pollution good?

[AeroD79]

we know that CO2 is on the upward trend that some are saying that... its loosing buffering and ph is starting to go down due to its greater absorption. But read on and what you think of this too.


pollution good?

so dust as a ph up and for nutrients? i can agree but skeptical.

We still make big impacts in other forms of pollutions that are more destructive.

More study needed and should not taken advantage upon by industries.

[killi]

Saw a program on TV just now ("BBC Reporters"), and they had made a report based on research carried out in Isreal and the United States. The worry documented here was about the potentially catastrophic damage that can be done to coral reefs due to the increase in atmospheric Carbon dioxide levels. My latest issue of NewScientist echoes the worries voiced here.

NewScientist points out that oceans have already become more acidic, having had there pH reduced by 0,1 to 8,1. Current trends indicate a reduction in pH by 0,4 units by 2100. I'm not even a newbie, just planning my first marine tank, but I can imagine the consequences to some of your tanks if pH is reduced by a couple of tenths.

It makes me depressed, pessimistic and political, though this is not the place to voice politics. Could someone get president Wood or whatever his name is again to step in line with the Kyoto protocol. It's a start. Everyone else wants him to play.

[ab5ebdxer]

I agree something needs to be done but the Kyoto protocol is a joke of a plan. It is not realistic, the only reason countries like Russia joined it is because they had plenty of credits to sale since the collapse of the the soviet union. This would force companies, say in America, to go to a place like Russia so as to keep the amount of pollution produced in any one country down. I dont see how that will lead to a decrease in global pollution. Joining Kyoto we would have to cut production in many sectors by 15%. I hope your job is not one that gets cut. Also the two biggest polluters in the world China and India are excluded because they are considered developing.

Many countries that do not have large industry but have credits want the plan because countries like the US would either have to cut production or pay a crazy amount for the credits from countries that are way less developed. There are plenty of different views on this but what ever you opinion is it is not a straight forward decision that would or should be easily made.

Something should be done but not Kyoto.

[killi]

I understand the economic problems that face the US as regards cutting pollution, and the worries, and probably the job cuts that would follow in some sectors. I can't argue about the economic consequences, not having any statistics for that, though I'm sure such things are heatedly discussed, too.

I googled for "global statistics", and the first hit gave me a webpage with these stats for oil consumption: http://www.geohive.com/charts/charts...ons&xsl=en_res
The US consumes 900M tons of oil, China who is 2nd, nearly 300M
The US consumes nearly 600M oil equivalent tons of coal, China 800M.

Total coal and oil: US 1500M tons, China 1100M, the next countries in line, around 300-400M tons. Comparing the US and China, and figuring the per Capita... Well. The US consumption of oil and coal makes up about 25% of global production, while the population is about 5% of the global population.

The US is grabbing more than its fair share. Adapt! You're good at it.

[ab5ebdxer]

I dont disagree with anything you have said my point is the current plan will not work. You will not get enough people to support the kyoto plan in the U.S.

What they need is a different approach, unless they start to restrict summer travel and how far of a commute you can have for work then I dont see how we are suppose to cut consumption. Please also realize much or our consumption is devoted to making many of the products you buy. China will soon pass us in consumption as well which is expected with their rate of growth. What we need are alternative fuels. Also you really have to look at all the data on global warming. I dont doubt it is occuring but if you look at the previous warming trends on earth we are right on track for another global warming.

Bottom line, no one has a good plan to reduce pollution and until technology advances I doubt there will be any great change in the earths consumption of fossil fuels.

[killi]

Most of the products I buy seem to come from Asia, not much from the States. As you say, China is taking off, and has also refused to sign the deal, maybe because the US didn't.

I find it highly frustrating that the current US government:
- Doesn't accept that there is a problem. Doesn't seem to accept the probability, even.
- As a consequence, doesn't try to swing public opinion towards cuts, in fact tries to swing opinion the other way. Was it a vote winner for Bush to promise to not sign? I don't think so - Bush would have won anyway and could have signed.
- As a consequence, hasn't made any constructive suggestions as to what is required for the States to reduce its production of greenhouse gases.

It boils down to the question:
Is there a probability of there being a big problem?

The US government says no. This is the only answer that would not brand the current US stand as irresponsible.

The method so far employed to back up the "no", is by stating that the scientific community is split, controlled by scaremongers, etc. Muddying the waters in general. The fact of the matter is that there is a broad consensus in the scientific community that human production of greenhouse gases will, and already has caused global warming. The discussion is mainly about to what degree.

It is highly frustrating as a foreigner and a firm believer in the need to do something, that the US has swung from a yes to a no, over night. I agree that the Kyoto has plenty of flaws, but it is made up of a bunch of compromises, and is a forum for futher good work. The current US government seems to be allergic to compromise. I guess that is the privilege of a superpower, and the correct Machiavellian stance.

[ab5ebdxer]

China was excluded from the deal on day one as was India. I dont believe the current administration has ever used Kyoto for much of anything. When Clinton agreeded to it everyone knew it would never be inforced in the U.S. because there was not enough support in congress for it.

I never said you bought a lot of your stuff from the U.S. but I am sure you have much more stuff from the U.S. then I have from Norway. The current administration has spent large amounts of money in the research of fossil fuels. My guess is any great advancment in this area will come from U.S. government supported research but I doubt they will get much credit for it?

As for global warming no one disagrees that it is occuring but the recent data trys to tease out a trend that would blame a very small amount was being caused by humans. It is a shot in the dark at best and I believed there conclusions are more politically charged then based on science. Again, I agree there is a problem but to say that we have no interest in this in the U.S. is just false. We both agree alternative fuels are the way of the future and that is where much of the U.S. government's focus has been.

What data do you have support your claim that the U.S. goverment trys to promote increase in fossil fuel use? That just sounds like an anti-american statement with no basis. I have never heard any government official suggest such a thing. What do you mean we are allergic to compromise? If Kyoto meant that Norway would have a large increase in job loss how much support do you think there would be in Norway for it? It is always easy to bash the U.S., never mind the many great things we have done for other countries all over the world. There has never been a super power that is so giving.

[killi]

I'll cede the point about the Kyoto protocol not having support in congress - You know more about that then me. Why was it pushed by the previous administration, then?

I don't think I made a statement anywhere that the US administration is promoting an increase in the use of fossil fuels, and I'm sure they have good schemes to promote alternatives, but not enough. Do you personally think the current admin. will manage proper cuts in fossil fuel consumption. I don't. I think other countries will, though maybe not as much as could be hoped for. Norway has promised to cut its emissions dramatically. This promise was made because we signed the protocol. We will also take a hit with regard to jobs and money, something the opponents of the deal never fail to point out. The main export of Norway: Oil and gas.

I do not America-bash. I have lived in Texas for nearly two years, and was struck by the generosity and roll-up the sleaves attitude of people there. I do, however claim the right to have a rant about the most important administration in the world. I'm sure I share my views with a large proportion of Americans.

America is the greatest contributor to science in the world. Famous for it, well deservedly. The administration should listen to all of it, not only the voices that suit their politics. Afterwards they should avoid the temptation to put a spin on. A simple head count among the heftiest eggheads would end up (As far as i gather from the publications I choose to read: Newscientist and a bunch of newspapers) with a general consensus that something dramatic will probably happen because of human production of greenhouse gases.

You agree that something dramatic may happen? I don't think either of us can get much further here, but my view is that we should try to avoid taking risks. Either way a reduction in consumption of fossil fuels would be a good thing. May as well start now. In the words of Dirty Harry "Do you feel lucky?".

[reefska]

I would just like to say a couple of things.... I am not an intelectual, I don't even have a firm view on this, it is just how I feel at the moment, and next week I may hear something that will change my views. But heres my take on things:

I live in the UK, and as you might know...many of us no longer our PM. However, signing the protocol has bound him to something. I don't doubt that we will fail to reach our targets, but the way I see it, the protocol is a contract of intent, he has vowed to TRY to cut emissions, and will be held to that.

I feel that this is what the bush administration is terrified of. If you can't win, don't try. I am by no means anti-american, I love the country and its diversity of people. But I am not going to hide the fact that I have a problem with the current administration.

Every countries economy is gonna take a dent, but (you might not like this) its worth it.

Try to look 1 or 2 or 300 years into the future, we will recover, this will not destroy our countries, it will make them stronger. Perhaps america will become the world leader in the production of photovoltaic cells & geothermal somethingorothers which will boost your economy as the rest of the world comes to you to reduce their carbon costs.

Of course America does't have to sign, nobody can make you. But it is dissapointing that the worlds biggest superpower, and a country who feels that their democracy and ideolagy should be the blueprint for the rest of the world, cares so little about the worlds future, that they won't even try.

[ab5ebdxer]

Reefska,

I think there is just a difference in ideaology here. You suggest that the only way to try is by following the Kyoto plan, I think that just following the crowd because it seems right is the wrong approach. My problem with the Kyoto is that it will not cut emissions. No one even knows if cutting emissions will even make a difference. It seems alot to ask someone to loss their job because we think this might help (not good evidence to support this belief). It seems that many are convienced that Kyoto will actually do something.

The economy is not the end all but I feel that Kyoto is just a feel good thing and to say America is not looking towards to the future because it see's Kyoto for what it really is seems silly. Not every countries economy will take a dent as you suggest. This could actually boast the Russian economy. Russia signed realizing that they were well under there credit limit due to the fall of their own economy. If there is a new textile company that wants to start in England but cannot because England is over its credits then it can go to Russia since they still have credits to fill. The Kyoto could increase the amount of emissions in Russia, how does this help? To suggest America would not persue something because it was afraid it would lose is not supported by our history, nor does it represent the current government stance on many issues.

Kyoto was signed by Clinton on his way out the door, it made him look good but everyone knew here that it wouldnt fly. It will be interesting to see how well England does with this. Maybe if they can find a way to make it work they will be a leader for others to follow.

We are trying very hard in this country to develop alternative fuels and spend more government money then anyone else to do so, so your suggestion that we are not trying again is not supported by our actions.

Killi

"- As a consequence, doesn't try to swing public opinion towards cuts, in fact tries to swing opinion the other way."

This sounds to me like you are suggesting the government is try to promote more fossil fuel use. If you did not mean it that way then fine. I am from Texas, glad you enjoyed your stay. As for global warming we have yet to see a trend in global warming that is not expected from the data we have on other global warming spells through out history, it is just that we have never seen it before and that scares us.

I think all three of us would like to see the same thing, you guys think Kyoto is a start, I dont. There is much misinformation on this topic I wish people would take the time to look at the graphs and study the information regarding global warming and really look and see what scientist are trying to say with the information they have. The sort of conclusions they are coming to regarding global warming ,with the the information they have , is just not sound science. Could we be contributing to global warming? I suppose so but the impact I believe is very minimal if any(this is what scientist should be saying), we will not stop global warming if we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, it is a natrual process that has happen many times over.

It is good to hear your view points though, I believe there is much misunderstanding between Americans and Europeans in todays world. I dont agree with everything our government has done but it is not as bad as the press it gets in Europe. I can think of worse governments, although from hearing what you guys press say I can see how you might think otherwise.

Mike

[killi]

Here is my ammo:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

This one is taken from Science's webpage. I must trust people in the know about these things. I have some choices regarding who to trust:

- The scientific community through articles by individuals in the primary, hopefully independent, publications. Nature, Science and Newscientist.
- Politicians against or politicians for.
- Interested parties such as Industry, Greenpeace etc.

- The first have reached consensus. Head counts will do. The community is on the whole independant, though I read somewhere that there are more Democrats than Republicans there, which could be construed as an argument stating that any results will be poltically angled.
- Consensus among politicians? Maybe In North Korea. Mind you, Kyoto did indicate a shared political will to do something.
- Interested parties. These also set up studies which, as far as I know, always seem to go in the favour of whoever is footing the bill.

I choose to listen to the first bunch.

[ab5ebdxer]

Killi,

I know what is being said in the science community but look at what they are calling man's impact. If you want to look at the data it was presented nicely in Sept 2004 National Geographic Magazine. They concluded the same as the rest, but if you look at what they are trying to say is caused by man you really have to take it on faith. We have more CO2 in the air now than ever before, yet this is not even one of the warmest periods that has occured on earth. The warmest time in this recent warming trend had the lowest CO2 levels, does that make any sense? Again, I have said all along something needs to be done, I am just saying not Kyoto. I think we have some time, we are still well in the range of normal climate change to explain the climate. The papers that you referred to didnt even seriously consider this, even though the models suggest that the vast majority of the heating is normal. Believe me, scientists can be political too and just about the worst scientific study you can do is a retrospective study with data to try to determine what is happening now. Of course that is all we have to go by, but realize it is limited. You have to read the silver lining of those papers and realize what they didnt say but should have. You could have made the same predictions 140,000 years ago. I agree that we do not know how the increased CO2 will affect this current trend, over the next 20,000 years we should cool off significantly. It is hard to take a 50 year period and say what is happening either way.

The data suggests that we are already in a extended interglacial period which has been going on for the past 5 thousand years, way before mans impact. This has not been observed in either of the 3 previous heating trends recorded on earth according to scientific data. For some reason other then man the earth has not wanted to cool down like it normally would. Have you heard this in any of your readings? Perhaps you have, but points like this are often left out of scientific information that is aimed at changing public opinion.

Again, just so we all understand, I think we do need to find alternative fuels but we need to be rational about our approach on the climate. I dont even consider Kyoto as a plan to reduce greenhouse gases. It simply wants to move the polluters around the globe. This plan would be a boom for many small economies around the world and devastating to others, nothing more.

Mike

[reefska]

I'm afraid I may need to bow out gracefully from this discussion. I am not well versed enough on this subject to put up a serious counterattack.

I will only say again that I see Kyoto as a contract of intent, and that I am glad that we have signed as now we may be able to hold our government acountable to their actions or lack thereof.

I totally see your view about the fact that the earth has been through so many changes in the last 4 billion years that it is impossible to know what impact we have had over the last few hundred. I would just feel more comfortable if I thought we were trying to minimise that impact.

My father is firmly in your trench, so there is no shortage of discussions like this around me, and all I have discovered is that it will forever be a stalemate full of what if's, why should we's, and finally, we will just have to wait and see's.

To be honest I am not massivly moved by this whole topic, I just thought I would put in my current thoughts. I am far more concerned about ripping up the rainforests for wood than I am about vague climate changes, but that is another discussion altogether.

[ab5ebdxer]

Reefska,

I am not saying your concerns are not without merit it is a tough situation. I am, as you are ,more worried about the natural resources that are disappering. That is something that is obvious. Thanks for you input, even if we dont agree we are both better off for at least seeing the others view.

Mike

[PodBoy]

You know whenever these type of things come up it always amazes me that the biggest arguements are about the global warming possibilities, But what they never really talk about that much is the damage we are doing to our selves and our future generations of mankind as far as health goes. Regardless of warming the fact is Humans have put alot of CRAP in the air and continue to do so everyday.

More and more the populations with asthma,and other respritory diseases goes up.Even simple things such as allergies is increasing exponentially.

It isnt all about the warming it has alot more dangers that just dont seem to get the attention. Just out of curiousitywhens the last time you heard a discussion on ACID RAIN? When i was few years younger That was the talk everywhere. What did it go away? No just none cares anymore its all about the money and the now.. Who cares if 4000 years from now we live in bubbled cities and lfe expectancy of 15.

Sorry for the babble tired.

[Pip]

it got to hit an new equilbrium and every thing will be fine according to bio2 teacher.

[kirei]

The Kyoto Protocols in economic theory are very sound. The credit system exists in order to create a free market economy for pollution. It doesn't matter who has the credits, in fact you could give one person all the credits, and a profit maximizing model would yield the result that the credits would go where they are needed. Furthermore, economic models give a disturbing but convincing argument that we will not fully change over to AFS (alt. fule sources) until all of the fossil fuels are consumed, or are in such low supply that the price of using and extracting them is no longer profitable for people in the fossil fuel industry. So in short, the best way to get people to change to AFS is not to conserve but to use them all up (take that stupid environment). I am all for education, but the problem with education is that only people willing to learn will listen, and of those people only a few will act. It seems that if we can agree pollution, fossil fuels, and global warming is bad and exist (at least from a scientific standpoint) then we should use the forces of free market economics in order to reduce pollution. I think the Kyoto protocols strive to do just that, if you think it is a joke, then come up with a better idea and get everyone to sign it. It isn't like the protocols are without problems, lord knows I have read enough left wing and right anti kyoto rhetoric... but maybe instead of complaining, we should try to come up with something better? NOPE because complaining is so much easier and makes you look twice as smart.

[ab5ebdxer]

Kirei,

The credit system cost, and cost lots yes other countries can buy credits but what is the point? Will it reduce pollution? I think AFS are the answer and now that the prices of fuel are at a record high the market force will drive towards AFS. Like it or not that is what it will take to get away from fossil fuel. I try to take a realistic stance on issues. Kyoto is not realistic.

We often live in a fairy tale world with our ideas and dont see outside that box. If you are able to afford a computer (which we obviously all have here) and a reef tank then giving some to Kyoto doesnt sound too bad. If you are like the average person in the world it might affect your ability to do things like pay your food bill etc. . There is obvious economic impacts that wont affect me or you much but will be devastating for other people.

I think the alternative is to create AFS, just going along with something that you know wont work does not make sense to me. I agree that over the last hundered years or so that the temp. has been warming on a global scale. However to jump to any conclusion about the trend of the future or to suggest that the pinpoint of data we have suggest what is occuring is unnatural is not scientific.

Mike