A better world. Most politicians.. Agenda 21 isn't a better world >< A better world Most politicians Agenda 21 isn't a ><
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (86)
[ 86 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#29 - jaykupself **User deleted account**
+30 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#2 - lordhaha
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Agenda 21 isn't a better world ><
#9 to #2 - crilleballe
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
I don't really know anything about Agenda 21, i just read a little bit about self-sustaining power and stuff.
Asked as a completely constructive question:
What is it about Agenda 21 that is bad?
User avatar #41 to #9 - lordhaha
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
From my understanding from reading it on the UN website is that the UN would control all aspects of your life for a "sustainable" planet.
#43 to #41 - technosauce **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
#46 - deltadeltadelta
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
10 years ago, the global warming deniers were saying it wasn't happening. Now they're saying it's happening, but humans aren't the reason why. In 10 years they'll be saying humans are the reason, but it's too late to do anything about it.
#21 - amandatoddd **User deleted account**
+14 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#50 to #21 - fuckinniggers
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
I should have listened...
I should have listened...
User avatar #1 - allamericandude
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Most people these days don't have a problem with the fact that the Earth is warming. The debate is how much humans are contributing to it..

People on both sides are treating global warming like the be-all-end-all of environmentalism, but it shouldn't be. Even if the Earth wasn't warming, it would still be good to have clean air and whatnot.

The problem I have with modern environmentalism is that there are a lot of ulterior motives behind it. Of course there's the "green" companies who have a lot of money to be made. But it's not just money, they are also after political power. If you listen to groups like Greenpeace for any longer than 5 seconds, you'll notice that they're more anti-capitalist than pro-environmentalist.

Also, there's quite a lot of elitism among environmentalists. They don't seem to understand that being able to drive hybrid cars and work in "green" jobs is a luxury of living in a first world country. Poorer countries can't afford some of the "green" initiatives that they are proposing.

You can't stop a man from cutting down a forest if he's doing it to feed his children.
User avatar #15 to #1 - yunoknow
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
You make really valid points. Unfortunately, this is how the world works. Only the citizens of developed nations have voices and only the rich can have the luxury of caring about issues beyond them, say poverty and global warming. This is where elitism stems from.

But if you take a look at the Kyoto Protocol and other projects put in place to counteract environmental damages, the United States, the most powerful and advanced country on earth, is one of the only few of these developed nations to sign it. Why is this so? When you have the biggest voice, ignoring the fact that you're the biggest spender of nonrenewable resources, you should be responsible for the betterment of the group. The biggest problem today is that instead of leading the initiative, the supposed leader of this world is spewing controversy all over the effort because of their corporate backing.

I've been into environmental studies since high school, and I've come to realize how hopeless this war on decadent spending is. My naive hopes of making this planet a better place back then grew into this hate for corrupt bureaucracy and capitalistic exploitation. I don't speak for all environmentalists or whatever they call themselves, and I don't approve of all their actions, but the truth is the truth. Only the rich can care, and not all of them do.
User avatar #11 to #1 - daentraya
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Elitist environmentalists.. I once joined a group called a taste of the social media, because it had some funny pictures, pretty nature and stuff like that. Among all that, there were these zombie brand ****, where they were zombying for brands like shoes and cola and cars. I commented on it, and gosh he/she sounded like an elitist overreacting asshat, wanting to be the 'enlightened' one among the sheep brainwashed by the media. Theres about a grain of truth in it, but its overdone so much..
User avatar #40 to #1 - thegorn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Goddamnit dad, trees for dinner again?
User avatar #17 to #1 - monkeysniperz
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
I learned in my Astronomy class that Global Carbon levels have increased about 1/3rd what they are supposed to be at, and apparently this will hold some drastic climate change in the future (1000 years+). My Prof was saying that we have disturbed the natural Carbon cycle, and there is probably no way to reverse it, we can only mitigate our damage.

He also said that both sides are invested heavily, environmentalists pay big money for green energy, and oil ( and other fossil fuels) pay big money to portray it as a Hoax

I think that there is a problem, but not world ending in like 100 years. But it will probably get dramatically hotter in the next few thousand years.
User avatar #19 to #17 - sketchE
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
difference between someone who looks at space and someone who looks at life on the planet. my biology professor says that global warming has been blown far out of proportion and most environmentalists only look for bad evidence and ignore contradicting evidence. an inconvinient truth for example was discredited because most of it was out of context quotes. also the fact that 75 prvrnt of green house gases are water vapor
User avatar #23 to #19 - monkeysniperz
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
OK, Astronomy doesn't just study Space, It studies Patterns on Planets. The argument is that Carbon is warming the planet, causing more water to evaporate, causing more heating.

Satellites measure the Carbon rates in the Atmosphere, CARBON LEVELS ARE UP BY 1/3rd WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ON THE CARBON CYCLE

if you think that is a lie, We burn **** it releases CARBON DIOXIDE>CARBON LEVELS GO UP>EARTH WARMS UP

that is the science behind it, i don;t know what the actual human causation is, but Human play a devastatingly big roll on the warming of the earth. (1 volcano Exploding is equal to 1% of human global output) its all been measured by scientist that get public funding.
User avatar #92 to #23 - sketchE
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/21/2012) [-]
dude i wasnt saying you were wrong im just pointing out the difference in views between a biology professor and a astronomy professor
#6 - shortbusterrorist **User deleted account**
-25 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#7 to #6 - shortbusterrorist **User deleted account**
-11 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #16 to #7 - nephritho
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
I don’t give a **** who you are or where you live. You can count on me to be there to bring your ******* life to a hellish end. I’ll put you in so much ******* pain that it’ll make Jesus being nailed to a cross in the desert look like a ******* back massage on a tropical island. I don’t give a **** how many reps you have or how tough you are IRL, how well you can fight, or how many ******* guns you own to protect yourself. I’ll ******* show up at your house when you aren’t home. I’ll turn all the lights on in your house, leave all the water running, open your fridge door and not close it, and turn your gas stove burners on and let them waste gas. You’re going to start stressing the **** out, your blood pressure will triple, and you’ll have a ******* heart attack. You’ll go to the hospital for a heart operation, and the last thing you’ll see when you’re being put under in the operating room is me hovering above you, dressed like a doctor. When you wake up after being operated on, wondering what ticking time bomb is in your chest waiting to go off. You’ll recover fully from your heart surgery. And when you walk out the front door of the hospital to go home I’ll run you over with my ******* car out of no where and kill you. I just want you to know how easily I could ******* destroy your pathetic excuse of a life, but how I’d rather go to a great ****** length to make sure your last remaining days are spent in a living, breathing ******* hell. It’s too late to save yourself, but don’t bother committing suicide either… I’ll ******* resuscitate you and kill you again myself you bitch-faced phaggot. Welcome to hell, population: you
/thread
#61 to #16 - shortbusterrorist **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #8 to #7 - angelojuusan
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Dude, I managed to get somewhat in shape thanks to my last job (yay saving for college), and I never want to be that badly out of shape ever. BUT EVEN MY FAT ASS WOULD RUN TO THE ICE CREAM TRUCK, NOT DRIVE AN ELECTRIC ******* SCOOTER TOWARDS IT! Hell, there's a decent gas station just down the street from my place, if I want ice cream that much, I'll walk for it and preemptively burn the calories!
#22 to #6 - ackbobthedead
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
You're disgraceful.
User avatar #37 to #6 - mcderfenschmirt
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Don’t say another Damn word. Up until now, I’ve been polite. If you say ANYTHING else I will kill myself. And when my tainted spirit finds its destination, I will topple the master of that dark place. From my black throne, I will lash together a machine of bone and blood, and fueled by my hatred for you this fear engine will bore a hole between this world and that one.
When it begins, you will hear the sound of children screaming- as though from a great distance. A smoking orb of nothing will grow above your bed, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows. As I slip through the widening maw in my new form, you will catch only a glimpse of my radiance before you are incinerated. Then, as tears of bubbling pitch stream down my face, my dark work will begin.
I will open one of my six mouths, and I will sing the song that ends the Earth.
User avatar #14 to #6 - reican
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
YOYOYO BITCH! DU YU EVN LIFT FAGIT?!

1V1 FAGIT I DAR YU. I MUSS WARN U I BEET COCK NURRIS!
#51 - anon id: e7d64e9f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
I think it's wrong to force people to "be better" by convincing them of green energy if it's real or not, people should live how they want. I'm not voicing my own views on this because I can't be ****** replying to little ***** who think they are in the know, whatever the cause, if a hoax improves peoples lives, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.
#59 to #51 - anon id: 19d74cdd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
What's funny is these enviornmental Hippies force their viewpoints on other people when there is alot of controversial evidence to the contrary. Many of these same people then continue to complain about religion and seem to hate when viewpoints are forced on themselves.
User avatar #83 to #51 - ronyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Problem is that by living the way you want you are also ******** on everyone's cup of coffee. It's ******* common sense anon that if one person pollutes it affects everyone in the world. If i start burning tires on my backyard then my neighbors are going to breathe all that pollution, you think that's fair? you think they should let me live the way i want even though my actions are affecting their lives?. I wish we had less little ***** like you and more people who could actually think **** through.
#53 to #51 - reteip
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
So how you live should screw other people and animals on the planet?
User avatar #54 to #51 - thunderkrux
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
What if "letting them live how they want" is destructive and leaving less and less behind for future generations? What if "letting them live how they want" isn't what they really want, what if it's what they want because it's all they know?
User avatar #56 - glasgowrangers
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
How does increasing the price of fuel lead to a better world?
#58 to #56 - anon id: bdec5b4c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
the natural resources is running out dry (=
User avatar #60 to #58 - glasgowrangers
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
oil will soon become naturally more expensive than cleaner energy and so that will overtake oil. Of course, big oil and governments quite like each other, so expect big subsidies to oil companies to continue for a long time


I always find it strange that governments will tax us more so they can put a few million into an artsy windmill project to make it look like they want to clean up Earth while they pay literally billions to BP (among others)
User avatar #69 to #56 - thebritishguy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
because it will encourage people to save money by walking or taking the bus rather than driving, it wouldn't stop people driving but it will encourage people to only drive when necessary
User avatar #72 to #56 - DisgruntledTomato
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Increase price ------> Demand goes down ------> Less negative externalities -----> Little market failure -------> Better economy/environment.
User avatar #79 to #72 - durkadurka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Increase price---> cost to transport goods increases -----> prices go up -------> People pay more for goods AND fuel ------> economy falters, effect on environment is minimal.

User avatar #91 to #79 - DisgruntledTomato
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
I do see what you are saying. However you do have to consider that when prices go up even for standard products most of the time people will switch to an alternative product, not for all goods. People do switch or become more efficient when prices go up for fuel, especially for fuel considering it is a required good, but the majority don't want their spending to rise so they cutback.
User avatar #75 to #72 - glasgowrangers
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
demand goes down for fuel?

Ohhh, do you mean less old people can afford to heat their homes?

The demand is still there, just the poor people can't afford it

As if the price of fuel influences a millionaire when buying a supercar etc
User avatar #81 to #56 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
It doesn't. If we could drill more oil NOW and reduce the price of a gallon of gas by half, we could probably fix the economy.

Besides why not use up what we have now so we HAVE to switch to an alternative?
#62 to #56 - daytoday **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#64 to #62 - readyfourchan
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Someone's jimmies must have been rustled today.
#86 to #64 - daytoday **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #65 to #62 - glasgowrangers
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
it doesn't matter if it costs or less more to drive. People will still drive

People would rather not pay more. Therefore the government needs a reason to make you pay more
#87 to #65 - daytoday **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#63 to #62 - daytoday **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#12 - daddycool
Reply -13 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Except we're not talking about creating a "better" world. We're talking about limiting the amount of energy people use. We're talking about curtailing liberties(the freedom to use as much electricity as you have money to pay for) in order to stop something that may not actually be happening. We're talking about things like instituting a limitation on how many children people can have, because the number of children you have is one of the biggest contributors to green house gases. We're talking about forcing people to become vegetarians, because another of the biggest contributors to green house gases is COW FARTS.

More than that, we're talking about creating a system whereby there is no less pollution in the world, merely a redistribution of wealth through carbon credits.

If it was about making a better world, I'd be behind it. But it's not. It's about control.
User avatar #18 to #12 - nucularwar
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
having less children isn't just about greenhouse gasses, the world's overpopulated.
#30 to #18 - daddycool
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Prove that the world is overpopulated.
#24 to #12 - PlagueDoctor
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
all right then!
so if you want the freedom to pollute as much as your money allows you (and thus ******* somebody over as much as ur money allows you) i want the freedom to shoot you as many times as my monney allows me (and thus ******* your day up as much as my hard earned chas allows me to).
my point is that, since we live in a community of sorts, we should really at least try to be concerned with our fellow humans and not **** their (and your) children's living place up because you are too lazy to put a sweater on and want to pump your heating instead so you can stroll around in your undies.
pic unrelated
User avatar #94 to #24 - Chas
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/22/2012) [-]
What do you want from me?
#31 to #24 - daddycool
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Pollute =/= use energy. I never argued for someone's right to pollute. I argued for their right to use energy.

But that's a side issue, really. You want cleaner atmosphere? You want less pollution? Great, free up the markets. It'll create more wealth and, thus, more clean environments.

You see, it's the third world countries that have truly horrible environments. While people are struggling to just get by they don't give three craps about how pretty the surrounding country is. They have more pressing concerns. Namely, survival.

It is the wealthy that have the disposable income to pay for a clean environment. They do it all the time. More wealth means cleaner air and cleaner environments.

Capitalism will fix this problem.
User avatar #39 to #31 - thegorn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
United States Tonnes of CO2 per capita in 2009: 17.2
Somalia Tonnes of CO2 per capita 2009: 0.1

Wealth in no way, shape or form leads to a cleaner environment, since pollution doesn't factor into the price of a product. The only way a capitalistic country can defeat climate changes is through a CO2 tax, or by a source of renewable energy becoming cheaper than the unclean varieties.
User avatar #66 to #39 - sniperfumbles
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Nice scale there, champ.
#42 to #39 - daddycool
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food.
User avatar #47 to #42 - thegorn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Yeah these humongous CO2 emissions will lead to more trees! Except wait, were cutting down the trees.....
#88 to #47 - daddycool
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Actually, yes. Yes it will.

The fact that the first world needs wood doesn't change the fact that CO2 is dramatically important for strong plant life.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

CO2 is not a pollutant.
User avatar #89 to #88 - thegorn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
I'm not saying that it's not important for plant life, I'm saying the amounts were emitting are to large to be absorbed by plant life. Therefore the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, and the greenhouse effect becomes stronger.
User avatar #25 to #12 - richardastley
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
It's not necessarily about having less children. North America uses most of the world's energy by itself, and we have **** all for a population. Third world countries are the main culprits for overpopulation.

Also, you don't have to go vegetarian or vegan. There are plenty of species that can sustainably be killed in the wild (in fact, there are plenty of areas where having the wildlife there instead of growing crops is better for those areas), and you actually CAN have livestock on farms. We just do a ****** job taking care of them because lots of people feed their cows with corn and crap. Look up the concept of a "polyface farm" and you can read about how sustainable farming could actually work.
#35 to #25 - daddycool
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
From the little that I've read about Polyface Farming, it sounds pretty awesome. I approve of the way he treats his animals and it sounds like a very ecologically friendly way to farm.

Unfortunately, it's not gonna work. Specifically because of urban centers like New York making buying locally unworkable. It takes a lot of land to create enough food for those millions of people and you're still not talking about the main, specific reason for forcing vegetarianism. Global warming.

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment

"It's an accounting nightmare but depending on how it's done, livestock's contribution to climate change can be calculated as low as 5-10% of global emissions or as high as 50%. Last year, a Food Climate Research Network report concluded that UK meat and dairy consumption was responsible for 8% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions. But however it's counted, livestock farming ranks as one of the three greatest sources of climate changing emissions and one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation."

Because of the methane that animals produce and the cost to ship the meat, they're among the worst offenders on the global warming front. It's actually better for the environment(if you believe in global warming, which I don't) for you to give up meat and drive an SUV than it is to eat meat and ride a bicycle.

I'd certainly like to see more of the Polyface Farm ideas implemented. I think in a whole lot of America it could be used and would probably create a far better environment for everyone if it was implemented. I really like the idea, I just don't think it's going to be the solution.
User avatar #52 to #12 - thegorn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
So you want a less polluted world, but if that means cutting down on your freedom to pollute as much as you want, the government is trying to **** you over?
User avatar #13 to #12 - reican
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
well duh, the Orders have been at this "control" thing for ages.

Believe it or not, but if it was about this " green energy" thing should be better, our prime minister in Norway made extra taxes on cars that pollute less. so if we want to contribute and use a less polluting car, We must pay extra, people get punished for thinking environmental. while cars that pollute like **** and is reaking of oil and ****, its the cheapest thing you get.
User avatar #77 - durkadurka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/20/2012) [-]
Except that the means of achieving some of these usually involve punishing someone else (ie Cap and trade, higher fuel prices, more expensive products etc.)

Nobody is against clean water, healthy children, etc, this is just a strawman argument.