Is the American lifestyle bad for the environment?
492332
extremly bad. americans are very socialy iresponsible. they do alot to harm the environment. theyre laws are not very strict when it comes to protecting the environment. canada recycles alot more than usa. usa doesnt make an efort to recycle. many americans also drive vehicles that polute the air. americans refused to sign the kyoto protocol.
61173
Both. As non-sustainable practices begin to have more and more consequences we will be forced to find alternatives, and often will not find the alternative in time to prevent significant suffering. In some areas we may have enough foresight to change before the impact is felt. I am encouraged to see more and more wind power being installed, both on land and on ocean based platforms, but at the same time I am discouraged to see people choosing to drive large SUV's which will have a negative impact on the future. In some areas reforestation is taking place, where 100 years ago there was deforestation. This is encouraging and is simply the result of changing economic use. I have also been encouraged to see negative population growth in the most industrialized countries; this suggests the present stresses on the planet may be relieved.
334577
Well, if you're considering burning fossil fuels like coal and oil, then it wouldn't pose much danger because they only release carbon dioxide and water vapours into the atmosphere and this release of CO2 apparently helps to maintain the CO2 cycle.\nHowever, there are organic compounds (some used as fuels), including polymers like 'polytetrafluoroethene' that are non-biodegradable and so cause a litter problem in landfill sites. And if we burn them, they release toxic gases like carbon monoxide which can cause cancer and hence damage the environment.
41755
The USA is a major polluting country and contributes one of the highest emission rates in the world. Signing the Protocol would mean massive reduction of industrial activity and thus means a loss of comparative advantage to other countries. In any case by not signing it, the Us is flauting responsibility of safeguarding the environment using flimsy excuses such as the lack of evidence that green house emissions causes global warming. By denying years of polluting practices and blaming slack legislation for newly emerging industries such as China and India, the US is merely protecting its own interests while denying similar gains for other countries. In the political front states with high industrial output and depending on such for revenue have strong political lobby groups to pressure the president to kill any such bill to cut back on pollution which means political survival hinges on not spurning such critical votes.
158763
Trash. America is known for its problem with its waste and is polluting. I'm not one of those activist types, but 13 million tons? Come on.
936431
Dude,\n\n1st off, thanks for serving in the Marines! As soon as you realize that environmentalism is the new communism, you'll understand their motivations for stopping all sorts of energy production. Energy means progress, progress means economic development and economic development means some get rich and the lazy get left behind. These people are the lazy and they see themselves being left behind and must lash out at the rest of us.\n\nBe patient my friend. They're having abortions thus, eliminating themselves from the gene pool. Have children and raise them as competitors and Americans. We will eventually beat their asses back into the stone age where they prefer to live.
286026
Your question seems to be: "Is the environment in danger because of you?"  Is this what you mean to ask?  (It's not really clear.)\n\nIf this is your meaning, then on a personal level, I don't feel any more responsible than should the collective human race - and I would add that YES, the human race is a detriment to the environment, very obviously.\n\nThe issue is not whether people are threatening the environment - the issue is how much industrial and economic activity is too much for the environment to accomodate?  We aren't retreating to caves and hunting and gathering, so the question concerns what public policies need we pursue to ensure a sufficiently (not necessarily perfectly) healthy environment for people and wildlife?
764798
Did the oil companies destroy the environment?  Really?  The environment is destroyed?  Have you been to eastern Europe?  I have, and let me tell you, our environment is not even close to being destroyed.  The environments over there are WAY worse off than they are here, and guess what?  All that destruction was done by their governments under communism (not by 'greedy' companies)!  And who do you think is driving the oil industry anyway?  Everyone who buys fuel, or anything made out of plastic or other oil products, or buys something shipped with oil burning methods is driving it.  You need to learn some basic economics and think about things holistically to see the real forces that drive things.  Good luck with that.\nOur judicial system will never be cleaned up as long as it has so much power.  It is a law of nature that power attracts the corrupt.  If you want a judicial system that is corruption free, you need to drastically reduce its power over the people.  Most people look at government and its branches as a benevolent big brother rather than the necessary evil that great men like Ben Franklin and Jefferson did.  The bigger and more powerful it gets, the more corrupt it will get, period.
1058087
No.  Only those who have the power to kill the planet in their hands.  I mean, littering on the sidewalk can hardly be compared to all the pollution created by the multi-millionare companies and the worst part is they get away with it.  Not that littering is right at all, but my point is, there is a huge difference when it comes to guilt.  Don't you think?
572222
We use alot more here on Earth.  In fact Americans use way more water then any other nationality.
305347
Their really is negative no consequence of recycling.\n\nBut if you have to write a negative statement,   here’s one, as recycled metal and paper prices continue to go up the amount of crime due to thefts of material to sell to recycler's goes up.  \n\nThis is true in poorer sections.  People with no jobs, no money, tend to break in to abandoned homes and new home construction to steal copper pipes.  At today market value of $2.85 a pound runs into real money.  Not to mention the cost to replace the material that was stolen.\n\n\n\nALSO:\n\nEnergy required to recycle paper is more than the resulting product is worth.\n\nThat's B.S.\n\nTo produce each week's Sunday newspapers, 500,000 trees must be cut down.\n\n*Recycling a single run of the Sunday New York Times would save 75,000 trees.\n\n* If all our newspaper was recycled, we could save about 250,000,000 trees each year!\n\n* If every American recycled just one-tenth of their newspapers, we would save about 25,000,000 trees a year.\n\n* During World War II when raw materials were scarce, 33% of all paper was recycled. After the war, this number decreased sharply.\n\n* If you had a 15-year-old tree and made it into paper grocery bags, you'd get about 700 of them. A supermarket could use all of them in under an hour! This means in one year, one supermarket goes through 60,500,000 paper bags! Imagine how many supermarkets there are in the U.S.!!!\n\n* The average American uses seven trees a year in paper, wood, and other products made from trees. This amounts to about 2,000,000,000 trees per year!\n\n* The amount of wood and paper we throw away each year is enough to heat 50,000,000 homes for 20 years.\n\n* When you smell a dump, what you're actually smelling is the paper in the dump!\n\n* Approximately 1 billion trees worth of paper are thrown away every year in the U.S.\n\n* Americans use 85,000,000 tons of paper a year; about 680 pounds per person.\n\n* The average household throws away 13,000 separate pieces of paper each year. Most is packaging and junk mail.\n\n* In 1993, U.S. paper recovery saved more than 90,000,000 cubic yards of landfill space.\n\n* In 1993, nearly 36,000,000 tons of paper were recoverd in the U.S.--twice as much in 1980.\n\n* 27% of the newspapers produced in America are recycled.\n* Each ton (2000 pounds) of recycled paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, three cubic yards of landfill space, 4000 kilowatts of energy, and 7000 gallons of water. This represents a 64% energy savings, a 58% water savings, and 60 pounds less of air pollution!\n* The 17 trees saved (above) can absorb a total of 250 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air each year. Burning that same ton of paper would create 1500 pounds of carbon dioxide.\n\n* The construction costs of a paper mill designed to use waste paper is 50 to 80% less than the cost of a mill using new pulp.
130954
Yes the entire planet is a giant ecosystem....like the rest of the universe, there is a cause and effect for everything.  So there will always be consequences for any activity or action...I wonder what activity you're referring to though??  \n\nTo give an example- in Florida, they keep developing the land.  These real estate moguls have reclaimed swamp land to build pricey sub-divisions, etc...this has obviously destroyed some, if not all, of the habitat where many animals lived.  Some animals can only survive in very specific conditions, and therefore become endangered, and face extinction.  Some may think, who cares about the little fly that died out...well, maybe that fly was the main source of food for a frog that was native to that area-that puts the frog in the same situation...these animals keep the balance in the various ecosystems in that region...if this balance is upset, it ultimately has an impact on humans and their living conditions as well; because each of us, animal or human has a specific role in the life.  If we fail at our role, we are letting others down...and others will suffer to some extent, great or small, because of our failure.
49525
Here's a better answer than the one provided above, and a site that will provide the answer(s) you are looking for.\n\nHumans are using up natural resources at a great rate and at a great cost to the health of the natural environment and life on Earth.\n\nIt is not the natural resources by themselves that harm the Earth's environment -  it is what humans do with the natural resources that cause the problems to the environment and to the health of living things, including other human beings.\n\nThe burning of fossil fuels in factories to make products and power, and the fuels used by trucks, automobiles and jet planes have caused acid rain and a great increase in carbon dioxide and pollution in the atmosphere.   And forests have been destroyed which used to absorb carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide traps heat in our lower atmosphere.\n\nScientists believe that human activities such as these have led to global warming.
578594
depends on if you ask an economist or a sociologist.\n\nthe sociologist will probably say it is bad.\n\nThe economist will probably say it is a good thing.
1130798
You can study this topic for an entire semester in a college class!  I did, and it cannot be explained in a few words.  \n\nWhat people are doing is changing the face of the earth and in the process we are destroying the places other creatures and plants live.  In our mad pursuit of things and riches and greed, we do whatever we want to get our way.\n\nIndustries make garbage, some of it is lethal, some is liquid.... guess where many liquids go?  Into streams. In my country, the USA, there are laws against such waste going into streams, but guess what?  Many companies dump their waste anyway because it's quick and easy.  Multiply this dumping around the world....\n\nDo you, as a citizen, consider how you pollute just by what you have in your own house?  \n\nNow, tying all of the above into marine ecosystems:   Streams run down hill. Ultimately, pollutants wind up in the oceans.  Businesses along coastlines often dump their wastes directly into the ocean.   \n\nIn our mindless pursuit of material possessions, we import a massive amount of material from poor nations where labor is cheap and pollution is rampant (few or no environmental protection laws in many poor nations).  The goods come via the ocean on huge, polluting ships. Those ships flush their sewage into the sea. They enter harbors and dump their wastes and that waste carries all sorts of things in it.  Some of that waste includes little sea living organisms that are native to waters halfway around the world, and those organisms start interfering with the new location where they got dumped.\n\nOver fishing?  Catch too many fish and the numbers decline. Not enough mama fish to lay eggs. Polluted waters make breeding more difficult.  Most fish live in shallow waters, and shallow waters are usually near land. People pollute the waters where they live... so we harvest the fish, we pollute the water, and the fish can't reproduce fast enough.\n\nAdd to the mix oil... oil spills, and runoff, and all the many things we make from petroleum... \n\nEarth is one big organism, and all of it's parts work together. People think to rule the earth and change it and ultimately, we most likely will kill the earth and most of it's creatures from our pursuit of things and our lack of controlling the horribly toxic wastes our factories make.
199538
I know technology isn't healthy for the environment. Just look at batteries that power all the little gadgets people have. They're disposed of, but they create toxic waste.\nOr, computer chip makers. I used to deliver to Intel & other companies some pretty toxic gases used to make computer chips & other things.  \nMotorized vehicles spew pollution into the air. Pesticides & herbicides are in the waterways due to rain run-off.\n\nAs for our health?  Drugs are created to help us all live longer, but for what purpose?  I'm not saying we need to live in the dark ages, but back in the 40s-70s people died of "natural causes" which was probably all the stuff they know about now like, high cholesteral, and blocked arteries, etc.  Give me a "natural cause" death, because I'm sure not going to take a bunch of pills everyday in the hopes I'll live a little longer.\n\np.s. March 24: nuclear power; check out how long the waste product is radioactive, and it's still being put in the ground. Granted, it's it barrels, but what would happen if an earthquake hit where some of the barrels are stored?  I've always advocated for shipping that stuff to outer space.
214122
Everyone adapts to their own environment. I agree that most Americans are wasteful but it's all relative to what you know.  People in other cultures besides yours may think that your people are wasteful in some way.  Look around at what you may take for granted and try to realize that it depends on how you live compared to those less fortunate.