Overpopulation, and in most cases in places that have the least ability to deal with it, but are the ones that need to control it the most because that severely limits a societies ability to provide
enough resources for everyone, weather that's jobs or food or clean water or whatever.
2007-08-22 01:45:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by booboo 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
The general apathy of people.
I'm not an environmentalist. I also do not believe global warming is caused by mankind (the other planets in our solar system are heating up too). I believe we are in a global warming trend caused by natural movements of the Earth and Sun.
I do however FIRMLY believe we aremaking our world toxic as heck, with all the garbage and pollutants we spew out everyday.
There is a real sence of apathy for most people I talk to. "Oh well, I'm just one person, or just one family, what I do will make no difference." "Well my neighbor doesn't recylce, or water their lawn less, so I'm not going to either."
Although arguably, instead of apathy, one could just as well say the overpopulation of the human species. When any one group of animals produces too many, the group/herd begin to look out for the individual less and less. The individual is no longer important, they can afford to suffer losses. Humans have deffinatly reached that point. Look how some Governments allow their people to be treated.
In pre-history, Mankinds monument to the world was Stonehenge. Modern mans "monument" to the world is going to be plastic. "Special", huh?
~Garnet
Homesteading/Farming over 20 years
2007-08-21 03:49:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bohemian_Garnet_Permaculturalist 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
The use of oil and coal or fossil fuels when water would do. In 1965 I saw a new military vehicle that used water for fuel. It just disappeared most likely due to the efforts of oil companies. How could they survive if we could use water for fuel?
Population growth is the primary source of environmental damage."
— Jacques Cousteau, Renowned Oceanographer and Founder of the Cousteau Society
"Human population growth is the most pressing environmental problem facing the U.S. and the world."
— John Flicker, President of the National Audubon Society
"Smart growth destroys the environment. Dumb growth destroys the environment. Smart growth just destroys the environment with good taste."
— Albert A. Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colorado
2007-08-21 03:03:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pey 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's a tough one, but you can make a blanket answer with "Pollution". That applies to everything, from oil spoils to smog. From landfills to sewers.
Actually, I guess the biggest environmental problem faced by the world is "People". As long as we're here, there are going to be many problems.
2007-08-21 02:49:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Scott H 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
How do we be extra conscious? enable's love and attempt to savour the goodness and a few brighter components of others. Then to be further on in spreading that goodness. Inspiring others too is beneficiant and type. we even have maximum of issues to repair around in this worls, however the extra we additionally attempt to do it nor contemplate approximately it, the extra we will additionally understand that there are extra different issues than being imagined. shall we be disheartened nor discouraged.. so as in all hazard between the superb issues to do is to objective to commence it in our very own lifestyle, Or some small methods that we can do to share goodness. improving our very own well-being too. Or enforcing ordinary issues including influencing others who're on the brink human beings to freshen up our environment (i.e.) And share some sturdy knowledges like this, or something sturdy which you're able to. Or console those sickly ones too. ^^))
2016-10-03 00:04:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Obviously man made pollutants, however the current debate is rather ridiculous. Rather than focusing on doing what we can to prevent pollution we have debates about our "carbon index." You look at the people preaching it the hardest and their lives don't reflect what they say. Al Gore is hardcore about the environment, but lives in a house with $30,000 utility bill. he claims that he offsets that by paying "carbon credits" but if he really felt that we were in such danger he would live in a normal size house but still pay his current amount of carbon credits creating a net plus rather than breaking even. The Earth Day concerts leave D.C. trashed every year, and the Concert Around the Globe had stars travel a total of 22,000 miles by jet airliner. The hypocrisy shows that they are not serious about what they preach, and the reality is that no one really believes that by driving to work every day that they are bringing humans closer to extinction. Environmentalists need to stop concentrating on scare tactics and drive to show people little things they can do every day within their lives that can make a difference. The science is still out on global warming, even though they global warmist would like you to think that it is a majority consensus it is not by a long shot. They also like to make people think that people who don't believe that humans cause global warming also don't want to do anything about pollution, which is also false. Beware of scare tactics and always do your homework. Be sure to hold all people who uphold a cause up to the same standard they want to hold everyone else up to.
2007-08-21 02:58:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Dependence on fossil fuels leading to a variety of transportation- and industrial-processes-rooted pollution scenarios. Factory-farmed beef and deforestation are a close second and third, in no particular order.
Read The Skeptical Environmentalist for some reliable numbers.
2007-08-21 02:50:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by djnightgaunt 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The piled up "waste" in the landfills.
I feel that we all should recycle every item that can be used/re-made again for another purpose.
I have members in our own family who seem smart in every way, but they are tooooo lazy to recycle. Apparently it is too much of a task to sort out the trash and place it in its proper bins for the garbage man to haul away. They will only learn to do this when their pick-up is refused at the curb. This is already happening in some European countries.
2007-08-21 02:58:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It seems like since Bush became president there are more and more political advocates of steady state pro-growth coupled with a political agenda, with that said to answer your question;
1. A tie would have to go to climate change and over-population.
2. Chemical and petroleum pollution.
3. Urban sprawl (affluent nations and local conditions).
4. Wasting of natural resources.
5. Not recognizing that humans have the ability to disastrously change their environment or help heal it.
2007-08-21 03:31:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Kelly L 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Aside from pollution, urban sprawl is just destroying more and more natural habitats as people are seeking more and more space to reside. We need to better manage high-occupancy areas to accomodate more people living in less space. This would also reduce transportation pollution of commuting from further and further distances.
2007-08-21 04:01:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋