World-Wide Destruction
 

I have come here to hopefully educate someone about the single most destructive force in the world. This force has the potential to completely and wholistically destroy the entire world under the most extreme circumstances. In fact, this potent force is already beginning to consume Europa and some parts of Asia. They are already beginning to feel its devastating effects upon them.

And this power hides itself. Indeed, few people know what it truly does. It hides itself under the pretense of "doing good". But DO NOT believe it; these are deceptions. Pure and simple. This entity has been around for only 100 years. At first it was good, but nowdays, it is just evil.

What is this force of destruction you ask? It is just one word called: enviromentalism.

Of all the possible things in the world, Enviromentalism does the most harm. It has done more damage than any natural disaster. Its impact has only been rivaled by that of Communism. It affects everything it touches... and usually, in a very destructive and negative way. Now, you may want me to explain my claims, seeing that you may perceive them to be nothing more than Grade-A bullshit!

I will start with the basics: we all mankind live in a globalized capitalistic world. In fact, our current state of Capitalism was defined first by an economist with a name called John Maynard Keynes. The economic theory of Keynes (Keynesian Economics) was accepted all over the world, by each and every human living in this planet... until they failed in the 70's, and two of the world's largest economic powers were plunged into a deep recession: U.S.A. and the Great Britain, or mostly known as England. Under the pretenses of Keynesian economics, the government had to step in and min/max the economy when it entered a crisis.

Of course, if anyone knows the history of economics, this failed miserably, and the theories of Keynes were laid bare for what they were: failures. Enter the 80's. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan ran for leadership in their respective countries. What made this special is that they both ran at the same time, both supported a new economic theory: that of an Austrian economist by the name of August Friedrich von Hayek.

His theories were the opposite of Keynes. He said that the government should uninvolve itself almost completely with the economy. They should remove price controls, wage controls, rules, regulations, etcetera. Now, when Reagan and Thatcher entered office they followed this theories and their countries econimies were miraculously fixed over a few years.

The world rejoiced because it had found a new economic champion. Out with the old and in with the new. Friedrich von Hayek's theories were king. All over the world developing areas found new tenets, and their economies began to bustle. The most perfect example of this is Thailand. Thailand is the closest any nation has come to perfectly following his ideals, and they have a high-invulnerable economy. Now, this brings us into modern day. Von Hayek's theories still reign strong and supreme all over this world, but now, it faces its deadly opposition. That's right: enviromentalism.

Quite frankly, enviromentalism (in the scale it has made itself) is the anathema of Von Hayek's economics. It revolves around, controlling corporations and business. Enviromentalists 'strive' to protect the planet's enviroment, yet the enviroment is already fine. They are going TOO far, putting regulations and rules onto business.

For example, prior to the 2 hurricanes ravaging the Gulf Coast, gas was still high. Do you know why this is? It has nothing to do with the amount of oil we have. Despite paranoia among the populace, we have enough oil to last us a very long time. So, oil is not a problem.

Because the enviromentalists managed to pull a few bills through Clinton. These bills ravaged the related industry. Since 2002, 56% of all oil refineries have closed and locked shut their doors. Refineries. And if anyone knows anything about the supply-and-demand,, when the supply goes down, prices go up. It is the lack of ability to process the gasoline that has caused the high price No new oil refineries have opened since 1972, because the new refineries cannot make a profit. And since no profit can be made, there is no incentive to enter that particular business.

And this is only one example of enviromentalism hurting our economy. with high gas prices, all, and I mean it, all industries and services suffer. For example, people can no longer afford to go to restaurants. So the restaurants do not receive as much as revenue. As a result, they are forced to lay-off workers. BOOM! Our unemplyement rises, and this is only an analysis of one aspect of this one issue.

Enviromentalism negatively touches us in many aspects of our whole lives. The EPA (Enviromental Protection Agency) is perhaps one of the worsest things to ever happen in all the U.S.A. It strangles businesses, throwing steep regulations, fees, and fines upon them. As a result, these businesses cannot afford to stay open, or they make very little profit. So, in the end, they do nothing but to close down. Unemplyement heavily rises.

We even feel the pain of the enviromentalism in the goods we buy. The businesses that produce the goods are hammered by the EPA to keep up with guidelines... and this guidelines cost money... a lot. So, instead of taking the hit themselves, (which they shouldn't), they pass the painful cost unto the consumers, us. As a result, the prices of our goods rise.

Note, this is only in the United States. Other parts of the world would have it significantly worser than us, for other places in the world (Europe, part of Asia, etc.) have signed onto one of the worst disasters to ever strike the world: the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol is everything the EPA is, but much, much worser. It controls even more strictly. It has even stricter guidelines. Its rules are even more painful and worse. And it drives up prices even more. It causes stagnation in almost every economy it touches. European countries now face rising unemployement. Their economies suffer. The cost of their gas is much worse than ours...

If you read this, please give me some recognition that you understand and accept what I have said. And if you previously believe in enviromentalism, I hope this post has shatteres the illsional pretence it worked under...

It may be bad for me to ignore the great text and talk only about the little ending, but isn't the Kyoto Protocol objective just to lower the emission of nocive gas? How would that be strict and painful? Correct me if i'm wrong.

Twice within the past 20 years, the world's economy has almost failed because small areas nearly collapsed. There are larger things at stake than having an absolute perfect environment. There is nothing wrong with the environment; therefore the Kyoto Protocol is useless and the enviromentalists have already done their job. Now it is time for them to realize that they are not needed for mankind anymore.

There is.... nothing... wrong... with the enviroment?

Kyoto protocol useless?

Dude... you're begging to be flammed... take it down a notch... first the overheated personal opening statement... then... the huge redundant History lesson, and now, Economics over global Enviroment...

Brace yourself, i think you're in for the rough ride...

I am always ready. After all, this is a debate, and anyone can express their opinions in one, so it is not my problem. I respect people's opinions, and I respect yours too.

Well I think that you should know that the "reganomics" of the 80's almost triggered economic collapse. Lassiez-Faire economics create crushing gaps between the rich and the poor. It creates a modern serfdom. Plus, cutting emisson's cannot possibly be a bad thing. I for one would like to stop mercury dumping in the ocean. One can of tuna a month does not cut it.

Jesus, man. Environmentalism almost as bad as Communism? What nonsense!

There are two world views concerning this.

There is the world view that there is MAN and then everything else separate and below man, and that the earth is something to be exploited and raped for profit or used however humans deem necessary.

Second, there is the world view that we as humans are a part of nature and that we exist in a balance within a complex system, and that we ought to not screw up that balance or bad things could happen.





We have polluted our rivers and lakes and the oceans of the world. We're getting sicker and sicker because of it. You can't eat more than a certain number of fish out of my state of Connecticut because of the mercury levels. We are polluting the SHIT out of the air and because of this more people are getting asthma and other lung diseases. We have blown up mountains, cut down ancient forests, and strip mined our way to hell. It all equals out to dollars, granted a LOT of dollars. But what good is money if you can't eat or breathe or drink clean food, air, or water? Environmentalism is really the only sensible thing to believe in these days. I'm astounded you would suggest otherwise.

The fact is that it can be good or bad depending on the time and situation, in your view it is bad.

But to everyone else it's doing more good that any bad.

ahh but my dear friend. As of late, the EPA has had its funding MASSIVELY reduced since the Bush Administration took over. I'm not the best person to explain this but I do suggest you read a book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. titled "Crimes against Nature". It will revolutionize your views on environmentalism.

As for it being a bad thing? no. It isn't. Take The worlds largest source of fresh water, the great lakes as an example. Lake Erie (1 of the 5) has been so massively polluted you can't even eat fish from it. The other 4 were in its footsteps before some strict regulation. Don't know the status of the other 4 currently and I'm fairly certain that still remains true for Lake Erie. Less fish= less fisherman=more unemployment.

Also, ever since this "environmentalism" took hold on the Automaking industry, we now have cars that have MUCH higher mileage than previous years AND they pollute less.

Edit: to add on to what Locke said. It'll also most likely end up being more expensive to repair the damage in the first place than what it took us to exploit the land and cause the damage.

I agree with SpacePope, and everyone besides Shadow Dragon.