can a 17 year old be to think he more educated than millions of people who have attended college and graduate school.

I never said you should not be allowed to say the word freedom, but someone who believes in the restriction of personal freedom shouldn't wave the banner of freedom so vehemently.

You essentially said that people who disagree with Bush are uneducated. You act like you are smarter and more educated than everyone who disagrees.

If you want to keep playing semantics fine, but I explained what I meant by desereve.

You never explained how you can justify removing freedoms that don't harm anyone, but allowing freedoms that do harm others.

If everyone was a saint, individual effort would be enough.

Sadly that's not the case.

We can preach conservation til we're blue in the face, but a lot of people won't go through the trouble unless government pushes them to.

I feel that every person can make a difference. If every individual makes an effort to conserve environment, the small efforts made by everyone can make difference when put together as a whole. (: HENCE, I FEEL THAT every effort is futile in conserving environment.

Uneducated people will always vote both ways and you know it.

Anyways, You paraphrased correctly. See it's not so bad is it? (;

The problem is where you said I am hypocritical. I think people should get fined for throwing trash onto the side of the road.

I don't have a problem with recycling. What I do have a problem with is people saying that I have to recycle because I don't. And I shouldn't have to.

With all the technology we have we can and should find a better way to get rid of trash. (that doesn't require somebody to moniter the way I get rid of crap) Some way to dessolve or discentigrate it. So that we can just send it to the dump and they make it go away.

Hey nice video, I thought you didn't like fear mongering. ...

"PS Your never answered leadheads question up there:

You never explained how you can justify removing freedoms that don't harm anyone, but allowing freedoms that do harm others."

I can't. Why would I want to justify that? None of the freedoms I want to 'remove' are harmless.

Sin hurts everything. I Believe that homosexuality is a sin. You obviously can't respect the fact that we can have different beliefs so whats the point?

in a setting where only one person does it for the rest of his life and no one else ever does, than yes.

but, this is the real world. the fact is, individuals each do their own version of w/e and other people do it as well.

take a look at me. i don't really care what others do, but i conserve energy and use way less plastic bags just because it helps me economically.

corporations benefit the most from going green. they actually get more people to buy their shit by showing how they use less plastic or how their products are more green.

and, supermarkets use way less plastic bags (which save them a shit load) and actually SELL the green bags to the customers.

the individual CEO just got everyone of their customers to help.

The efforts of the international committee is more visible as compared to those of the individual. The Kyoto Protocol managed to gain the support of at least 55 nations and created an agreement between these countries to reduce their carbon emissions by 2015. In this, we can see that international committees are able to gain the attention of audiences throughout the globe about a matter, and help implement plans to conserve the environment.

In addition, the international committees(eg. UN) have more power then a smaller, individual organisation. Most of the time, they are able to successfully carry out a certain plan as they have the capital, tools and connections to do so. This advantage over the individual organisations would eventually allow the international efforts to be more rewarding.

I agree that individual effort is futile in conserving the environment.

One such example has to do with air pollution. Can someone actually help reduce the rate of air pollution just by playing his or her own part? Yes some may argue that every person's effort when put together will help to reduce the amount of pollutants in the air, but the truth is that collaboration with various international organizations will have the greatest impact on saving the environment.

If only one person or one county were to reduce and control the amount of pollutants being released into the environment, yet other countries are not playing their part, the individual efforts will definitely be futile. Therefore even though individual efforts to help in some ways, the collaborated efforts, i believe, will have a greater impact in helping to conserve the environment.

i agree. Conserving the environment is not a one-man show. It requires the cooperation of all nations around the world. This can be proven by the constant effort of international agreements to get different nations to minimise their damage to the environment. So what if you reduce,reuse and recycle, when big, industrialised nations are still selfishly emitting indefinite amount of greenhouse gases. Nonetheless, while it may be true individual effort is far less significant, it is still necessary in an attempt to conserve the environment. Keep it going!

When talking about conserving the environment, there are many ways where we can do it, be it individual or group. However, it must come down to effectiveness in conserving.

Individual may be easier to handle, where it starts out from your home, then it will spread slowly. The impact made would be minimal. Also there is bound to be break down in the 'spreading' of conservation as our modern society are more liberal and active in their views. Time is also a factor in determining effectiveness. What is the use when individual efforts will take 100 years to solve climate change when the effect will be felt in 50 years time, or faster?

By conserving as a group, the effects felt would be much greater. In fact the bigger the group, the more impact felt, it is more effective in conserving. With more people conserving, time taken to solve global problem is faster. People also tend to 'follow the crowd' as big organizations represents unity, where most people are attracted to.

Therefore based on effectiveness, group effort is much better than individual. Just imagine, a community planting trees to fight pollution and climate change as compared to you trying to keep your wilting plant at home alive.

Environmental preservation will not come about through the individual contributions of individuals or non-profits, but through the action taken by the government to ensure sustainability. Thus is the nature of capitalism, and while many corporations currently appear to be hopping on the environmental "green bandwagon", it is all just publicity to drive profits. No, this current fad for "going green" will accomplish nothing until the government begins mandating harsher changes. Otherwise, people's interests will overcome the common interest to preserve the environment.

if you give yourself the right not to contribute, then everyone will give him/her self the right not to contribute..

the problem will get bigger and bigger,,, am sure your kids will have tough time being your children, lol

I disagree, individual effort is paramount to the conservation of the environment. I strongly believe in the cliche of "Think Globally, Act Locally". By limiting one's own impact on the environment, one can reduce their carbon footprint and hopefully influence others to do the same.

Simply thinking that it's "other people's problem to solve" is the exact apathy that leads to mass environmental damage. If everyone were to do their part to conserve the environment this world would be a much better place.

Individual effort is not futile in conserving the environment as everyone has a significant role to play in conserving the environment so as to prevent further degradation of the Earth. With a mentality that individual effort will not be significant in such a global issue, no one would feel the pressure to do something to conserve the environment.

Although individual efforts may not seem to have obvious direct impacts on the Earth, individual efforts would have great impact so long as everyone is committed to do so.

All of that is true, but I don't think the Government should be evolved in forcing people to reduce their carbon footprint. Besides maybe the obvious things like littering being against the law. I can understand that.

I just don't think it's the governments place. Look at the Boy Scouts Of America. They do so much to help and encourage others to help, but nobody is being forced.

"But you do think the government should force people to have children if they get pregnant, prevent people from drinking alcohol, prevent people from smoking marijuana, prevent people from smoking tobacco, and prevent gays from getting married?"

Yes.

"You think the government has no place in preventing people from doing something that harms the entire world"

No.

"but you think it is okay for the government to prevent people from doing things that harm only themselves?"

Things that harm anyone. And to a certain degree. I said I'm okay with littering being against the law. I just don't think we should have to drive cars that look like something out of a Dr. Seuss book. (;

The government should not tell me what cars to drive.

Global warming doesn't exist.

"Also if you think the government should prevent things that harm anyone do you think that unhealthy foods should be made illegal? What about rock climbing, bungee jumping, or abalone diving?"

That's exactly why I said "to a certain degree" and put it in bold. You are so predictable, and there is apparently nothing I can do about it.

"Now listen, if we don't enforce that people recycle and whatnot, then many wont. "

We can all try to do our part and encourage people to help out, without enforcing anyone. Like the good old BSA.

"I never use plastic bags, and the other day the checkout lady asked me, "why? it's too late anyway." But no... it's not too late as long as we're still trying."

I work at the grocery store. I bag peoples groceries. I hate it when people don't use plastic because it slows us down and makes me hate my life, it just sucks. People do it all the time. Yet we still run out of those bags every week. If you really make a difference here you should go after the grocery companies to stop using plastic bags all together.

Good luck.

You can't be open minded without puking? ..cool

"Americans produce way too much trash."

So let us, the people, work to fix that. No government needed.

I'm an Eagle Scout and planned many and been involved in many activities to clean up trash and help the environment. Don't get me wrong, I care.

Us boy scouts don't waste time blaming America for crap, we just do our part to help. A perfect example of what "we the people" can accomplish. without the government!!!

I try to do my part, but if I want to use plastic, I will. Then I will throw it away, in the trash. Not in the ocean.

And like I said, we run out every week anyways. That means other people use them anyways. I do encourage people not to litter.

You think the ocean is full of trash because consumers themselves put it there? That is soooo cute! And stupid, too. Your plastic bag finds it's way to the ocean.

You should encourage people to reduce their usage.

The phrase is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. But in reality you need to reduce your usage. If you need to use something, reuse it as much as possible. And after all that, if you can't reuse it anymore... recycle it. It's not if than or or whatever.

Even if you don't litter, you're still filling landfills and the ocean with this excess garbage. It's still detrimental to the environment.

I hate it when you repeat yourself too, and I do listen.

"I'm ecstatic that you do what you can. Thank you. But being in Texas, I bet you leave your AC on all day in the summer... there are other things you probably do that you don't even think about."

More and more assumptions, does it ever end?

"The police arrest people who are stupidly driving drunk, and now I believe we should be able to punish people to ignorant to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle."

How is that possible? How can you force people to recycle? What are you gunna give everyone a ticket if they don't recycle?, or if they leave their AC on!?

You want a break? What you need is a reality check. I'm calling a spade a spade. You need to hear it.

Having to decide what to do with the landfills is a direct result of people not recycling.

And do you know what we can do with the landfills?! Nothing but wait for those to decompose for years while you build more landfills. That doesn't sound like a solution to me at, just another big problem.

The answer here is mandatory Reducing, Reusing and Recycling.

"At Ikea they charge for plastic bags"

Thats not a bad idea.

"To conserve water in southern California they charge up the ass for going over your alloted amounts.

They even have people here who go through your recycling to make sure you're doing it properly."

That sucks. I like freedom.

I just don't think it's realistic to think that we can get everyone to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle without some pretty strong incentives... and it's only logical that those incentives be fines.

Fines will help pay for the damage done, and encourage people to act more wisely.

But if you disagree, how would you propose that we go about it?

Actually, the problem is that people think that conserving the environment means dramatic life changes, when in fact there are plenty of simple changes that can be made.

One very simple one is to eat less. Yes I said it, eat half of your portions and you are helping the environment. (this sounds like nothing, but if everyone where to do this it would take a huge toll of the agricultural carbon foot print-which is one of the largest) If you want to go one step further, consume less meat-which you don't need that much as it is. And you've all heard it, eat local foods if you can, etc etc.

Second, consume less energy, non-food related, this can be done in all kinds of fashions. One of the biggest losses of energy in a house is by not having it air tight. This simple adjustment can not only help the environment, but help the consumer save hundreds to thousands of dollars on their energy bills.

Those are just two ways that will truly help the effort. (more than you know)

One last point. I was at a case study last week on building a sustainable home. For 145,000 usd a man here in Chicago bought the land, rebuild the house, and made it sustainable. That is peanuts. By next year, he'll be collecting checks from Com Ed.

"You like the freedoms that you want. But if you don't want something you think it should be illegal."

That is not true, I don't like it when uneducated people protest against George Bush, but it is their freedom. The freedom of speech. I don't want democrats in the oval office but I don't think that should be against the law. There are a lot of things I don't like that are perfectly legal.

Way to put that in black and white, just to make me look bad.

"You are undeserving of even uttering the word freedom if you are a social conservative."

A lot of people would disagree with that sad statement. Including the founding fathers. Freedom of Speech sound familiar?

"Listing freedoms that you don't desire that you do support does not take away from the fact that there are many personal freedoms that you support restricting."

It took away from you over simplifying to make me look bad.

"I love how you think everyone who disagrees with you is uneducated."

I love how you continue to make assumptions about me that are false. Over and over again. I do not think that nobody is that Arrogant. And I'm 18. I don't know why you keep saying I'm 17. Notice how I'm not assuming why.

A lot of stupid people attended collage.

"I never said you should not be allowed to say the word freedom"

Yes you did.

"You are undeserving of even uttering the word freedom if you are a social conservative."

You said I didn't deserve to even say the word "freedom". Key word deserve, everyone deserves freedom of speech. What the hell is wrong with you?

"You essentially said that people who disagree with Bush are uneducated."

No I didn't.

That was only an example. I was only talking about the people that protest, that are uneducated. That doesn't mean all people who protest against Bush are uneducated.

Well stated Borme...I agree to the last word you've written.

I disagree. As a vegan, I'm well-accustomed to people telling me that one person can't change anything. What a load of horse hockey! One person's efforts plus another person's efforts plus another person's efforts equals the world's efforts! Thus, one person can make a world of difference.

As Mahatma Ghandi tells us, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

thats not true! if i want it, the environment will conserve itself :)

I disagree. Individual effort is not futile in conserving the environment. Futile means "serving no useful purpose : completely ineffective" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). I believe that, so long as we put in the effort, we will have an impact on the environment. If there is an impact, no matter how small, I believe we cannot say that the individual effort is completely ineffective. Thus it is not completely futile.

I disagree as well. Individual effort makes up the bulk of the community's effort in conserving the environment. If the individuals all play a part in conserving the environment, the impact would be much greater.

However, this also depends on the community you live in. A community of people with higher living standards would be more likely to consume more goods, therefore the extent of damage done to the environment would be greater. Thus, government;s effort in promoting the conservation of the environment to the people is important as well.

Individual effort is not futile as each one of us, collectively, makes up the people of this world. A person by himself may seem to be insignificant to the other larger global efforts going on. However, we should not forget that people are able to influence others; a single effort may gradually evolve into a larger scale project as more people participate actively.

A story goes of a man picking up starfishes stranded on the beach and throwing them back to the sea. While the act may seem futile since there are thousands of other starfish stranded on other beaches, the man stated simply that he had made a difference to each starfish that he saved. In the same way, we can apply this to the environment. Our actions make be minor, but each conservative or recycling action we take, we reduced the impact of Man's negative action on the environment.

Individual effort has a direct impact on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The production of goods and services which in the process produces these greenhouse gases as by-products is affected by the demand of consumers. Therefore, individual effort can significantly reduce the number of activities producing greenhouse gas emissions if they choose to boycott goods which produce large amount of pollutants.

I didn't like it when uneducated people Voted Bush into Office, but it happened.

The point is, Jake, that you do advocate to restrict the freedoms of a lot of people. But you turn a blind eye to those freedoms because you don't believe in them.

Basically what we're trying to help you understand is that you're being severely hypocritical by saying... and I paraphrase:

Gays can't get married, but you have the freedom to trash the planet because freedoms are important.

I was really happy to read this article as well: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090519/retired-generals-call-military-citizens- step-climate-challenge . Now let's just see if the US military takes on some responsibility and helps out with the efforts.

Everyone knows it....

"See it's not so bad is it? (;"

It's great, but you don't paraphrase me correctly, so I had to ask you to quote me instead. If you didn't weaken or change my arguments while paraphrasing me, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

"I don't have a problem with recycling. What I do have a problem with is people saying that I have to recycle because I don't. And I shouldn't have to."

Why not? If you shouldn't have to be recycle, because this is such a free country, then I should be able to marry a woman. That's how you're being hypocritical.

"...Some way to dessolve or discentigrate it. So that we can just send it to the dump and they make it go away."

Well, they're working on it. But as of right now... the only economical way is to burn it, and what do you get when you burn anything? Ding.

But oh wait, you don't believe in global warming. So I guess it doesn't exist because you don't believe it. So yeah! Lets Burn it!!! Global Bon Fire?

Yeah, no... The only thing we can do right now, because we don't have that technology and there is no way that it would be economically possible to apply that technology to all the trash, we need to have as many people as possible working to conserve.

PS Your never answered leadheads question up there:

You never explained how you can justify removing freedoms that don't harm anyone, but allowing freedoms that do harm others.

Now a movie for the kiddies here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyZbw8waVwk

I posted this for Jake, already. but I think everyone should see it.

Yeah, you can never justify your views, because they're based on biblical law that not everyone should have to abide by. But you do want to remove freedoms!

That 'fearmongering' is based on fact, and I think it's a message that needs to be spread.

The point is that I believe in global warming and in the pollution of the planet. And so being gluttonous with respect to resources is a 'sin' to me.

This isn't harmless, and the freedom to neglect our environment should be taken away.

This is a basic economics question. Socialist or not, if you follow each to their end.

Realistically, and to be accurate to the question, an individual's effort is never futile. If anyone studies up enough and is truly dedicated to conserving the environment it'll spread beyond their personal reach.

Take for instance the man who built a home in Boston for ~$170k that will by next year be paying for itself via selling excess electricity to their power grid. This means less pollution from the power plants too. If everyone was as dedicated to conservation, they would all be doing the same thing. Scraping older houses and replacing them with completely self sustainable homes and selling power. He doesn't even need a job anymore, after spending $170,000. All he has to do is keep up the house and it'll supply him with everything he needs.

Also, my father used to work for Frito-Lay, as a technician. On his spare time he'd go through the facility and make it more efficient. He's still doing it today as a maintenance technician for Saputo. Just by changing the architecture, a little at a time, of the factory he can save the business millions of dollars a year in energy savings. He's always been one to conserve energy too, that's just his thing, even at home.

While I agree, a great part of it is the businesses responsibility, that doesn't mean that you as an individual can't change it. The more people you have caring, the more the business sector will tune in and do their part, that's obvious.

Even if you believe that it doesn't make a difference where it counts, it's like religion in that it gives people something to do that is more worth while than sitting around the television and complaining about everything. It's a healthy alternative to people's daily bullshit.

"A small effort goes a long way."

Individual effort is very important in conserving the environment. If everyone can play a part in conserving the environment simply by utilising both sides of the paper or recycling plastic bottles, bags or containers, it would help to conserve the environment. How is it going to help? Well, if there is less usage of these resources, in other words, the demand for the resources are very low, because people are using them at a slow rate, companies will manufacture less of the materials at any given time. Hence, the raw materials obtained to produce the products for consumers to consume will be much lesser, since companies may not find it profitable to supply the products in the market. There will also be less carbon emissions that may pollute the environment - global warming, due to the burning of fossil fuels to manufacture the products. Thus, saving the environment. So, individual effort is thus important as it may create snowball effect in terms of the consumption of the natural resources by companies and firms to produce goods and services for us, consumers. Each and every one of us have the ability to save the environment by just conserving our environment today. For example, if possible, do not order takeaways which package food in disposable packages and using disposable utensils. Instead, try to bring along luchboxes if we want takeaways or if even better to dine at the place if we are able to afford the time spend there. So, bear in mind that a small effort goes a long way.

I disagree. Yes, individual effort only contributes minimally, however, it is not totally worthless in conserving the environment. It is not fair to say that individual effort to conserve the environment is futile only because the result of it is not so significant as the results of various international collaborations. I believe that, however small it may be, small individual efforts, like swithching off electrical appliances when not in use, walking instead of driving whenever possible,do help to conserve the environment.

Moreover, individual effort is what it takes for global effort. When every individual is doing their part to conserve the environment, it will certainly create a difference. While it is true that individual effort can only do so much to conserve the environment, that cannot be an excuse for not doing our part.

Individual effort is futile in every large-scale problem. But if we all put forth effort, our efforts are no longer individual they are collective.

So this defeatist attitude only works if you are relying on everyone else to fail. If, instead, you hope that some will succeed, then your efforts will join theirs, making a bigger difference than any of you alone could have.