Environmental Issues

[Conman]

Before someone gets a smartlip : "Lets see u stop taking the trains, busses and planes ...." The number of hybrid cars are on the rise in (developed) Asia and Europe and almost 2 in 5 Petroleum Stations in East Asia have hydrogen pumps for these "clean cars". Governments in South East Asia have endorsed these Hybrids and are encouraging the sale and use of these cars with tax incentives and costs offsets to the dealers so that they can keep the Hybrid affordable.

Of the 5 main petroleum players in the region, Shell, British Petroleum and Exxon & Mobil are the only companies that have Hydrogen pumps. Ironically, Caltex (Texaco) are the only company without any plans to supply Hydrogen at their stations.

 

[Zinista]

Before someone gets a smartlip : "Lets see u stop taking the trains, busses and planes ...." The number of hybrid cars are on the rise in (developed) Asia and Europe and almost 2 in 5 Petroleum Stations in East Asia have hydrogen pumps for these "clean cars". Governments in South East Asia have endorsed these Hybrids and are encouraging the sale and use of these cars with tax incentives and costs offsets to the dealers so that they can keep the Hybrid affordable.

Of the 5 main petroleum players in the region, Shell, British Petroleum and Exxon & Mobil are the only companies that have Hydrogen pumps. Ironically, Caltex (Texaco) are the only company without any plans to supply Hydrogen at their stations.

Incidently Australia are starting (slowly) to look into fuel efficient 'clean' cars.. Brisbane City Council have started buying them for employee use.. :wink:

 

[cableguy]

perhaps individuals may not buy American goods, but governments and other companies buy FOOD in quantities that are simply amazing.. American grown agricultural products are exported in huge quantities... perhaps feeding the world isnt such a noble thing after all, and should be stopped... it would be sad to see food imported from such a big polluter consumed by the hungry... it only makes the case for more food to be sent, and thereby more pollution created...

i havent the numbers, but i am sure you could easily enough find how many countriess, and which countries actually rely on the USA for food... grain to russia, rice to japan, all manner of things to various african and european countries... perhaps the more envirenmentally friendly france and canada could provide these goods instead of the mean, nasty, polluting Americans... yes, we export rice to japan... they cant seem to grow enough on their own to feed their population, and are by no means alone in this situation...

ask yourself if your country is capable of being self sufficient... there are VERY few nations that have that ability... now see where those shortfalls are, and how and who is taking care of them... perhaps you are getting a helping hand from uncle sam that you are unaware of... the odds favor this possibility...

just a thought...

 

[Gatorman]

Cable, I'm not going to quote specific parts of your post but I agree with a lot of it. I'd like to see a more energetic member dig up some of the facts that you requested. As I said above, I really think that would help to reduce (at least a portion of) the negative bashing of the US as a natural resource glutton.....

 

[rounder]

Found this at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html#envir .
I cut out some to shorten the post but there is more
and it might have some of the info you were looking for.
Also has a bunch of links at the bottom.

The United States, with the world's largest economy, is also the
world's largest single source of anthropogenic (human-caused)
greenhouse gas emissions. Quantitatively, the most important
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission is carbon dioxide, which is
released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels (i.e., oil, coal, natural
gas) are burned. Current projections indicate that U.S. emissions of
carbon dioxide will reach 5,985 million metric tons in 2005, an increase
of 1,083 million metric tons from the 4,902 million metric tons emitted
in 1990, and around one-fourth of total world energy-related carbon
emissions. At the December 1997 global warming summit in Kyoto,
Japan, the U.S. delegation agreed to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 7%
from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Given current EIA projections, it is
unlikely that this goal will be met.

In February 2002, the Bush Administration released its proposed
alternative to the Kyoto Treaty, calling for significant reductions in
emissions of various pollutants (mercury, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide).
The program, known as the "Clear Skies Initiative,"

On March 27, 2001, the Bush administration declared that the United
States had "no interest" in implementing or ratifying the Kyoto treaty
limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but that it would pursue other ways of
addressing the climate change issue. On April 12, 2001, the White House
affirmed Clinton administration-approved energy efficiency standards for
washing machines and water heaters. Under these standards, clothes
washers would become 22% more efficient by 2004 and 35% more by
2007. In January 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced
an initiative, known as "Freedom CAR," to help automakers produce
fuel-cell-powered electric vehicles. And in January 2002, President Bush
proposed a new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle initiative. On April 2, 2004, the
Energy Department agreed to require new central air conditioners and
heat pumps to be 30% more efficient beginning in 2006. The Energy
Department had attempted to set the standard, lower, at 20%, but a
January 2004 court ruling prevented the Department from doing so.

 

[Conman]

Once more, with feeling ... :roll:

America is NOT a natural resource glutton.
America is NOT a mean nasty polluting country.

The point is:
The American Government is not doing enough or refusing to do anything about Greenhouse Emissions.
The American Government is not doing enough or refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem.
The American Government is halting any effort that insinuates an akcnowledgement of the problem.

The point is NOT:
Bashing America.
Blaming America outright.

Because:
No one is innocent of contributing to this mess.

BUT:
the world is waiting for America.

By the way rounder, nice find and great first post. Although I don't think it helps the American stand.

 

[oscaraustin]

On March 27, 2001, the Bush administration declared that the United States had "no interest" in implementing or ratifying the Kyoto treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but that it would pursue other ways of addressing the climate change issue. On April 12, 2001, the White House affirmed Clinton administration-approved energy efficiency standards for washing machines and water heaters. Under these standards, clothes washers would become 22% more efficient by 2004 and 35% more by 2007. In January 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced an initiative, known as "Freedom CAR," to help automakers produce fuel-cell-powered electric vehicles. And in January 2002, President Bush proposed a new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle initiative

, but the United States isn't trying to do anything for the environment. /sarcasm

You do not need to sign onto an international agreement, such as the Kyoto Protocol, to make progress on your own strides. It is almost impossible to get the U.S. government to sign anything since members of the house and senate will fight until 9 moons have passed. There are many more reasons for not signing a treaty aside from disagreeing with its contents.

I'm the same as Da'Pimp, I've lived in the U.S. all my life, near D'Etroit and all its factories, and have never seen smog. So, i hear it mainly only resides in Los Angeles.... the cesspool that it is. Granted with our terrific geographical location, w/ "Canada poised as a dagger at us", we send most of our emissions into Upper Canada
While it reaks of asschemicals when you drive past a factory, once you are a mile away you would never know it was there.

 

[Conman]

There are many more reasons for not signing a treaty aside from disagreeing with its contents.

Its a catch 22. We all know that but no one wants to say it ... US signs, they get sued from all quaters of America ... they don't sign, they get quatered from all the world. Better to face the world and pay nothing in suits.

So like I said at the top,

... industrialists and their money always win. We're fucked. End of debate.

I'm bored with this so this will be my last entry. Thanks for a most stimulating discussion guys! :wink:

 

[cableguy]

most Americans are breathing the cleanest air in their entire lives... some clean air thing was passed in teh 60s or 70s, and the improvements have just kept rolling in...

also, one of the more common pollutants is, get this, OZONE!!! odd, i think... the depletion of the ozone layer is such a concern, and yet we have enough ozone here at ground level to be unhealthy... somewhere, there is a scientist who can explain why "greenhouse gases" are such a bad thing, and how they can affect the ozone layer, AND somewhere there is a scientist that can tell me why ground level ozone doesnt behave like "greenhouse gases" OR why the ozone layer doesnt filter down through the miles of atmosphere to ground level... i see these two things as unresolvable...

if global warming isnt a problem, why should anyone address it as such??

 

[OCC-402]

re

Cableguy

if global warming isnt a problem, why should anyone address it as such??

Global warming is a big problem, and our reduced ozone coverage is part of it because at the current rate of temperature increase the entirety of Antarctica will be dramatically smaller by 2050. The part of the Arctic Ocean that remains frozen all year round reduced in size at a rate of 10% a decade since 1980. This has a far-reaching ecological impact, with the extinction of the Artic native animals and a large increase in the water level.

 

[Iceberg]

most Americans are breathing the cleanest air in their entire lives... some clean air thing was passed in teh 60s or 70s, and the improvements have just kept rolling in...

also, one of the more common pollutants is, get this, OZONE!!! odd, i think... the depletion of the ozone layer is such a concern, and yet we have enough ozone here at ground level to be unhealthy... somewhere, there is a scientist who can explain why "greenhouse gases" are such a bad thing, and how they can affect the ozone layer, AND somewhere there is a scientist that can tell me why ground level ozone doesnt behave like "greenhouse gases" OR why the ozone layer doesnt filter down through the miles of atmosphere to ground level... i see these two things as unresolvable...

First paragraph: not true. Just Republican Party propaganda. (The Clean Air Act does the reverse of what people think it will do, since it weakens, not strengthens, regulations on pollution.)

Second paragraph: let me explain. Ozone in the ozone layer 20 miles above the Earth (in the Stratosphere) is essential for the health of all human, animal, and plant life, since ozone filters out ultraviolet (UV) radiation. UV radiation is directly linked to skin cancer and causes plants to wilt and stop growing.

Ozone at ground level is toxic, because it triggers asthma attacks and causes respiratory illnesses. It encourages the growth of cancer cells inside the body, and contributes to smog (which also increases respiratory suffering, especially in seniors and children).

 

[Neptune]

Ok... I probably shouldn't get involved in this discussion, but...

First off, I have to say, I'm an American. As an American, I have (supposedly) a say in the environmental policy of the US. I do not have a say in the policies of Canada, France, Russia, China, Japan, South Africia, Brazil or that of any other nation. So, to those of you from other countries, stop worrying about things you can't control. Worry about your own government's environmental policy (hopefully you have a say in that like we do). As much as you may not like it, it is up to American citizens to chose their countries direction (if you really don't like where we are going, come on over--become a citizen, and then you can vote to change it).

Now about Global Warming: People forget global warming is not science fact. It is a theory... nothing more. Scientists have used computer modeling and some experimentation to back this theory, but it still remains unproven. The big indication of global warming would be a global rise in sea levels--something that has been predicted since the late 1970s, but something that hasn't happened. There have been local changes in sea level, but not a global one (at least, not yet). There are some other facts that we should keep in mind:

We are in one of the coldest periods of Earth's history. For most of Earth's geological past, the planet was warmer. Ice caps on the poles are not common, and in fact, right now the Earth is still technically in an Ice Age, which we have been in for at least the last 1.75 million years. To put this in perspective, the last long Ice Age previous to our current one was 290 million years ago -- 35 million years before dinosaurs evolved.

The Earth is a very complex system, and we don't really understand how it all works yet. A lot of other things besides greenhouse gas levels affect the climate. These include changes in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, orientation of its spin axis, and position of the continents on its surface. The bottom line is--we don't really understand how it all works yet (and probably won't for quite some time).

I saw someone mentioned ice core data. I have the ice core data in front of me from the Russian studies at Vostok (in Antarctica). The data indicates that greenhouse gases have been steadily rising for the last 15,000 years (although the level of increase has declined sharply in the last 2,000 years). Our current level of CO2 is about equivalent to the level 140,000 years ago--which is about 275 parts per billion (for some perspective--this is low... it is believed that 175 million years ago it was 6 times as high, and 620 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 18 times as high). This data supports the idea that climate change is related to greenhouse gas concentrations (although it doesn't indicate which is the cause and which is the effect), and it also shows us that CO2 change is a natural process, that has been going on for millions of years.

Now, I don't mean to say that pollution is a good thing... it isn't. But if we want to stop pollution, the best way is for each of us to do little things individually. Walk when we can instead of driving... not leaving the lights or TV on, not running our Air Conditioners all summer long... As an American, I value my freedoms above all else. With that in mind, I'll continue to vote against the federal government sticking its nose in places it doesn't belong (at least, in my opinion). Pollution problems were created by the people, and they need to be fixed by the people, by choice, and not by law.

Ok, I'm off my soap box now.

 

[Gatorman]

Ok... I probably shouldn't get involved in this discussion, but...

Neptune, you sound pretty fucking smart. Is all that true and verifiable info??

 

[cableguy]

sounds close, if not exact... similar to other things i have heard..

http://www.cleanairprogress.org/news/leavittcorrect_10_01_04.asp

that is a link to the story that has been reported on at least two radio stations, and at least three news networks... the rest if the site might well bear a casual glance as well... http://www.cleanairprogress.org/

global warming MAY be a problem... it also may NOT be a problem...

the problem i have with ozone and "greenhouse gases" is the causative effect... if "greenhouse gases" can make it to the straatosphere, why cant ozone?? why cant ozone fall to earth??? why do so many deny the proven FACT that the number one source of "pollution" is volcanic eruptions??? yep... a naturally occurring phenomenon that we have no control over...

extinction... nearly every species that has lived on this planet is extinct... ask an archaeologist, a zoologist, a botanist, or even a geologist... fossil records show this... nearly all of these extinctions happened before we humans were around, therefore, humanity is not to blame for most extinctions... in other words, WHO CARES!!! if an animal cannot adapt to its surroungings, it will either evolve or perish... this is another area of conflict for liberals.. evolution is the way things must be taught, and extinction is definitely a part of evolution, BUT, we must stop extinction at all costs, they say... i prefer to let nature take its course... preserve what you can, IF no ones rights, especially property rights, are trampled... we dont have dinosaurs anymore... there is some reason for this... it isnt because humans killed them... it is because they could not adapt to their environment... something better came along, and that was that... no more dinos.. i, for one, will not shed a tear for any animal or plant relegated to history due to inferiority of some sort..

 

[Neptune]

Thanks. Most of my info comes from books that I have... I got interested in geogolgy and climatology a couple of years ago. The ice core data comes from the BBC book Earth Story, which is outstanding. I recommend it to anyone interested in the geological and environmental history of the planet.

 

[endymion]

Cable, there is a large difference between extinction due to the process of natural selection and getting wiped out of a forest because people need more room to feed McDonald's cows.
The dinosaurs weren't wiped out by our involvement, that was a natural extinction, and evolution. We as humans are wiping out thousands of species, because we can, and apparently don't care. The 2003 Red List of Endangered Species jumped up by more than 2000 species in one year. Animals like the giant panda aren't being wiped out by nature, they're being wiped out by us, humanity, mostly due to land clearing and hunting.

The countries with the highest threatened animals species currently are (btw I did not put this in as an attack on the US, they are just big and have a lot of species to lose):

U.S. - 859
Australia - 527
Indonesia - 411
Brazil - 282
South Afica - 252
China - 238
India - 236

The number of currently threatened species is 12,259. These animals should not have to try to evolve because we want our lives to be easier, and more convienient. That would be like aliens taking over Earth and telling us we had 200 years to evolve to be able to breath hydrogen, because they were going to change our atmosphere. It's not naturally selection, it's forced extinction.
Animals becoming extinct without our help, I'd agree. Toughen up or die. Unfortunately, humanity affects almost every animal on the planet these days, so we have to consider ourselves at least partially responsible for every loss.
Neptune, great post. My only concern is the "theory" part. Almost all science is theory, yet we base our lives on it. The Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, hell, even the beginning of the universe (Big Bang) is just educated guesswork. So if enough people start coming up with the same theory, chances are pretty good there is a solid reason for it. Like years ago when people came up with the "theory" that the Earth was round, not flat. Time proved them right too.

 

[cableguy]

endy, sometimes, a species freezes out another... humans are not necessarily one of those species... has human adaptation and innovation affected plants and animals, some to extinction??? yep, and it will continue to... what if a bear wants to make things easier and more convenient, and in doing so wipes out the last of some insect or rodent or bird or fish??? should the bear be condemned??

what IF some or all of the "endangered" or "threatened" species were on a natural downturn, the last days of the evolutionary life cycle, if you will?? what IF the absence of human intervention, or even of humans themselves would NOT change this at all??

if species preservation is to be an important issue, exactly where does the line between private property and species preservation get drawn??? i cant speak for australia, but here n the US, private property is a rather important and significant thing... sadly, the same people interested in species preservation have gon so far, if someone finds an "endangered" species of some sort on their land, it is less trouble to kill it and bury it than to report it and risk losing their land... i hold private property rights sacred, and if that conflicts with some sort of animal or plant, thats just too bad... i should never be held accountable for things that i may not even be aware of that live on my land... if you want to save something, buy land and dont develop it... encourage, but dont threaten, others to do the same... property owners are far better conservationists than beaurocrats... property owners understand that spoiling something lessens its value, both monetarily and in satisfaction of use..

consider greenpeace, the sierra club, peta, and other such organizations... if you read their statements on what they want done, and apply a minimal amount of common sense, the end result if they get their way is staggeringly dangerous, irresponsible, and unreasonable, not to mention cruel... no more guide animals for the blind, no more meat for anyone, no more pets of any kind, no pesticides, animals in jail for being carnivores, and no control on animal populations whatsoever beyond starvation... disease would run rampant.. termites and carpenter ants would consume houses made of wood, roaches would take over entire buildings... no animal farming or fishing jobs... starvation on a global scale for animals and people... economies would fall... a worldwide depression would likely ensue...

natural extinction happens... humans, like it or not, ARE part of nature AND of the food chain... be careful what you wish for, no matter how nice it sounds... it might cone true...

 

[Iceberg]

About global warming:

http://www.eriposte.com/environment/global_warming/global-warming-is-real.htm

Especially look at:

and:

and:

and:

and:

and:

Now tell me that global warming is not happening and that it isn't caused by human industrial activity!

About nation-by-nation emissions per capita:

As you can see, the US is the worst emitter out of all nations, in terms of per capita emissions and total emissions.

If you question my sources, they are all based on NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) data and GCMs (Global Circulation Models) which are all performed by scientists.

Global warming skeptics are more often than not economists and geologists (who just happen to be in the employ of the fossil fuel industry). Those who are actually climatologists (people who actually study the climate system, not rocks or financial matters) believe that global warming is actually happening and isn't some hoax dreamed up by a cult of some stoned-out academics. (How on Earth would an economist or a geologist know more about the climate system than one who actually studies it? It's highly unlikely!)

Add to it that 2500 scientists have come together to form the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), not to mention that hundreds of them are Nobel Laureates, and you have pretty solid evidence being presented that global warming is actually happening.

A group of a few hundred economists and geologists aren't going to outwit or outevidence those 2500 scientists on something of their expertise.

 

[Gatorman]

Does all this mean we're going to die soon???

 

[Iceberg]

Sorry for double-posting, but I felt that I needed it for a rebuttal on Neptune's critique.

The big indication of global warming would be a global rise in sea levels--something that has been predicted since the late 1970s, but something that hasn't happened. There have been local changes in sea level, but not a global one (at least, not yet).

Sea levels have, in fact, risen by between 1 and 2.5 mm/year (about 0.1 inch/year) since and are expected to rise by 5 mm/year (0.2 inches/year) over the next 100 years, according to the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/). Such a rise has been because of the warming, which has caused glaciers and ice caps to melt at increasing rates.

Ice caps on the poles are not common, and in fact, right now the Earth is still technically in an Ice Age, which we have been in for at least the last 1.75 million years.

We are actually in an interstadial (or interglacial), a period between ice ages. The Holocene Maximum (which took place c. 15,000 years ago) was the last ice age (or maximum level of ice advance). Until roughly 1000 years ago, we had been coming out of the ice age, and were supposed to be cooling off prior to the Industrial Revolution (which started in c. 1850). However, since the IR, the Earth has been getting alarmingly warmer, at a rate never seen before.

I saw someone mentioned ice core data. I have the ice core data in front of me from the Russian studies at Vostok (in Antarctica). The data indicates that greenhouse gases have been steadily rising for the last 15,000 years (although the level of increase has declined sharply in the last 2,000 years). Our current level of CO2 is about equivalent to the level 140,000 years ago--which is about 275 parts per billion (for some perspective--this is low... it is believed that 175 million years ago it was 6 times as high, and 620 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 18 times as high).

According to the IPCC data, we are not at around 275 parts per billion, but at approximately 380 parts per million. (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo144e_thrudc03.pdf)

Does all this mean we're going to die soon???

No, but we must all reduce our impact on the Earth if we humans wish to remain alive in a couple of hundred years. If we don't act now, we, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren (if the Earth is actually inhabitable then) will face dire consequences.