There are, and there’s no reason the two concerns have to be mutually exclusive. It does matter, because at some point, likely in the not too distant future, our civilization will need to come to grips with uniting the two causes or civilization itself will grind to a halt. Befouling and depleting the planet is a course for disaster if nothing is done to mitigate the causes and move toward a more sustainable solution.
In many places now, private industry is making strides in this direction, govt would be wise to get behind them, but we shouldn’t be holding our breath for that. Particularly under the current regime.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at August 2, 2018 7:22 PM MDT
Define "many". There may be a few of them, there may be a lot of them, but how would I know? Are you asking relative to quantity, percentage, ratio, etc.? ~
The activity I describe is occurring in places around the world, from wind turbines in various seas, to solar farms and greenhouses in the desert in Spain, to the rise of electric cars, to countless small companies and farms converting to more sustainable practices.
You’re internet savvy, Randy, Google it.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at August 3, 2018 12:15 AM MDT
Why would I run to google just because someone posted something about it here? You may be assuming that the question sparked my interest to the lint that I'd seek more, but that would be an incorrect assumption. Thank you for the nod about my alleged savviness, but it might be undeserved. I'm not sure I possess that quality, as I'm not as adept in nor am I as enamored with google as the average person might be. ~
I agree with Don Barzini. There are definitely ways in which we can protect the environment without causing unemployment. It would mean the possible re-training of people to work in a different area. The wildfires in California and other parts of the southwest are a sure indication of environmental changes, some of which are man-made and some of which occur naturally. Wind farms, solar energy, etc. are definitely worthwhile things to think about as opposed to the burning of fossil fuels.
Despite the amount of people requiring medical treatment for smoking relating illnesses, the government will never stop selling tobacco, the reason for this is because shareholders make billions of pounds off of it, and our taxes pay for the health care, in fact the cost of health care is for smoking related diseases is less, and the profit is extortionate. Smoking makes far to much money for the government to ever ban it, smoke for your countries ladies and gentlemen your country needs you! Even the electronic cigarettes have been lied about, all these do is make you more susceptible to upper respiratory cancer like that of the oesophagus which again studies show, yet your government denies, too much money folks, smoke, smoke, smoke until your grave!
Many countries are pushing smart meters into our homes in the billions, smart meters work on RF radiation, the IARC and the WHO class ALL RF radiation as a 2B carcinogen which increases your risk of cancer, because RF can cause cancer seen in heavy mobile phone users after 15 years of use. Now, imagine the increase of RF radiation in our environment in the last 15 years, wifi, mobile phone masts, television, radio, mobiles, and smart meters, microwaves, xray's etc, amazingly this increase has never been measured in it's entirety baring in mine, RF is a 2B carcinogen and increases your risk of cancer.
Now, most RF devices are of choice, you can choose to buy them and use them and turn them off therefore the makers can omit liability, except smart meters, they are being forced into our homes, even made mandatory in some countries and the shareholders are NOT covered for liability for radiation, and it's done under the guise of saving energy and so the environment. But studies of mice and rats show that RF radiation causes tumours in the brain, heart, and liver, lowering of melatonin, sperm count, and heating of body tissues even in low RF radiation. The IARC didn't make the classification on a whim, they made it on the basis of thousands of studies that showed the link to cancer, yet Big energy companies and our governments only care about their shareholders, because if they are forcing smart meter's into our already RF filled homes, and RF increases the risk of cancer, how can that be good for the environment? (That's without the countless safety breaches of the devices which have already been shown to be hacked since 2009, and for which you can buy hack devices online).
Last night there was a program on about the UN who have employees in third world countries, raping children, and even paying for the children that come from them rapes. Yes the very people who are meant to be helping these poor poverty ridden countries are raping the children instead.
So my answer is no, I don't think they give too hoots about the environment, or us and our families, I think the people running the show, are sick in the head and only care about their twisted perversions, money and power, and people should wake up and smell the filth. They are NOT beholden to our laws, they have no law for them.
I think most people are for taking good care of our planet. We are charged with that responsibility. I'm thankful that so many are able to keep perspective and think for themselves about everything, including environmental issues.
Randy D 