Thread 16753765

If you live in a first world country, do you really need to live an enviornmentally conscious lifestyle? I feel like meme advice from school like don't waste food, don't waste water, don't burn paper are solutions to problems only found in developing countries with burgeoning populations that are just starting to industrialize.

>>16753765 (OP)
You're right about food and water. First world countries throw away ridiculous amounts of food to overproduction and retarded quality control. Water is always in flow and recycled by the fucking water cycle which everyone learns about in elementary school but apparently forgets later. You can't waste water in any way that "damages the environment"

Paper is a huge problem actually, along with other forms of wood. Enivornmentards will have yo believe that wood is "good for the environment", but all the biggest forests on the planet are actively shrinking due to both illegal and "legal" lumbering

>>16753783
i would assume the effects of logging is offset by shrinking populations. Deforestation seems to happen mostly in third world countries

>>16753765 (OP)
All of this Sunday school ecology is mostly an outcome of ESG scores. It's not meant to "save the planet" or whatever, it's a mechanism by which institutions attract investors. This is why (((global warming))) is a favorite of all kinds of cronies, because it's very easy to virtue signal with that.

There is a genuine ecological crisis (ecosystem collapse) but curtailing that would probably mean returning to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Please see pic related as a source for all this.

>>16753786
what shrinking populations? Global population is increasing steadily, and countries with below-replacement birth rates are importing thirdworlders to prop up their economy. There are no shrinking populations anywhere

>>16753765 (OP)
It's a form of trauma programming. Meant to saturate your attention and make you feel one step away from annihilation. It encourages people to comply and police others. Really straightforward mind control stuff.

>>16753783
>You can't waste water in any way that "damages the environment"
This is another big one. Every time you turn on a faucet this early childhood anxiety kicks in, you're wasting all the water! Meanwhile there's a giant river beside your house.

>>16753786
Deforestation is mostly happening in third world countries, because the first world countries have raped their forests already centuries ago. Where do you think all the wood cut in third world countries is shipped off to?

U dont waste water but u waste time to clean that water with chemicals plus it takes electricity that could of gone to my sperg machine . Food is still a good amount of house hold spending and we need our sperg machines to keep function so no electricity is a huge problem.

>>16753765 (OP)
ah the old climate shame humiliation ritual

>>16753783
>Paper is a huge problem actually, along with other forms of wood. >Enivornmentards will have yo believe that wood is "good for the environment", but all the biggest forests on the planet are actively shrinking due to both illegal and "legal" lumbering
My country is like 70% forest but the vast majority of that is just mono cultural tree plantations. Even if you plant new trees as fast as you take them it will still destroy the forest.

>>16753783
Actually Groundwater is only partially renewable. It depends on the climate cycles to refill and both bad years, increased concrete cover by urbanization, increased use by farming and increased demand by urbanization put a stress on the aquifer to the point we use more than it can renew.

Does it mean we do something by not wasting it? We decrease demand for other people to use, we put less strain on the pumping mechanism so the water company saves money and we pay a lower bill. Do we save the aquifer? No, only by not-selling the land to grifters can you protect it.

>Food
Wasting food increases demand, but not as much as simply overpopulating the place like taking immigrants in and telling people to have kids.

>Burning paper
This DOES produce pollutants which are bad for you, contributes to the albedo thing for warming. And it's just bad form to do.

Barely any food gets wasted. Its simply not true. Only food that gets wasted are some of these worthless vegetables that rot in 2 days like lettuce, the bulk of which rots before it makes it to the supermarkets. Pretty much nothing that matters rots or gets wasted.
These fruits and vegetables that have le blemish dont get wasted, they get used to make sauces or fed to animals.

>>16755363
Everything past expiry date gets thrown in the trash
Everything people order at a restaurant and don't finish gets thrown in the trash, as well as everything pre-cooked that didn't sell by the end of the day
Everything damaged on the way to a supermarket doesn't get shipped back, it gets trashe. Same for fruit that roton shelves

>>16753765 (OP)
>"Wifi doesnt grow on trees, it harms the hecking environment"
>Uses a light behind the sign that chugs electricity to make the sign slightly brighter.

I actually hate useless arrogant university lefties so fucking its insane. Their hypocrisy is so fucking unbelievable.

>>16755421
I don't feel anything. It's a picture of ink on plastic that's a message between people thousands of miles away and none of them will ever know I exist, and interfering with this dystopian larp would violate the prime directive.

>>16753783
Water being technically renewable doesn't mean that it's practically renewable everywhere nor that it's environmentally free of consequences even if it is. Firstly lot of places take water from essentially non renewable aquifers or other sources you wouldn't really want to tap into like rivers that go below their usual flow rates as a result. Then the water gets treated and transported (both ways too) regardless of what you "do" with it. If you waste water that's loads of wasted energy and chemicals that wouldn't need to be spent. It's also something you can easily control and directly saves you money if you do it. Perhaps most importantly it's an easy lesson to teach to kids about resource conservation which has more value than the actual value of saved water.
It's basically stupid to seethe about it.

>>16755421
It's worth to use resources to conserve resources. You can argue that it would have been better to place that add on a billboard without light but that's just a commercial bilboard that has the light in it already. It would cost more resources to have a custom build setup to "save" resources in this case. It's a very common bad argument against environmental protection to demand that resources should first be stripped from any endeavor that strives to protect the environment. If even one person notices the advert because of the light and does something like I dunno turns the lights off their house one time before they leave then the light paid itself back already.

>>16753765 (OP)
>wifi's destroying the environment, think
>but we're still offering free complementary wifi
>BUT YOU CAN'T USE IT, but we're still offering it just in case

>>16756978
Wasted energy is not wasted water. I appreciate that waste of energy is an issue, a very big one, but these are two entirely separate issues

>>16757004
But they are not, you can't save the energy spent to pump and clean and treat and then pump and treat the water again except by not wasting the water in the first place.