Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This Environmentalism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


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)

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:

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)

That shows how hypocritical Conservatives really are[edit]

If conservatives those days were really conservative, they'd be environmentalists, not capitalists. (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's possible for them to be both. Human psychology is weird that way. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)