@Leaf Supremacist truth

yes, cause otherwise we'l all die

if we ignore the environment completely then the planet will be dead and nobody will be able to live there anymore

The environment is about doomed as we knew it when we were younger. The toxins we pumped into the air for generations are eating away at our only defense against radiation from cosmic sources.

The rate at which O3 replenishes is vastly outdone by the rate at which we destroy it.

So things will continue on the current track until we can alleviate that issue, or at least slow it down to where we no longer have a loss of O3 in the upper atmosphere.

Unfortunately that is a long ways off as we won't stop using cars.

This is literally a hole in the Ozone.

people have been talking about it for years

and the Earth seems fine

It's not not an argument just an observation

These clouds just recently started appearing.

These are new.

Not the old.

Interesting

How did the ocean "rise"?

These are a recent development, and the ozone has actually been reduced.

And the planet is fine with ozone depletion, we are not.

lmao just because the earth ‘seems fine’ to you doesn’t mean it is

And the ocean can rise, as water expands when it is warmed, the water below the surface is quite cold, so if it starts to warm up there is the possibility of some rising. Also, Antarctica is not a solid chunk of ice, it is an actual continent as compared to the Arctic which is mostly a hunk of ice.

lmao just because the earth ‘seems fine’ to you doesn’t mean it is

I literally said I wasn't making an argument

@ham addition dumbass

If you put ice in a cup and melt it

It won't rise the water level

but it will though

if i have a glass of water with ice in and just leave it out for a while it’ll get higher as the ice melts

how

it’s not like a conspiracy or anything

you could like

do it yourself

science

it depends how much of the ice is floating above the water

and what the water/ice ratio is

but yes undoubtedly if the ice caps melted sea level would be significantly higher

No, if you put the ice in a cup that is full it will displace the water.

So yes, it does rise.

And again, the ice caps of Antarctica are not in the ocean, they are above it.

On the continent.

So, if you drop an ice cube in a cup that is full, what happens?

Go on, you can do it yourself.

Fill a glass to the brim, and then put ice in it.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Also, I don't think y'all are talking about the same thing

wouldn't it make sense that the ice would just replace itself when it melts?

that doesn't mean that there isn't more water in the oceans

it just means that the net amount of ice on antarctica stays roughly the same

So if the ice melted, and it was warmer that more ice started melting faster than it could freeze, which is what we are seeing in the Arctic, it would just be replaced as if by magic?

The fact that there is now plant material growing in the Antarctic is no indication that it is warming.

so you're saying that when ice melts

it somehow adds more mass

to the water

Holy sweet Lord, take a glass of water, fill it and then put ice in it.

The ice of Antarctica is ABOVE sea level.

It's on a continental shelf

So, if some cataclysm caused all the ice to fall off it most definitely *could* have such an impact.

Though the huge influx of cold water would probably show signs before the rising sea levels.

I see what you're saying

It doesn't apply to a glass of water though

when ice melts *in* water then the water level stays the same
~~I think~~

No

That's of the ice is *in* the water.

If you have a glass that is full and add ice the water is displaced until it equalizes.

So it would over flow.

Again, try it.

Take a glass, fill it, then put your ice in.

The water level will rise without a shadow of a doubt.

And the ice of Antarctica is mostly above the water.

It's like the full glass that you shove ice cubes into.

Of course none of us really know anything and can't fathom the depths of the knowledge we acquire, and ultimately it could turn out that God had absolute control the entire time and all we did was equal to nil.

Yes

I said I knew what you were saying

But yes, you're right. If all the ice was actually in the water, and not above it likely wouldn't have much of an impact on sea levels, just the temperature.

I confused what you said with what someone else said and I assumed something

But that's assuming the ice is of regular density at 1 atmosphere of pressure.

Nerd

What's the language in your name and what does it mean

Japanese, it means Curse Lord.

Noroi Dono

I mean

even ignoring global warming

there's still plenty of other reasons to actually care about the environment

We're using resources unsustainable fast, many of which are nonrenewable

also, ice sheets and rising sea levels be damned, smog and other forms of pollution are pretty unhealthy

mass <:unequal:473954748517842954> volume

volume is the issue when it comes to rising sea levels

wait nvm that's not relevant

This is a decision that should be entirely left up to local communities. One can focus on industry, while another on conservation. Let the people decide which is the better place to live for there needs and interests

But if one local community makes too big of an impact it ruins it for others @campodin

The whole “ you have the freedom to swing your fist so long as it doesn’t hit my nose”

It takes more than one local community to "ruin it for others" unless they are just dumping toxins in the water supply or the like. But that goes beyond developing industry. Not causing harm to others is not the same as conservation

So then it shouldn't be up to the local community?

Because who decides what is and is not right when the community that has decided this is fine and it works for them, but the other community is disproportionately affected by that choice?

It's far easier to dump toxins than to clean them.

The question was on industry vs conservation. That is what I was addressing. Not allowing someone to dump toxins in the drinking water is not the same as conservation.

Conservation is trying to preserve the state of nature, and maintain a healthy amount of biodiversity in your environment. Disallowing actions like dumping toxic waste is for the purpose of preserving human life and health.

erm not nessecarily

One local community alone cannot ruin conservation efforts

No? So say a community decides to build a dam

And that floods a large portion of the land the other community was focusing conservation efforts.

In turn this causes the fish to stop reproducing as they can no longer get to their spawning grounds.

This leads to a build up of heavy metals in the water and algae blooms due to nothing eating the algae anymore. This leads to the water becoming toxic and deoxidized.

This isn't a hypothetical either. This is what is happening in Quebec.

If you honestly believe that one can not ruin something for the many then you're ignorant, or you don't care.

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 first off, who built that dam?

It would be the one who chose industry.

Not my question

The community needs electricity to run machines.

Unless you mean that ultimately the decision lies with the state to build a dam.

No

Who built that dam?

Uh...

In Quebec

Oh, well that's stupid. It was Quebec.

The one you used as an example

So the province allowed it.

In other words not a local community

And the utility used the authority to build it.

It was allowed by the community.

Via the Democratic process.

And lack of resistance.

Democratic process is awful, but that is a side point

It was also welcomed.

As it created jobs.

Neither does democracy = local community

And an economy.

And again, how does that mitigate the affect the one community might have on the others?

Because democracy serves the majority interest, not the community interest

I used it as an example of the effects a dam can have.

Not as an example of building it.

direct democracy serves majority interest

Or by whom.

not all kinds

The US is technically a democracy and

there isn't mob rule here

I was just asking you what would be the punishment for such a transgression and who would enforce it?

Democracy=gay

Ur gay

go away

Don't reveal your power level Milk.

Democracy in the us allowed the opening of the borders which was then a race to who could get the most voters

That's irrelevant.

our main problem is the supreme court tbh

Sorry, but I couldn't let that stand

and the federal government

as a whole

RABBIT TRAIL @Milk

neither of which has to do with the democratic system

The federal government is reflective of democracy though.

Somehwat

Somewhat

iirc federal gun laws are unconstitutional

yet we have them

You're distracting.

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 what I was trying to get at, was that every one of these examples you give of industrial development hurting communities I can almost guarantee it wasn't made at the local level.

From the QotD.

You say these decisions *should* be handled at the local level though.

If we pay attention to historical context of the 1st Amendment you could make an unconvincing argument that any gun law is unconstitutional. But laws restricting certain weapons are in theory not unreasonable.

This has nothing to do with today's QOTD

And that they should have the authority to do these sorts of projects.

Yes, Zexy

I would prefer if it was completely left to states

But some effects are unforeseeable, so I was asking what would happen?

If one community made a decision that affected several others?

If they can show that damages have taken place, they can sue them or settle some arrangement where the damages are fixed or paid for.

Who enforces that?

And who decides what a forest is worth?

Either a court or a private arbitrator of some kind

How do you gauge how much damage there is from losing a forest which provides food and resources for several communities?

A single tree can be considered priceless

And money will never bring those resources back

So

How do you mitigate this when money isn't enough?

This is why you could make a settlement where the other community provides the lost food source

So you would have a community starve its people?

What?

An industrial community isn't going to have much food

If that community didn't have enough for both, would you have one go hungry?

An "industrial community" as you are imagining it wouldn't choose to damage it's own food source.

It's not the food source to them

It's a good source for the others.

However, you can have food industry

That would be an agricultural community

I'm just asking how an issue like that would be solved under such a system.

No, I'm taking about industrialized farming

When money isn't enough.

Aaaaaand if the community were not that sort?

They have food for their people, but not enough for two communities

There is no "money isn't enough"

Much less several.

Hahahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Alright. I'll just stop here.

Money isn't enough to replace lives lost, and that's about it

If you actually believe that.

There is no point to talking to you.

You haven't given an example where money wasn't enough

Money can't bring back an entire Forest.

Nor can it mitigate that income.

Yes it can

A forest will produce money forever.

So you would have the other community pay all the money the others could have ever made for all time?

Money can rebuild a forest

No. It can not.

If you think that then you really are ignorant.

A maple first can not be turned into a pine forest no matter how much you have spent.

And a maple Forest can not be brought back no matter how much you spend

It's been tried.

It was tried for years, tens of millions were spent.

And it was never done.

It failed every time.

It takes hundreds of years to grow a forest.

And only weeks, or days to destroy.

So you would have a community pay hundreds of years worth of lost revenue?

Or would it just be an oppsie doodles?

Now, don't get me wrong. I too believe that municipalities should have better autonomy.

The ability to circumvent a state/provincial government to a point.

And extend itself to the Federal.

Okay, so I don't know enough about that specific scenario to respond to it directly. However, I am curious as to who was attempting to rebuild the forest?

It was done rich entrepreneur, he cut a maple Forest to try and rebuild it as a pine.

As soon as the pines started to grow, the maples would take priority, and when the pines died the maples for sun scorch.

My BF studied it in school because he is a forest technician.

"and when the pines died the maples for sun scorch" what does that mean?

Maples can not be in the sun.

They die. They get scorched.

Oh ok

Yeah, money can't fix everything.

That is not a good mind set to have..

Was it money really that failed? Or poor planning and decision making?

It was money.

They tried for years.

No amount direct ever changed the results.

well if they realised the maples would overtake the pine, maybe they couldve done something

Money alone isn't enough to fix a problem

I also thought it would be possible to change it.

But after reading and looking at forests I eventually realized.

humans are amaing at wiping out species on accident

so just accidentally wipe out the maples

and boom

pines

No.

money can build a park

not an ecosystem tho

"a park"

kinda can...

money if it has enough worth, can do anything

By the way this wasnt just planting pines over the maples

however things we cant do usually have a worth well over the amount of money we have

forest technician sounds interesting

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 that explains it