[Slkmcphee]

In the wake of the oil spill in the gulf and in light of various other environmental issues, I was wondering where INTJs stand on the environment and/or conservationism. I am posting a thread in each NT forum because I am interested in how the conversation will differ among each rational group.

To what extent to you think we as individuals should make changes to counteract negative trends? Do you believe in committing public resources? If so, to what extent?

North Pacific Gyre

[ChanceyRose]

Good questions. I was wondering if anyone was discussing the impact of the Gulf disaster.

Personally, I believe that we should do our individual best to take care of our natural resources. Common sense acts, like consolidating errands, turning off lights in rooms you aren't occupying, and rain barrels are far more practical than demanding people stop driving cars that are more than 10 years old.

As a libertarian, I prefer not to let the government take the lead in anything. If we allow true market competition, then eventually consumer preference/demand for clean energy will cause the utility companies to meet our demands or risk losing our business.

I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that humans can alter the warming or cooling trends of the earth enough to justify fear-inspired legislation. Carbon footprint credits, and other environmental initiatives, are a tool to corral the weak and fearful.

As far as the Gulf crisis is concerned, I ache to see what is happening to the ecology and the livelihoods of the people in the area. There is a lot of blame to pass around but that won't solve the current problem. I wish that Obama, instead of looking for some "ass to kick" would work side by side with the folks at BP until the well is capped and the cleanup complete. Only then should anyone be worrying about the root cause and prevention.

[PseudoSenator]

Good questions. I was wondering if anyone was discussing the impact of the Gulf disaster.

Personally, I believe that we should do our individual best to take care of our natural resources. Common sense acts, like consolidating errands, turning off lights in rooms you aren't occupying, and rain barrels are far more practical than demanding people stop driving cars that are more than 10 years old.

As a libertarian, I prefer not to let the government take the lead in anything. If we allow true market competition, then eventually consumer preference/demand for clean energy will cause the utility companies to meet our demands or risk losing our business.

I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that humans can alter the warming or cooling trends of the earth enough to justify fear-inspired legislation. Carbon footprint credits, and other environmental initiatives, are a tool to corral the weak and fearful.

As far as the Gulf crisis is concerned, I ache to see what is happening to the ecology and the livelihoods of the people in the area. There is a lot of blame to pass around but that won't solve the current problem. I wish that Obama, instead of looking for some "ass to kick" would work side by side with the folks at BP until the well is capped and the cleanup complete. Only then should anyone be worrying about the root cause and prevention.

Libertarian views can be put in the closet on this one I'm afraid. Common sense acts will do little in the face of the enormous portfolio of environmental crisis we're in. You see no value in the government orchestrating cap-and-trade, carbon tax, etc.?

I'm surprised an INTJ of all people is skeptical of global warming. Besides, do you not see the benefits of eliminating reliance on a limited fuel source that comes from foreign governments--some of which are hostile?

Our individual choices are partly responsible for this oil spill, we purchase daily the very same oil that is killing our coastlines and killing the livelihoods of so many on the Gulf coast. I hope the disaster will serve as the fuel for a green revolution. International governments must coordinate and the United States must lead the way. Renewable resources, take away tax benefits for oil companies, strict fuel standards, etc.

[ChanceyRose]

Besides, do you not see the benefits of eliminating reliance on a limited fuel source that comes from foreign governments--some of which are hostile?

Of course I do, but we are a long ways from eliminating our dependence on oil. Everything we do requires it to some degree: from the plastic keyboard I'm typing on to the synthetic motor oil in my car. The first step to independence is to fully utilize the resources you already own. Is it better to drill in ANWAR than to rely on hostile foreign governments? I think so.

I like wind and solar energy as a solution for utilities. They eliminate emissions, don't damage the ecology, and reduce the dependence on oil and coal. Allow me to choose a utility company that makes greater use of that technology instead of making me use the only one that serves my area. Consumer choice is the key. Not greater government regulation.

Hydrogen fuel cells were ready more than 30 years ago but the government nixed them because they would negatively impact the oil companies. The government needs to stay out of the way of free market developments. Consumers would have easily chosen fuel cell powered vehicles during the 1970s oil embargo if they had been available. Can you imagine how much different our world would be?

When I was growing up, everyone was screaming about global cooling. The emissions will blanket the earth, keep out the sunlight, and cause us to have another ice age. My daughter just spent the first eight years in school learning about global warming. The emissions will blanket the earth, keep the heat in, and all the ice caps will melt. Last year, "they" decided to teach global cooling. This last winter was similar to what I remember from 20 years ago.

For every scientist that claims global warming you can find one that claims global cooling and another that claims the earth temps are cyclical. My personal experience and discussions with older generations points to cyclical. I have not seen definitive evidence that proves otherwise. If you have some, I'd love to see it.

Cap and trade sounds reasonable but who decides what's feasible? The government is just a group of people hampered by their own self-interests and limited vision. They don't make decisions based on what's best for you, me, or the environment. Only on what's best for themselves.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm interested in seeing it. My views are always evolving.

[InvisibleJim]

Libertarian views can be put in the closet on this one I'm afraid. Common sense acts will do little in the face of the enormous portfolio of environmental crisis we're in. You see no value in the government orchestrating cap-and-trade, carbon tax, etc.?

I'm surprised an INTJ of all people is skeptical of global warming. Besides, do you not see the benefits of eliminating reliance on a limited fuel source that comes from foreign governments--some of which are hostile?

Our individual choices are partly responsible for this oil spill, we purchase daily the very same oil that is killing our coastlines and killing the livelihoods of so many on the Gulf coast. I hope the disaster will serve as the fuel for a green revolution. International governments must coordinate and the United States must lead the way. Renewable resources, take away tax benefits for oil companies, strict fuel standards, etc.

As much as I agree with the global warming problem; this seems like a very reactionary viewpoint to the economics of the situation. Coming from the UK where taxes on petrol are incredibly high by US standards all that occurs is that we subsidise other countries consumption. We know that market mechanisms will force alternate energy sources will replace oil once an economic tipping point is reached and if we try to force this hand too early then someone else will simply consume the energy at a cheaper cost that we do not allow ourselves. In effect the invisible hand will punish severely if you move before alternate technologies are cost effective.

[PseudoSenator]

Of course I do, but we are a long ways from eliminating our dependence on oil. Everything we do requires it to some degree: from the plastic keyboard I'm typing on to the synthetic motor oil in my car. The first step to independence is to fully utilize the resources you already own. Is it better to drill in ANWAR than to rely on hostile foreign governments? I think so.

I like wind and solar energy as a solution for utilities. They eliminate emissions, don't damage the ecology, and reduce the dependence on oil and coal. Allow me to choose a utility company that makes greater use of that technology instead of making me use the only one that serves my area. Consumer choice is the key. Not greater government regulation.

Hydrogen fuel cells were ready more than 30 years ago but the government nixed them because they would negatively impact the oil companies. The government needs to stay out of the way of free market developments. Consumers would have easily chosen fuel cell powered vehicles during the 1970s oil embargo if they had been available. Can you imagine how much different our world would be?

When I was growing up, everyone was screaming about global cooling. The emissions will blanket the earth, keep out the sunlight, and cause us to have another ice age. My daughter just spent the first eight years in school learning about global warming. The emissions will blanket the earth, keep the heat in, and all the ice caps will melt. Last year, "they" decided to teach global cooling. This last winter was similar to what I remember from 20 years ago.

For every scientist that claims global warming you can find one that claims global cooling and another that claims the earth temps are cyclical. My personal experience and discussions with older generations points to cyclical. I have not seen definitive evidence that proves otherwise. If you have some, I'd love to see it.

Cap and trade sounds reasonable but who decides what's feasible? The government is just a group of people hampered by their own self-interests and limited vision. They don't make decisions based on what's best for you, me, or the environment. Only on what's best for themselves.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm interested in seeing it. My views are always evolving.

Exactly, we must take steps to make sure that we get off oil soon and fast-track the process. Corporate greed and unwillingness to change on the part of the individual are what's keeping this nation and others from tapping into resources they already own---wind,solar, and geothermal to name a few!

Now your statement about the amounts of scientists on either side of this issue is flat out incorrect. A vast majority of scientists see global warming as a very real threat. You need not take the words of scientists--look at photos of melted glaciers for example. The effects are being felt as we type. Science trumps personal experience last time I checked.

If eight months ago regulation was proposed for the oil industry from this government, would you have been supporting it? Likely not considering your views. Now with this oil spill you see how that act of government would have been in its own interest as well as mine, yours, and that of the environment.

[ChanceyRose]

Exactly, we must take steps to make sure that we get off oil soon and fast-track the process.

We agree here. Our differences are the why and the level of government involvement.

Corporate greed and unwillingness to change on the part of the individual are what's keeping this nation and others from tapping into resources they already own

You’re right in that the business directive to maximize profits for the individual shareholder is the major incentive in every decision. Like it or not, market economics will be far more effective in eliminating or at least limiting our dependence on oil. See FRB: Speech, Greenspan--Energy--April 5, 2005 for a discussion on market economics and the energy industry.
The government can also be accused of greed. See this discussion on the Mineral Management Service, regulatory oversight of the oil industry, and conflict of interest. Federal Regulators? Warnings on Safety Weren?t Acted On - NYTimes.com
Something to consider: If the government can't/won't enforce the regulations currently in place how can we trust them to enforce even stricter ones? Also, if the government lifted the ban that prevents oil companies from drilling closer to shore, would this disaster have happened? See (The Risky Hunt for the Last Oil Reserves: Does Deep Sea Drilling Have a Future? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International for a discussion on the risks and return on investment of deep sea drilling.

Now your statement about the amounts of scientists on either side of this issue is flat out incorrect. A vast majority of scientists see global warming as a very real threat.

Please take a look at this website for a thorough and well documented discussion on climate change: Facts about Climate Change Science and Ocean Acidification, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics Also consider that climate change predates the human infestation. See this website for an overview on palaeoclimate change: Palaeoclimate Change

Science trumps personal experience last time I checked.

Show me your science.

If eight months ago regulation was proposed for the oil industry from this government, would you have been supporting it? Likely not considering your views.

You’re right. Why support additional regulation if the current ones, which I admit might have averted this disaster, aren’t enforced. See above discussion concerning the Mineral Management Service.

Now with this oil spill you see how that act of government would have been in its own interest as well as mine, yours, and that of the environment.

Ah, here we go. For a lesson in how big government acts in its own interest and the effects on the average citizen and the environment research the following countries: Cuba, the former USSR, and North Korea.
Please don’t rehash public opinion. I’ve already heard it and dismissed it. If you want to change my opinion, give me documentation.

[skycloud86]

My INTJ brother is very concerned about the environment and things like poverty, hunger etc.

[ChanceyRose]

Concern is great. We should be concerned about these issues. The Gulf oil spill is a nasty environmental hazard that we will be reeling from for decades. There is plenty of blame to go around and multiple paths to whatever solution we end up with.

We are shortchanging ourselves by regurgitating what we hear from neighbors, friends, parents, children, politicians, and the news media without researching the information presented. Facts and statistics can be twisted and made to represent almost anything you want. Only by reading widely from a variety of sources with a variety of opinions can we make truly informed decisions.

This is a great discussion and I am in no way trying to shut it down. I would just like to see some supporting evidence to go along with the opinion.

[Synister]

I too have concerns and can’t help but think of the ripple effect these clowns have caused (we’ll find out in 6-9 months). However because of my introverted nature I can’t see myself as an activist. I thought of starting a post of how a room full of INTJ’s would solve the problem.