SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mary Cluney who wrote (100731)2/16/2005 10:35:22 AM
From: DMaA  Respond to of 793707
 
The climate WILL change. Nothing we can do will freeze it in its present state. We need to be as free as possible in order to be able to adapt to this inevitable change.



To: Mary Cluney who wrote (100731)2/16/2005 10:36:07 AM
From: aladin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793707
 
Mary,

I posted a NASA study a couple of days back.

It was at: nasa.gov

Basically you can look at it and see that we are doing a pretty good job on pollution here. The Europeans are not as good, but not bad.

But - the real problem's are in Asia and surprisingly a lot of what we see in North America is from there.

And they are exempt from the Kyoto treaty.

So tell me how spending trillions cleaning up already relatively clean NY and London solves anything.

We need to develop bulk energy production, probably nuclear and help push this into regions such as India and China.

The largest coal fired plant in North America operates in Canada on the shores of Lake Erie. It is filling a demand that can no longer be met with Hydro (no new dams can get by environmentalists) and Nuclear (again with concerns).

Just a few years back Ontario led the fight against acid rain. Now its a production powerhouse :-(

John



To: Mary Cluney who wrote (100731)2/16/2005 11:29:41 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793707
 
I'm beginning to think that you aren't really on the global-warming bandwagon after all, or are on it by mistake.

Scientists say these losses will be increasingly compounded by global warming, which accelerates smog formation and increases the risks of fatal heat stress.

The relationship between global warming and smog, as stated here, is that 1) global warming connotes a global rise in temperature and 2) temperature increases accelerate smog formation. Smog is not global warming and global warming is not smog. Temperature increases accelerate smog formation regardless of the reason for the temperature increase. Smog is greater in the summer than in the winter because the temperature is higher. The relationship is between temperature and smog. The notion of global warming is incidental.

Smog is what we can now see. It has immediate impact, But global warming has even more dire consequences for the longer term:...I am like most people. I am not too concerned about the longer term.

Global warming is a long term problem. If you are not too concerned about the longer term, it's hard to imagine why you are interested in global warming. Unless you are mistakenly conflating global warming and smog. Or global warming and environmental protection.

aggressively cutting down on pollution, using energy more efficiently, and not doing unnecessary harm to our natural resources seem so obvious.

Seems obvious to me, too. But it's not necessary to raise the spectre of the global warming to do that. There are plenty of here and now reasons to reduce pollution. Health reasons, particularly, but resource reasons and aesthetic reasons and cost reasons as well. Interjecting global warming into the argument may do more harm than good. Invoking global warming as a scare tactic may get more attention directed toward pollution problems. But the hyperbole of it may turn other people off to what are reasonable pollution reduction actions. You can see right here on this thread knee-jerk negativity at the mere mention of the word, environmentalist. As a practical matter, it's hard to say whether it turns more people on than off or the converse but the utility of it is questionable. Independent of the practical effect, intellectual integrity is also a factor. Hyping and scaring people to get political action is not something we want to foster, methinks.



To: Mary Cluney who wrote (100731)2/16/2005 3:12:01 PM
From: miraje  Respond to of 793707
 
From the Brooking Institution, not exactly a right wing outfit:

brookings.edu

...Cleaner Air

Most—not all—environmental indicators are now positive, at least in the United States and other Western nations.

Air pollution has declined at a pace that would be a national cause for celebration, were it not for Good News Bad thinking. (Most of the following statistics are for 1976-97. Subsequent data, due from the Environmental Protection Agency soon, are expected to show more decline in all categories.) Since 1976, the aggregate U.S. level of urban ozone, the main component of smog, has declined 31 percent. Airborne levels of sulfur dioxide, the main component of acid rain, have dropped 67 percent. Nitrogen oxide, the secondary cause of urban smog and of acid rain, has fallen 38 percent. Fine soot ("particulates"), which causes respiratory disease, has declined 26 percent. Airborne lead, considered the most dangerous air pollutant when the EPA was founded in 1970, has declined 97 percent. The EPA's "Pollutant Standards Index," which measures days when air quality is unhealthful, has fallen 66 percent since 1988 in major cities.

As analyst Steven Haywood of the Pacific Research Institute has pointed out, during 1976-97, while the United States was cleaning up its air, its population rose more than 25 percent, its gross domestic product more than doubled, and its vehicle-miles traveled grew about 125 percent—all developments that might have been expected to worsen air pollution. What kept that from happening was a web of ever-stricter anti-emission regulations, ever-better technology (today's new cars emit less than 1 percent as much pollution, per mile traveled, as 1970 cars), and smart use of market forces. For example, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments allowed electric-power utilities to trade acid-rain permits to help them meet tougher standards. As a result, acid-rain emissions fell 50 percent during the 1990s, even as more coal, the primary source of acid-rain chemicals, was being burned.

Especially spectacular has been the improvement of Los Angeles air. The summer of 2001 was its cleanest on record. Los Angeles county has not had a "stage one" ozone alert in two years; during the 1980s, it averaged 70 stage-one warnings annually. In 2001, Los Angeles violated the federal ozone standard 36 times; during the 1980s, it averaged 165 violations a year. L.A. county officials had to issue 18 ozone "health advisories" in 2001; during the 1980s, the average was 130 a year. (And L.A. smog figures for the 1960s and 1970s were worse.) Despite the popular impression of L.A. air getting ever worse, Los Angeles smog has been declining on a pretty much linear basis since the 1960s.

Denver, New York City, and other major urban areas have drastically reduced the incidence of carbon monoxide—sometimes called winter smog—in the past decade amidst a welter of claims by environmental activists that "more and more cities are violating air standards." As the EPA makes its air quality standards progressively more stringent, cities may violate standards even as pollution levels go down.

Related Progress

Most other environmental indicators are similarly favorable. In 1970, only one-third of American lakes and rivers were safe for fishing and swimming—the principal water-purity standard of the Clean Water Act. Today the proportion is about two-thirds, and rising. Toxic emissions from U.S. industry have declined 42 percent since 1988 and not because production fled offshore—domestic output of the petrochemical industry, the main source of toxic emissions, grew during the period. During the past two decades municipal wastewater treatment has become universal, while the ocean dumping of sewage sludge has been banned. Boston Harbor, a decades-old source of dirty-water jokes, is on such a clean binge—thanks to the world's most advanced municipal wastewater treatment plant—that the harbor is sparkling again already and will be safe to fish and swim in soon. Land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes has been banned, and no Superfund sites today imperil public health. Energy consumption has become more efficient in almost every category with the annoying exception of the sport utility vehicle. A long-term trend of "decarbonization" characterizes energy use in the United States, the European Union, and affluent Asian nations. All these societies are burning steadily less fossil fuel per unit of energy produced.

Other improvements abound. The forested portion of the United States is increasing, not shrinking. Appalachian forests, once expected to be wiped out by acid rain, are the healthiest they have been since before the industry era, with browsing species such as deer thriving. Farm erosion and runoff are both trending down, even as agricultural production keeps rising. The American bald eagle, gray whale, and peregrine falcon have been "delisted" from the Endangered Species Act, while the oft-predicted wave of extinctions of U.S. plants and animals has yet to materialize. All these gains have coincided with unprecedented economic growth and improved living standards—proof that environmental protection and prosperity are wholly compatible. Gross pollution was necessary for economic growth a century ago; now it is not, though power plants continue to hum and factories to churn out goods...