Going "green": Truths of the bandwagon from an ENVS Major

Man once tilled the land, fished the sea, and harvested the vine and brush. Man became more advanced, and created irrigation, tools, nets, dams, and so forth. Then, man thought without thinking, and created machines to do the work for man. Man was pleased at the profit and efficiency, and mass produced the machines, making their primary energy source non-renewable. Companies came along, and also indulged in the profit. When independent minds saw that man was it's own enemy, they sought to go against the flow, developing  cheaper alternative energy methods. But the companies did not like this, and smudged their grease over these minds and their reputations. After a while, man woke up realizing what was happening to the natural world. Some tried to implement law and logic to societies across the globe, which was successful at first. Then, companies distorted reality, creating a scare of "climate change" that was a natural phenomena of the Earth's rotation around the sun. Instead, they said we were to blame. They taxed us for their wrongdoings, they told us it was our impact on the environment that was most prevalent. What folly we can believe.

Some elements in nature are cyclical, like the carbon and water cycles. Some are not, like deforestation and pollution. Nature can break down most of the things we expel into the air, but it is a matter of quantity over quality. Sure, our homes of oil do not make things better, but it is our severe industrialization. The western governments have tried to install "carbon permits" that would reduce emissions. Laws all ready  institute this, and companies sneak around it. What would stop them from doing the same by falsifying emissions numbers and permits?

Now here comes any greedy civilations' tragic flaw: irony.

Babies once wore cloth diapers, until softer, disposable diapers were developed. Now, there is a minority reverting back to cloth (as they have become more conscientious). Or how about those big sacks people would carry to markets (and grocery stores later in history) to stock up on food items and the like. Commodities became more attainable, affordable, and lasted longer. People made trips more frequently, buying less. Paper and plastic became easier to manage. When the general public found out that trees were being clear cut versus selective cut, and that plastic bags were derived from the gunk that would run out by 2060 A.D., they wanted to revert back to the cloth. Of course, stores made a profit by issuing these bags, but it reduced the production of paper and plastic.

We are going into a semi-regression of resource management, consumption, and recycle versus waste. The Roaring 1920s had the same comfort and success that we have now. However, how we lived in the Great Depression may be our future. Technology is good, but too much will actually reduce our chances of sustainability (unless there is some great solution yet to be discovered). To better understand this, mull over this analogy. Technology has improved our age of expected life. Medicine (considered technology) has healed us, prevented disease, and has cured in ways that resemble miracles. But, because we live longer, we now have pains and other diseases that cannot be fully cured. Why? Because medicine, in all its greatness, has only prolonged death.