Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • You could be right, I don't know. There are so many confounding factors like will a significant portion of the population stop consuming so much meat, will we continue to cut down rainforests, etc.

      As a former environmental scientist in water testing, I tend to see the the risks of industrialization in terms of cancer, lead & mercury poisoning, etc. I don't know why the world's attention hasn't turned to that, maybe because it doesn't carry such a fear of violent calamity?

      When a water problem does come to the fore, there's outrage against the EPA coupled with cutting regulations but no real knowledge of what we citizens are doing to cause the poisoned water that gives our children cancer.

    • Unfortunately I agree with Skewmaker, not enough is being done quick enough to slow down the rate of damage, let alone reverse damage done. With emerging countries like India and China producing huge amounts of pollution and the US withdrawing from climate agreements in favour of corporate profits the future doesn't look good.

      In regards to Nuclear, how long can we continue to safely stockpile nuclear waste products without a major evironmental disaster occuring?

    • So you're a denier. Climate change has and can occur via natural processes but there is little doubt that the current situation is greatly exacerbated by human activity and if we hope to maintain a stable climate then we had better take climate change amelioration seriously. Denying that humans have anything to do with it or simply saying it's too hard to do anything about it is to say it'll be hard so why bother. It's also denying the scientific consensus that is real.