Changes

Jump to: navigation, search
::: "Consumption" runs the gamut from life-promoting energy use to unjustifiable destruction of the environment. Since virtually everyone opposes senseless waste, the real debate is about energy use, and I favor it because it extends lives and saves lives. I suggest those opposed to energy consumption and use try living in some of the nations that have less per-capita energy, and seeing how life is shorter there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
 
::::I'm new here, but I happened to notice this debate. I suggest you check out [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE this webpage], Professor Schlafly. The statistical correlation of per capita energy use doesn't really support your statement. My home country of Switzerland has a slightly better life expectancy as the USA (compare with the life expectancy data [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN here]), but half the per capita energy. And the countries with the highest energy use are in the Middle East, where life expectancy isn't as good as in the USA and Europe. [[User:HenryClerval|HenryClerval]] 18:15, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
 
::::I have looked at the statistics and found that life expectancy does not correlate to energy consumption. Japan's life expectancy is the highest in the world — about 4 years longer than the USA's — and consumes about half the energy per capita. The UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and other predominantly European countries consume far less energy than the United States, yet have significantly longer life expectancies. Furthermore, countries which consume more energy per capita than the USA (UAE, Qatar and Bahrain, to name a few) do not have longer life expectancy. I have excluded countries such as those in third-world Africa because their energy consumption is among the least of their worries (I'd suspect lack of availability of medicine and sterile hospitals rank as greater indicators of life expectancy). [http://earthtrends.wri.org/ Source] [[User:ColinS|ColinS]] 18:24, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
 
:::::It seems we were writing at the same time, user ColinS! [[User:HenryClerval|HenryClerval]] 18:29, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
 
I believe that we need to protect our planet, because we don't really know how much time we have here. The end of the world could come tomorrow, or it could come 2,000 years from now. We need to act on the things we know, and try to protect the world for our children and their children in case they spend the entirety of their lives here. That means reducing our oil use, trying to find alternative energy sources, and doing whatever we can to preserve our planet. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:38, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
'''YES'''
: It's simple: the more energy a nation produces and consumes, the longer its average lifespan. Why? Because energy production creates wealth that can then improve health-related facilities like hospitals, and energy use provides comfort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
 
:: This is incorrect.
 
:: World per capita energy consumption (in million BTU's per year) (Source: U.S Energy Information Administration ):
 
:: 1 Gibraltar 2,065.8
:: 2 Virgin Islands, U.S. 1,851.4
:: 3 Qatar 1,023.3
:: 4 Trinidad and Tobago 769.9
:: 5 Bahrain 695.4
:: 6 Netherlands Antilles 695.0
:: 7 United Arab Emirates 577.6
:: 8 Iceland 568.6
:: 9 Brunei 482.1
:: 10 Singapore 476.8
 
:: Life expectancy (Source: Wolfram Alpha):
 
:: 1 | Macau | 84.36
:: 2 | Andorra | 82.51
:: 3 | Japan | 82.12
:: 4 | Singapore | 81.98
:: 5 | San Marino | 81.97
:: 6 | Hong Kong | 81.86
:: 7 | Australia | 81.63
:: 8 | Canada | 81.23
:: 9 | France | 80.98
:: 10 | Sweden | 80.86
 
:: Sorry, this claim doesn't hold up. Energy use and production does create wealth, but wealth doesn't always improve health care.--[[User:JLewis|JLewis]] 11:28, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
 
Nations with such freedom have less poverty and starvation, so yes, it's certainly worth it. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:21, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
::We can be good stewards of the Earth and consume whatever is necessary. Some will argue we are destroying the planet. I say America has spent more than all other nations combined on the environment. Some will argue that the planet will not sustain the increasing population. Yet God said be fruitful and multiply. God never said stop at 12 billion or the planet will be in peril. Can we effect the environment? sure. Is the Earth in dire straits? No.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:37, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
 
 
'''POSSIBLY'''
::Oh, of course I agree that there is a possible correlation, I only meant we can't conclude causation from correlation alone. If I remember correctly from a history class, Iraq could be an excellent example of this. When Iraq nationalized the oil industry (previously owned by British companies) it was able to use that oil and extra revenue to modernize and provide social services to its citizens that raised the quality of life, infant mortality rates, calorie intake, etc. There's no doubt that the effect would have been far greater if they had chosen to privatize the industry instead, but that certainly indicates a causation. I might have to do some more research on this. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:08, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
6,631
edits