Our worldwide financial systems, governments and corporations and the impending cost associated with doing anything green or simply that the population of earth living in the modern world are unwilling to step back from the lifestyles we are accustomed to?
2006-08-29 02:12:56 · 23 answers · asked by Neil C 1 in Environment
I think you nailed it, we like the idea of saving the earth but dont want to or cant walk to work etc.
2006-09-01 09:20:49 · answer #1 · answered by graeme b 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We don't even need to step back into another lifestyle. Finding clean-burning energies for cars and industrial plants would help a lot. Also keeping gunk out of the oceans and using recycled materials to build houses would be a nice start. Furthermore I think every house should come equipped with solar panels since the sun gives us free energy and we won't be hogging the grid. But yes the Almighty $$$ once again rules the world.
2006-08-29 02:17:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
One example: Recycling. I would love to recycle everything I use, but the Council where I live provides only basic doorstep recycling. If it was easier for me to recycle I would gladly do it, but i do not have my own transport and the nearest recycling facility is ten minutes away on the bus. Local councils should invest more now in projects like this for the long-term benefit of us all. I would not mind paying a bit extra on my council tax to fund better recycling facilities, as long as that's what it's used for. But council tax rises don't win votes.... I think the 'live-for-today -and-f***-tomorrow' attitude is definitely at the root of the problem.
2006-08-29 02:28:42 · answer #3 · answered by Jo Crow 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It hasn't sunk into the heads of the big wigs as to just how serious an issue this is, and how quickly it is becoming more and more irrepairable. Especially in the States - no offence but far more gas etc. is used per person there than anywhere else in the world.
2006-08-29 02:17:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Erm.... all of the above.
In order to sustain life indefinitely with minimal environmental impact, the population of the planet would need to be about 1/10th what it is now, and our lifestyle would be radically different (few or no cars, very cramped living spaces to allow room for sufficient nature etc.)
2006-08-29 02:17:25 · answer #5 · answered by le_coupe 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
THOUGHT ABOUT THAT TODAY !
IF ONLY the goat-shepherds in da desert
had WRITTEN , that god was in every TREE
and OIL-FIELD , we would have a totally
diffrent SCENARIO today .
UNLESS mankind accepts that it is
PRIMATIVE (not much better (?) than APES
mankind will REGRESS , as from 2010
LIVING (Existing?) , to 1910 , 1810 , 1710 ..
MOTHER EARTH IS STARTING TO
COMPLAIN .....
and BELIEVE IT OR NOT ,
i am an OPTIMIST .....
(and no-greenie, fatalist, religionist etc....)
2006-08-29 03:06:30 · answer #6 · answered by Moonlite gambler 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ignorance and unwilling
2006-08-29 02:15:37 · answer #7 · answered by laura cj 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lethargy.
2006-08-29 02:27:57 · answer #8 · answered by Smiler 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My Uncle Pete says its short termism. Hope that helps?
2006-08-29 02:15:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The ordinary people prevent it.
There are more ordinary people than presidents so don't blame them.
Look within yourself.
2006-08-29 02:18:49 · answer #10 · answered by Harley D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋