(Part 2) Top products from r/environment

Jump to the top 20

We found 21 product mentions on r/environment. We ranked the 255 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/environment:

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/environment

Yes. Your overall cost of ownership will be less with Toyota, as well as resale value. Fuel savings in general are a societal cost, but you can offset your costs through investment in environmentally friendly channels, (donations, carbon offsets, etc.)

If you absolutely need a truck, you might as well get the best bang for your buck, and not piss away money through depreciation, mechanics bills, and loss of time due to future vehicle purchases or excessive trips to the mechanics.

Toyota trucks keep their value like no other vehicle I can think of.

Plus, here is a fun test. Go to a coffee or brewery with outside seating next to a busy road.

Look at the number of old vehicles that pass you. Then count the Japanese to US manufacturer ratio of old cars...

The book is the Toyota Way, there are others also.

The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071392319/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_i_8AVxDbTFEF5N6

Edit: This truck could potentially be the last vehicle you ever buy, if that interested you.

u/Xodarap · 1 pointr/environment

Yeah, it is difficult to write a comprehensive theory of ethics in a 100px high comment box; even harder to write one that people find interesting :-)

Singer has said (and I paraphrase): "The foundation of ethics is the theory that you are not above the rules, just because you are you." All my messages are variants on this theme: if you claim a rule, you must be consistent in its application.

I'm not certain intentionality is terribly important (I would like to be protected from an avalanche, even though an avalanche presumably has no "intent") so I would disagree with the last part of your statement, but that is essentially it. More formally:

  1. If I claim X for my self, I must allow others to claim it as well
  2. I claim a life free from suffering
  3. Therefore, I must allow others to claim the same

    This is somewhat simplistic (it doesn't tell us, for example, how to handle competing claims) but it is not too bad. I have basically attempted to summarize the first chapter of Writings on an Ethical Life, so if you would like to hear the same argument but by a better philosopher, I would encourage you to check that out :-)
u/Arguron · -2 pointsr/environment

I've known a fair share of Scientists in my life and I can tell you, they are no more immune to political bias than you or I. My father recently retired from his 22 year career with NASA as a Biomedical Scientist, and my mother has been teaching high school level Earth Science classes for nearly as long. In case you're wondering, both of them agree that anthropogenic global warming is very likely but neither is willing to admit absolute certainty, just like the rest of the scientific community, including your own beloved IPCC. Your kind of faith is reserved for the True Believer.

The dangers of extrapolation.

u/brufleth · 2 pointsr/environment

In the book The Great Influenza I think he suggests it might have started in mid western farming community. Awesome read by the way. Not just about the flu but about the history of medicine.

Whatever the case this post is sort of stating the obvious in that the flu almost certainly resulted from close contact between livestock and humans. Whether it was factory farming, free range organic farming, or whatever doesn't really matter. Many of our human diseases were passed to humans because of close proximity from raising animals.

u/berticus · 2 pointsr/environment

If plant breeding really geeks you out, I'd suggest reading The Garden of Invention, a book about Luther Burbank and the insane amount of plants he improved that are still in use today (McDonalds uses Burbank potatoes). If you want to breed things in your own garden, I really enjoyed the book Breed Your Own Vegetable Varieties. It had a nice mix of non-technical techniques and more in depth genetics and such. She doesn't mention breeding perennials though. Anybody have recommendations about that? I've been reading up on perennial barley, because I'm a beer nerd and a permaculture nerd.

Also, one more Amazon link (sorry)... the Land Institute is featured in part of the book Biomimicry. The science in the book is probably a little out of date (one of the chapters is on photosynthesis and I think we've gotten closer to figuring that out since the book was published) but it was a real eye-opener and I totally geeked out over it.

(Is there a reddit associate account for amazon, so they can collect referral commissions on book links?)

u/SRkev · 1 pointr/environment

I haven’t looked into specifically starting a business, but I have been reading Eric Toensmeier’s book “The Carbon Farming Solution” link and it has tons of good resources and information. I’d also look at the book “Drawdown” edited by Paul Hawken link

u/paternoster · 1 pointr/environment

The book My Year of Meats is also enlightening, interesting and shocking.

u/mylescloutier · 1 pointr/environment

Everyone just read Food Rules by Michael Pollan. You will be healthier and the planet will be better off if you take his suggestions and spread them.

u/sympathico · 3 pointsr/environment

Have a gander at The People's History of the United States to learn more about it, and why we were never really a democracy.

u/matts2 · 1 pointr/environment

This is part of his book Collapse: How Societies choose to Fail or Succeed. Interesting, but oh so depressing.

u/srmatto · 4 pointsr/environment

Eh, I think a lack of scarcity and overwhelming benefits from egalitarianism would have tipped our ancestors towards kindness rather than cruelty. But you don't have to take my word for it.

u/Dfresh20 · 2 pointsr/environment

The Camorra crime syndicate is responsible for this stuff. The book Gommorah goes into this and much more. The Camorra's dumping business is huge.


u/matt2001 · 2 pointsr/environment

>This seems to be a meaningless gesture by the Cheeto.

Oil companies prefer dictatorships. It is one stop shopping: no government bureaucracy, no litigation, no environmental cleanups.

I'm half way through this book - recommend highly:

Blowout: Corrupted Democracy, Rogue State Russia's influence, and the Richest, Most Destructive Industry on Earth by Rachel Maddow

u/Hexaploid · 2 pointsr/environment

>Here are a few articles about examples of GM crops promoting superbugs and superweeds:

There is no such thing as 'super' pests or weeds. That is a misnomer. There are weeds resistant to herbicides, yes, and pests resistant to the plant's GE defenses, yes, but they are neither super not new. The first herbicide resistant weeds were documented two decades before GE crops were on the market, and resistance breakdown (when a pest overcomes a plant's resistance) happens as a result of simple evolutionary biology and has no bearing on the origin of the resistance. It happens in non-GE crops as well, so if your argument against Ge crops is that the same laws of population genetics apply to them as apply to every other crop, you're against a lot more than just GE and should take up a stance against conventional breeding as well.

>Well-managed organic practices can reduce pest damage naturally without sacrificing yields.

Well, first off, citing the Rodale Institute on organic is like citing Monsanto on GE. Second, false dichotomy. Organic is a method of growing things. Genetic engineering is a way of improving a plant. The only wedge between them is ideological, not reality based (some say both should be used). That, really, is the biggest problem with organic. It's ideology, not science. There's nothing wrong with biological techniques, in fact, the world would be a lot better off it the could replace chemical based ones, however, that does not mean that the dogmatic organic approach is the right way to go, nor is an appeal to nature is valid, and furthermore, genetic engineering is a biological technique. Third, what happens when things are run not well but average? Here's the (study) referenced in your second link by the way.

edit: I should probably add that I'm not trying to dismiss the dangers of resistant weeds and pests, just that they are a poor argument against genetic engineering itself (also, they're dangerous because they threaten to take away the benefits GE has already provided, so to use them as an argument against GE is to start out admitting they have been very useful).

u/ImZeke · 1 pointr/environment

>I'll be honest, this is the least sense anyone has made in a comment in this thread yet.

I'd say just the opposite. I'm sick and tired of overpopulation extremists and fanatics, and I'm happy to point out the logical flaws and consequences of their asinine positions.

>Where in the fuck do you see me proposing we kill people?

As I said, it's a consequence of your article of faith. In order to reduce the population to what you call 'sustainable levels' people have to die - through inaction, through action. Either way, you're killing them. (It's important to note that the logical case for your suicide doesn't require murder of others in your proposal, but it's a nice bonus).

>How in the fuck would logarithmic growth be irrelevant to the issue of a population explosion?

Funny, I didn't hear an explosion.

>How in the fuck do you see this as me trying to change peoples lifestyles for my own personal gain?

This entire thread is based on the idea that overpopulation is bad and should be stopped. Your premise starts with getting other people to not have children. You want other people to change their lifestyle. The vehemence with which you are rejecting an extreme personal sacrifice indicates to me that you reject the notion of self-sacrifice to bring about your goal.

>You put more spin on my conversation trigger than the entire team at Fox news could ever dream of.

I don't know what a 'conversation trigger' is - but no, deductive reasoning is not 'spin.'

>You've got to tell me what you're on, so I can stay the fuck away from it.

I'm not surprised to see you're interested in [this](http://www.amazon.com/Symbolic-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0023249803/ref=sr_1_5?.