Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)


I have to define four types of environmentalism and explain which type I think would best help our planet. It really made me think because I've read a lot of posts on here lately about people not believing in climate change or "global warming" or whatever you want to call it. My question to those who don't believe this exists is this: does it really hurt to take care of the world around us either way? I'm not looking to start a debate, I just really want to know peoples opinions on this subject.


Asked by ajguinn at 8:29 PM on Jun. 3, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 2 (10 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (18)
  • I believe the earth does go thru natural cycles; however mans impact on the earth is speeding and increasing the strength/lengths of these's not the planet that needs saving; it's us...the planet will be here long after we've made the place un-inhabitable for human life.

    But before that happens other issuescategorized as an environmental that people often overlook when bashing global warming are: the overuse and waste of natural resources we will/are running out of; to avoid an argument here I won't go into over-population just that it's also an environmental factor; flora and fauna becoming extinct; again connected; intertwined...

    Environmentalism is much much more than just global warming...people often forget that in their rush to dis-credit the opposition


    Answer by beachmamaof2 at 8:58 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • Im not one of those who dont believe, but i'm one of those who dont believe its as big as a problem people make it out to be. But you are right, regardless of if its real or not, we should take care of our planet anyway.

    Answer by BEXi at 8:44 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • I think it is hyped up for tax incentive and control. But I do agree we should take care of the planet within reason.

    Answer by Carpy at 8:51 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • The majority of environmentally friendly products are environmentally harmful. For all they help in one area, they hurt another. Look into the batteries from hybrids, or the paper vs plastic dispute. My favorite is how the uber-green worm composting is actually damaging to the ozone layer. Brilliant!

    To me, that's the basis of most environmentalism - pure tunnel vision.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 9:26 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • It's a good question/point. I happen to believe in climate changes (just historically speaking we know of ice ages and hot periods). If it's pollution based, I actually am not entirely sure but not opposed to the idea. I think greener thinking is just being a good person and if it's helpful, all the better. How lazy can we be? Recycle at a minimum because our landfills are full! Have you seen HAARP? Google, that is interesting...Government trying to control and create weather.

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:35 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • I'm not talking about products, really. I think that's just the new phase of environmentalism, really, "buy this, it's green!" I actually used to do testing on products (active compounds of laundry detergent, paint, pesticides, et.) in a group called Environmental Fate for two year. We tested products to make sure they stood up to EPA standards, and to be honest some of the work we did there scared me. I mean, I did biodegredation studies where bacteria hadn't broken down a compound after a year. A year!!!! What I'm really talking about is the basic concept of environmentalism, what we do effects the earth, what can we do to stop the negative effects we leave behind us? I think there is a whole picture that you might be missing, not just a product line. But I can see where you are coming from, you think that a lot of people just buy things that are labeled "green" instead of actually being environmentally conscious?


    Answer by ajguinn at 9:38 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • That was for Notpanicking, btw!

    Answer by ajguinn at 9:39 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • Nobody wants to do what they would need to do to "save" the environment - and lets be honest, nobody gives a damn about saving the environment, they want to save the people. Whether we're alive or dead the environment will always be here, and it will be in far better shape without us. Which is why to actually improve it people would have to give up conveniences, like plastic, and medicine, and motorized vehicles, and living more than 40 years.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 10:05 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • I don't have a problem with doing things that are less harmful to the environment (using cloth bags, recycling ect...) I have a problem with the govt telling my I HAVE to and/or raising my taxes to use on programs THEY consider environmentally friendly that are really just programs hyped by the best lobbyists! I hear people on here all the time talking about choice when it comes to our bodies....I want the choice when it comes to how I deal with improving the environment. I do not want BIG GOV'T patting me on my head and telling me what is best for lil ole me!


    Answer by momof030404 at 10:34 PM on Jun. 3, 2009

  • It doesn't hurt to care for the planet we call home. The thing that ikes me about some evironmentials are how some take the care for our planet to extremes like not letting people own or build near a wildlife area. There was a debate in our fine city about a local Wal-Mart being built. The store was built. But the land where the Wal-Mart and several other stores was built on was formerly used as a golf course. Which is worse? Having stores near a wildlife reserve or a golf course? Even with stores there the wildlife still has area to thrive and live. I agree that we should care for our planet by recycling as much as possible and using our natural resources wisely. But humans share this planet we call earth too. Living in harmony with nature doesn't mean the wilelife comes before humans needs. There needs to a balence which is what some evironmentists haven't found yet.

    Answer by joyfulmom30 at 10:39 PM on Jun. 3, 2009