TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US - killing itself?
US - killing itself?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...1069883,00.html
Interesting (and long) article about environmental issues that no one seems to care about...
Yea it sucks that the environment is the first to go in a bad economy. I agree the Bush administration is bad for the environemnt and I would like to see some change, but bear in mind this article is from a leftist/green newspaper. For every scientist who says the environment is self-destructing you can find one who says it's not. At any rate, I'd like to read more opinions from both sides of the board. Before I come to the conclusion that the environment is AS bad (yes I know it's bad) as the article states.
One question however, has the EU met it's own kyoto protocols? (no need to respond, I already know the answer 
)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Yea it sucks that the environment is the first to go in a bad economy. I agree the Bush administration is bad for the environemnt and I would like to see some change, but bear in mind this article is from a leftist/green newspaper. For every scientist who says the environment is self-destructing you can find one who says it's not. At any rate, I'd like to read more opinions from both sides of the board. Before I come to the conclusion that the environment is AS bad (yes I know it's bad) as the article states. |
| quote: |
| One question however, has the EU met it's own kyoto protocols? (no need to respond, I already know the answer ) |
Which view do you subscribe to: global warming or global cooling?
...and its about to get worse. well in my state anyway, now that arrrnold is in office. his going to take it up the ass by corporations and bush.
Re: US - killing itself?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew Interesting (and long) article about environmental issues that no one seems to care about... |
bush does have some clever environmental initiatives, such as cutting down trees to prevent forest fires 
"the boondocks" spent a couple days making fun of that.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew Bush is denying the green house effect, it is hard to find any respected scientist who can backup that statement. And it is not hard at all to find more examples of his ignorance when it come to green politics. |
Re: US - killing itself?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...1069883,00.html Interesting (and long) article about environmental issues that no one seems to care about... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus I sure as hell don't... why the hell are you wasting our time posting this useless thing? |
| quote: |
| Dirtiest air in America TOM BEARDEN: Environmentalists point to the fact that during Bush's tenure, Texas has achieved the dubious distinction, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, of having the dirtiest air in America, of ranking 47th in water quality, and having the seventh-highest rate of release of toxic industrial byproducts onto its land. Ken Kramer is the Sierra Club's Texas state director. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Oh I agree, I never said bush was good for the environment ... I merely stated that from what I've read, the environment is not as worse off as the article indicates. The article states that the "other side" have plenty of proponents that will argue their case yet they fail to quote a single expert of the other side. However, they seem to have no qualms quoting experts to support their "the environmental apocalypse is at hand" stance. Now why would that be? Hmmm could it be because it's a green/liberal slanting newspaper? Well don't take my word for proof of fact, look them up under www.worldpress.org. It's an unbiased (as far as I know) media organization that classifies media based upon their political stances. It's been a resourceful tool in determining how many grains of salt I should take when presented with a particular article. |
There's a correlation between how a person views and utilizes our earth and it's natural resources, and how they regard it's inhabitants.
Bush's relegation of our environmental concerns sharply points in the direction of him not giving a flying f#@k about the welfare of our planet's future generations, which in turn suggests that he really could care less about humanity as a whole - which if you haven't figured out by now, includes US!
While I realize that we live in a disposable, consumer oriented society, I also feel that we as human beings have a responsibility to our descendants.
It's amazing how far science and technology has progressed while our relationship with the earth has grown ever more unsymbiotic.
As the wise old sage once said, "Don't shit in your own backyard!"
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Oh I agree, I never said bush was good for the environment ... I merely stated that from what I've read, the environment is not as worse off as the article indicates. The article states that the "other side" have plenty of proponents that will argue their case yet they fail to quote a single expert of the other side. However, they seem to have no qualms quoting experts to support their "the environmental apocalypse is at hand" stance. Now why would that be? Hmmm could it be because it's a green/liberal slanting newspaper? Well don't take my word for proof of fact, look them up under www.worldpress.org. It's an unbiased (as far as I know) media organization that classifies media based upon their political stances. It's been a resourceful tool in determining how many grains of salt I should take when presented with a particular article. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX - Before I really got a look into politics, I used to follow the environmnent much more then wars and terrorists and presidents. I have done several researches on the green house effect, the ozone layer and pollutions. The environment is on a very danger state, and the article does point out, and faces reality as it should. I hate when this things arent taken serious enough. The global warming will be one of the biggest topics that this century will face in near future. We have allready experienced climate changes, and sadly enough, the poor countries are the ones sucking up all the effects from the superpowers and industrialized countries. There's never much concscience tours whats really happening in the environment, why?? .. for the mere reason of the own politics and interests of those above. There's so much stuff going on behind us, and so much damage as well. Lets take in for example, the Amazons in Brazil - Those are the lungs of the earth, and are been destroyed big times, all because of special interests, and nothing is been done about it. Another example are the damage that the choral reefs around the world, especially in Australia and here in Florida, as a result of climate change in the waters, pollutions, and boats. Everything that its done has a reaction.. and its more like a chain reaction. So overall, Im sad to tell you this Occrider, but the environment IS getting worst and worst by the day if you really see the the real effects, and if people get educated enough about this. Im really scared about the Global Warming, and it saddens me to see Glaciers around the world melt at record speeds. The Antartica is spliting and melting as well, and the Ozone Layer is weaker and weaker by the years, exposing all of us to the Ultraviolet rays. You see, there are so many things that we dont either see or accept, because its not affecting us directly, but the effects in the future, will be devastating, as they are allready in parts of the worlds. And this is probably the first reason why Im so against Bush, he got out of the Kyoto treaty, and doesnt believe in global warming, how ignorant is that, the president of the country that throws the highest quanity if pollution in the world, and with the highest consuming. |
| quote: |
| National air quality levels measured at thousands of monitoring stations across the country have shown improvements over the past 20 years for all six principal pollutants. Since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants have been cut 48 percent. During that same time,U.S. gross domestic product increased 164 percent, energy consumption increased 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent. Despite this progress, about 160 million tons of pollution are emitted into the air each year in the United States.Approximately 146 million people live in counties where monitored air in 2002 was unhealthy at times because of high levels of at least one of the six principal air pollutants. EPA tracks air pollution in two ways: Air quality measured from over 3,000 locations (over 5,200 monitors) across the nation operated primarily by state, local, and tribal agencies Emissions going back more than 30 years. The vast majority of areas that experienced unhealthy air did so because of one or both of two pollutants -- ozone and particulate matter (PM). Important efforts to control these pollutants include implementing more protective National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM and issuing rules to reduce emissions from onroad transportation and stationary combustion sources.These rules will bring reductions in emissions over the next several years. Additional reductions will be needed to provide clean air in the future. For example, the Clear Skies legislation currently being considered in Congress, would, if enacted, mandate reductions of particle- and ozoneforming compounds from power generators by 70 percent from current levels through a nationwide cap and trade program.This will also reduce acid rain and improve visibility. Also, in May 2003, EPA proposed nonroad diesel engine regulations that would help improve PM and ozone air quality. By 2030, this program would reduce annual emissions of PM by 95 percent,NOx by 90 percent, and sulfur levels by 99 percent from these engines. Of the six tracked pollutants, progress has been slowest for ground-level ozone.Over the past 20 years, almost all geographic areas experienced some progress in lowering ozone concentrations.The Northeast and Pacific Southwest exhibited the greatest improvement. In particular, substantial progress seen in Los Angeles has continued through 2002. However, the national average ozone (8-hour) levels have been fairly constant in other metropolitan areas. An analysis to adjust 8-hour ozone levels in metropolitan areas to account for the influence of meteorological conditions shows the 10-year trend to be relatively unchanged.At the same time, for many national parks, the 8-hour ozone levels have increased somewhat. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed in the atmosphere by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of heat and sunlight. Emissions of VOCs have decreased about 40 percent over the past 20 years. However, regional-scale NOx reductions over the same period are only 15 percent. More NOx reductions will be necessary before more substantial ozone air quality improvements are realized. Some of these additional reductions will result from existing and recently enacted NOx emission reduction programs and also, potentially, from the Clear Skies legislation, if enacted. The improvement in overall emissions since 1970 included in this year�s findings reflect more accurate estimates of VOC,NOx, PM, and carbon monoxide (CO) releases from highway vehicles and nonroad engines. Previous years� findings underreported emissions for cars and trucks in the 1970s and 1980s.This year�s findings incorporate improvements in EPA�s mobile source emission models, which are based on actual emissions measurements from thousands of motor vehicles and have been peer-reviewed.The new mobile model better represents average U.S. driving habits, such as more rapid accelerations and faster highway speeds. Six Principal Air Pollutants Tracked Nationally Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Ozone (O3) - formed by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Particulate Matter (PM) - formed by SO2, NOx, ammonia, VOCs, and direct particle emissions Carbon Monoxide (CO) Lead (Pb) Sulfates formed primarily from SO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants are a major component of fine particles (known as PM2.5) in the eastern United States. SO2 emissions decreased approximately 33 percent from 1983 to 2002. Nationally, average SO2 ambient concentrations have been cut approximately 54 percent over the same period. Reductions in SO2 concentrations and emissions since 1990 are primarily due to controls implemented under EPA's Acid Rain Program. Sulfate reductions since 1999 are partly responsible for some improvement in ambient fine particle concentrations, particularly in the southeastern United States. In many locations, EPA now has four years of air quality monitoring data for fine particles (known as PM2.5). Areas across the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest regions, and California have air quality that is unhealthy due to particle pollution. Region-wide emissions from power plants and motor vehicles are among the largest contributors to the high PM2.5 concentrations. Since 1990, many actions have been taken that will significantly reduce air toxics across the country. Specifically, regulations for facilities such as chemical plants, dry cleaners, coke ovens, and incinerators will reduce emissions of toxic air pollution by 1.5 million tons from 1990 levels. In addition, recent actions to address emissions of toxic air pollutants from motor vehicles as well as stringent standards for heavy-duty trucks, buses, and diesel fuel will eliminate 95 percent of emissions of diesel particulate matter. Measurements have shown that atmospheric concentrations of methyl chloroform are falling, indicating that emissions have been greatly reduced. Concentrations of other ozone-depleting substances in the upper layers of the atmosphere, like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), are also beginning to decrease. |
I am sure the fires in California are polluting the equivalent of the entire United States for a month (wish I had something to back that up)...
Or how about nuclear explosisons? Those things heat to the temperature of the sun, I'm sure they made the globe a bit more toasty (my pet theory )
Bush believes in global warming, he does not believe it is a big issue, because he does not believe it is 100% the fault of humans. He takes the approach that it is more like 10% the fault of humans.
I think so far, all that researchs have been able to proove is the following:
1. Global Warming exists (they don't know if it is declining or not)
2. CO2 kills Ozone, which is likely to increase global warming.
| quote: |
| There's a correlation between how a person views and utilizes our earth and it's natural resources, and how they regard it's inhabitants. |
Global warming is a very serious danger, and may well become the biggest environmental catastrophe in human history.
One of the major issues that noone here has raised yet is the snowball effect global warming can/will have. As the tempture raises more greenhouse gases are released which causes it to raise even more. A couple of specific examples are gases trapped under the arctic tundra, that if it melts will be released as well as gases trapped under the ocean that once it starts to warm will be released.
The articles that Im starting to see more frequently now are really alarming. For example an article on the bbc a few weeks ago talking about the breakup of what was the biggest ice shelf in the artic ocean.
I'm glad someone started a topic on the environment. I was going to start one a while back but got lazy.
The trouble with discussing global warming is that the technology used to monitor global climate change (mainly satellite based) is too recent (mainly in the last 20 years) to construct any meaningful trends either supporting or falsifying global warming. Similarly where trends supporting global warming are found (in wide-spread increases in temperature, precipitation and other climatic anomalies) it's difficult to tell:
a) Whether these anomalies were caused by anthropic factors or merely by "natural" factors (such as solar activity or poorly understood meteorological patterns)
and
b) Whether these "anomalies" constitute a continuing "trend" (that is, that these anomalies will continue in the direction they appear to be heading in) and whether it can be ascertained that these "anomalies" aren't just temporary peaks or troughs in natural climatic variances (as the climate does vary naturally in this manner)
Keeping this firmly in mind, the following climatic anomalies are undeniable:
1) Temperatures globally have increased by 0.6 degrees celsius since the late 19th century and by 0.2 - 0.3 degrees celsius over the past 25 years:
2) Diurnal temperatures (the difference between the "maximum" and "minimum" temperatures over a 24 hour period) have decreased:
3) Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmopshere continues to increase at a fairly constant rate and is currently 32% higher than levels prior to the industrial revolution:
Carbon dioxide concentration is currently the highest it's been for up to 20 million years.
Now in taking on these facts, it's important to keep in mind what higher concentrations of CO^2 actually "do" to the global climate. Put simply, carbon dioxide "absorbs" energy and - ceteras parabus - an increase in CO^2 in the atmosphere will subsequently increase the amount of energy retained in the atmosphere (measured in watts per square meter - currently around 179 I think). Now this energy has to go somewhere - once it's been trapped it doesn't just disappear - and this is where a lot of the controversy comes from, namely what "happens" to the increased energy retained by higher CO^2 concentrations.
There are two main scenarios that I can think of:
1) That this energy is translated into heat energy and global temperatures increase correspondingly (at a rate of about 1 degree celsius for every extra 2 watts of energy generated).
2) That this energy is translated initially into heat energy, which then creates extra evaporation, which translates into clouds and rain, which translates into cooler temperatures either anulling the initial rise in temperature (i.e. the heat and the cooling effects of the clouds and rain cancel each other out) or by making tempertures cooler, overall, than they initially were (due to the increased clouds and rain)
Both of these scenarios - which should be expected if there is currently any anthropic influence on global climate - are currently occuring. We're seeing higher global temperatures (see point 1) and lower diurnal temperatures (see point 2) which are best explained by an increase in local cloud cover.
Now as I said initially, it's difficult to gauge whether these can only be explained by anthropic influences or whether other more natural factors are playing a part too, but there is certainly some evidence there that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the global environment. Nonetheless, regardless of whether you believe climate change is presently occuring or not, there can be absolutely no doubt that if you pump enough pollutants into the atmosphere there will be long-lasting (due to the lifetime of some of these gases) adverse consequences. While it's encouraging to see that emissions are slowing (based on what occrider posted) so long as the concentration rate of these gases in the atmosphere continue to increase (which they will do until emissions are cut below a certain "equilibrium" point) we are in grave danger of doing irreversible damage to this planet and every living thing upon it.
I'm not some environmentalist lunatic (like I said, I'm fairly agnostic on this issue) I merely fear it's much better, with issues such as these, to err on the side of caution. Long-term sustainability is more important than short-term profits. :-/
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0231.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/p...2/summaryb.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/D...lprit7oct03.htm
then you should read this to get a broader perspective:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...earthbelch.html
Excellent post renegade ... it provides an excellent broader perspective of the temperature levels/pollutants in atmosphere (I'm always a fan of charts and stats). Must work now but I'll definetely follow up after digesting all the info/links.
UNtil humanity adopts a set of universal principles to live by. Such as. (NO DENIAL - especialy in the name of profit.) THere will always be polution problems.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.