|
| 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. |
Well, let's just say that I'm by no means an expert in this field. As a matter of fact, most of what I know comes from the few articles published by bbc, cnn, etc., and most of my grasp of environmental trends comes from EPA reports themselves. That being said I shall attempt to delve into the issue ...
The major problem that I have with this article is that it says nothing in itself. I shall now attempt to quote the meaningful, relevant parts that actually say something:
- America produces a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions
- Americans contribute a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. To meet the seemingly modest Kyoto objective of reducing emissions to 7% below their 1990 levels by 2012, they would actually (due to growth) have to cut back by a third.
- There is a second reason: the staggering population growth of the US. It is approaching 300 million, having gone up from 200 million in 1970
- Fuel economy in American vehicles hit a 22-year low in 2002.
- In August it was announced that the number of cars in the US (1.9 per household) now actually exceeded the number of drivers (1.75).
Hmmm that's pretty much it from a cursory glance of the article. The rest of the article is couched in a lot of rhetoric and irrelevant statements ... for example, the number of new homes in a particular community, "McMansions", the growth of a state, gordon liddy's 3 ton suv, etc. Also I'm less inclined to respect the bias of an article when they say something like "bushies".
For my understanding of the state of the US's environment I used the EPA's 2002 latest findings on national air quality report:
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2002_airtrends_final.pdf
The report had these highlights:
| 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.
|
Furthermore, although the guardian article keeps referencing population growth, actual statistics have shown declines since the 70's regardless of population growth:
I haven't read the whole report in its entirety so I'm sure that there are faults and I would welcome further enlightenment (backed by credible sources). For one, although the trend of pollutants have been decreasing, one must ask the question about whether this is happening fast enough.
For example, researchers state that although the ozone layer is poised for recovery by the mid 21st century ... is this fast enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3115409.stm
Is a large part of ozone depletion as a result of metoerological changes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2906249.stm
To be honest I don't know, I haven't really studied the environment all that much ... I'm merely stating that there is a lot more to it than what the green groups are necessarily stating.
That doesn't change the fundamental cause for concern however, that global temperatures have been rising and CO2 emissions need to be cut.
___________________
Retro ...
Last edited by occrider on Oct-29-2003 at 16:12
|
) 
