| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Talk:Environmentalism
Contents
Real Vs. Woo section[edit]
Can someone expand this to actually include REAL environmentalism? Otherwise, it looks more like an opinion rather than a compare and contrast, and I think (when it comes to woo and pseudscience) that showing the difference is of utmost importance.The Goonie 1 23:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- +1. Two years later, this article is still shit.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the whole "real", and "disputed" breakdown is a bad idea.
- Few things in this category are so black and white and almost all involve some balancing of priorities in respect of things like: the needs of human populations vs the effect on the environment and whether we are looking short term, long term or very long term.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nature woo and greenwashing are firmly in the woo category, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I wasn't talking about the "woo" category - just the "real" and "disputed".--BobSpring is sprung! 06:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nature woo and greenwashing are firmly in the woo category, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Incandescent vs. Fluorescent[edit]
The mercury issue isn't quite as clear cut as presented, as the coal used for the incandescent lights releases, I am told, more mercury than the light contains. Imarcuson (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Move nuclear to disputed issues?[edit]
See James Hansen's interview on nuclear and the 350 ppm pathway for (reservedly) pro-nuke stances from environmentalists, for example. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Expanding Disputed Issues:[edit]
1) 'Whether or not organic food is beneficial to the environment'
Not touching FDA/certification/farm bill, disputes/legal battles over definition of 'organic' or 'natural'/sustainable ag/food.
WILL collect credible sources/ links to research results/articles pertaining to relevant current soil & ag related research & findings; items relating to phosphorous(cycle, 'peak', placed on 'rare' list) and carbon: cycle, sequestration, below-ground stratification of old loess/ high carbon concentration soil discovered in the US midwest speculated 2B evidence of enormous amount of fire at that stratification/time (both pending wild 'fire' and ag-related carbon release implications), comparative conventional farming v 'organic' (or 'regenerative farming') methods (& respective health of plants & nutritional quality of food) research & findings, (bovine) husbandry v veg ag -pertaining to release of methane, mycorrhizal fungi.
Here's a good one -Anybody want to review the credibility of this?:
['Climate Change' and] Humus - the essential ingredient: Graeme Sait at TEDxNoosa: http://youtu.be/8Q1VnwcpW7E
2) 'Opposition to nuclear energy ... but some environmentalists support'...
Anybody have a problem with:
Add line: "See James Hansen's interview on nuclear and the 350 ppm pathway for (reservedly) pro-nuke stances from environmentalists." [Neb's suggestion; didn't check those links yet]
[Followed by] Update: Some environmentalists' reservedly pro-nuke position may have slid off its cracker since the reactor meltdown at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant caused by seismic walloping on March 11, 2011.--Greeneggs (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)