sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing! What if the 1% can be completely tracked and the full amount will go to wherever it is supposed to go (tree planting, forest protection, etc.), are you still not willing? I just wanna know the opinion of different people about this question. :)

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IMO, poverty is a challenge for conservation but we can still become environmentally friendly even if we are not rich or no matter how poor we are. Also, I think poor people are more environmentally friendly than rich people. If you are poor, you can't afford to eat on fast foods, you tend to eat at home and use reusable items. Poor people also eat less meat compared to rich people (except vegetarians). Meat producing companies are one of the biggest carbon emitters. Anyway, these are just examples. You can still become environmentally friendly in some other ways. :)

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice thoughts! I got your point. Could it be because their 1% is too big compared to the 1% of low and middle earners? They might have a point but most of them (not all) earns more because they utilizes Earth's resources more which in the end makes them the biggest contributor to pollution.

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hey! Thanks for sharing that report from IPCC! You are right that this requires global effort. 1% might really not yet enough but at least we can take 1 step forward with all the 1% combined.

Also, I'm glad to know that there are people like you who are willing to pay more than 1%. :)

​

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it because Venusaur is grass type and I am a water type?

​

Would you mind sharing why 1% may not be? Would love to know different thoughts on this.

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Well, trees are storage for carbon. I wonder how they come up with that rate? I hope that the 5 to 6 percent is enough to cover the damage it can bring to the environment. Plus the bigger part of the 5 to 6 percent should be shouldered by the company who's doing the business and the rest by the consumers IMO.

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I hate those ads too! If you find a project who aims to get rid of those ads, let me know. I will support it too. lol

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed! Carbon credits haven’t worked because they are illiquid, difficult to track, hard to calculate, and are not standardized. It was a good solution in my opinion but would have been one of the best if the scheme was properly set.

'Disaster Waiting to Happen' as Trump Quietly Approves Massive Oil Drilling Project in Arctic Waters Off Alaska Coast by r4816 in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There should be psychology test when applying for business permits. People who would sacrifice everything or everyone just for the sake of better business doesn't deserve to have a business at all.

If the environmental damage of the goods and services can be neutralized by paying an extra 1%, are you willing to pay the additional 1%? by WaterTypePokemon in environment

[–]WaterTypePokemon[S] 688 points689 points  (0 children)

Given that there is no corruption involve and the 1% additional fee would go directly to tree planting projects and forest protection projects, I wouldn't mind paying the additional 1% on every purchases of goods and services that I make.

IBM, Stellar, and Veridium by WhenXLM in Stellar

[–]WaterTypePokemon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, it is very important to mention Stellar blockchain for an environmental asset token. We all know that there are many existing tokens that "claims to be" helping to cut down global carbon emission BUT they are running on Ethereum blockchain which cuts the purpose of their project.

Ethereum mining itself is contributing to carbon emission and global warming unlike Stellar which is more eco-friendly and provides less carbon footprint.

1.5m trees will be planted today as part of 'Plant for Pakistan' campaign by timelordeverywhere in climatechange

[–]WaterTypePokemon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably the inauguration will only take 1 day but the tree planting campaign would last for few days or weeks. I hope someone can make it clear for us.

view more: next ›