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...