What are your thoughts on global warming?

[MitchM]

Problems with everything it seems yet we survive. I my be wrong but I don't see the end of the world coming. As far as water 71% of the earth is covered with water. Again I say if there is a problem spend the resources on planning for it. One can argue that that is what climate research is, but what have we gotten out of the billions spent besides steps that we can take to limit change?

We humans are the only creatures on this planet that have the concept of an economy.
We use the earth's resources to improve the quality our lives and lengthen our lifespans.

(Squirrels may gather nuts, but they don't trade with other squirrels for a higher or lower position on the tree.....)

There is no possible way that the earth's environment is going to "improve" as long as we humans exist.
The best we can do is manage the resources in as much of an efficient manner that we can so we can live as long as possible. Given that we live in almost every corner of this planet and there is a vast range of education about this issue, I still think that the answer is improved education and technology, and we won't improve in either of those areas if we strangle our businesses to death.

.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

we won't improve in either of those areas if we strangle our businesses to death.

Which businesses are being "strangled" other than those that release copious amounts of pollutants in their day-to-day operations?

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Problems with everything it seems yet we survive. I my be wrong but I don't see the end of the world coming. As far as water 71% of the earth is covered with water. Again I say if there is a problem spend the resources on planning for it. One can argue that that is what climate research is, but what have we gotten out of the billions spent besides steps that we can take to limit change?

That sounds a lot like treating an algae bloom in a pond with various treatments and devices instead of eliminating (or at least reducing) the source that promotes the bloom. The 'band-aid' approach is not going to solve this problem.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

As far as water 71% of the earth is covered with water.

Yes, but only a very small percentage (0.007 percent) is fresh and accessible. for human use.

"Freshwater makes up a very small fraction of all water on the planet. While nearly 70 percent of the world is covered by water, only 2.5 percent of it is fresh. The rest is
saline and ocean-based. Even then, just 1 percent of our freshwater is easily accessible, with much of it trapped in glaciers and snowfields."
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/

 

[MitchM]

Which businesses are being "strangled" other than those that release copious amounts of pollutants in their day-to-day operations?

Generally speaking, if we are truly concerned with extending human life on this planet, why wouldn't we focus on areas of pollution that are threatening human lives now?
It's one thing to promote luxury electric vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles that are only useable in mild climates, diesel vehicles that are currently being banned in major cities around the world and luxury solar energy that is only available to a small percentage of the human population.

In the western world we have so many alternatives and possibilities for advanced technology available to us that this CO2 emission problem is sounding like a future 1st world problem with only 1st world solutions.
It seems counter productive to me to hinder our technological advancements in order to only slightly reduce our own carbon footprint.

There are much more serious immediate pollution problems to the human population as a whole (if you want to talk about the number of humans affected):

Lead Acid Battery recycling
Mine and ore processing
Lead smelting
Leather tanneries
Small scale gold mining
Industrial dumpsites
Industrial estates
Chemical manufacturing
Product manufacturing
Garment dye industry

..to name the top 10 polluters.

The third world countries that presently employ people in these industries would like very much to have our problems of which light bulb to use, which air conditioner is the most energy efficient, which vehicle has the best fuel mileage, etc. Climate change is a minor consideration for third world countries.

I think it's in the world's best interest for us to put as much resources towards improved technology as we can, and as soon as possible get that improved technology to the third world.

We won't be able to do that if we are constantly trying to shut down the industries in our 2 countries (Canada and the US) that could make the fastest advancement in clean technology.
Even if we completely shut down our 2 countries tomorrow, we would only reduce CO2 emissions by about 32%. Meanwhile, 68% of the world's emissions would continue, with little or no progress in technology.

For a report on the above mentioned industries, there is a report available here:
http://www.worstpolluted.org/

Imagine if funds for the Iraq war and bank bailouts was put towards reducing pollution instead? (rhetorical question, of course)

.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

I think it's in the world's best interest for us to put as much resources towards improved technology as we can, and as soon as possible get that improved technology to the third world.

That is one of the main parts of the Paris agreement....to aid 'developing nations' in their development by assisting in the transition to clean energy and the reduction of pollutants from the industries that you listed.

 

[MitchM]

I put very little faith in climate agreements. I would much rather see countries make positive changes because it's in their financial best interest to do so.
Having citizens in poor health costs money, so I think countries will clean up their act when a healthy population is cheaper than poorly run industries.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Having citizens in poor health costs money, so I think countries will clean up their act when a healthy population is cheaper than poorly run industries.

Unless they are already overpopulated and do not have the fiscal resources.

 

[MitchM]

The manufacture of polyester uses about 70 million barrels of oil per year.
5000 gallons of water to process one t-shirt and one pair of jeans.
Are we going to go after the fashion industry next?

http://www.alternet.org/environment/its-second-dirtiest-thing-world-and-youre-wearing-it

.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

If the goal is to reduce overall pollution (water, soil and air) then, out of fairness, no polluting industry should be granted a reprieve, though logically the larger contributors to pollution should be targeted first. That is what is now happening. The largest industrial polluter(s), fossil fuels, are first on the list.
There is a fast rising player in the palette of pollutants that is currently getting intense scrutiny by scientific researchers---nanoparticles. Current results are suggesting that, in the case of heavy metals, the toxicity is augmented. Technological advances are great, but compounding an existing problem(pollution) in creating these advances of prime consideration and more research needs to be done to limit the extent of this pollution before an advance is widely adopted.

 

[mgmine]

Yes, but only a very small percentage (0.007 percent) is fresh and accessible. for human use.

"Freshwater makes up a very small fraction of all water on the planet. While nearly 70 percent of the world is covered by water, only 2.5 percent of it is fresh. The rest is
saline and ocean-based. Even then, just 1 percent of our freshwater is easily accessible, with much of it trapped in glaciers and snowfields."
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/

Very true so why don't we come up with a way to use ocean water more affordably? Possibly the salt that has to be taken out could be used for something that we have not thought about yet. Plenty of research into something that hasn't produced any product yet.Look at everything that came out of the billions spent of space research. Now look at what has come out if climate research...I'm only saying. As far as only 1% of fresh water being accessible how much oil or gas can you simply drop a bucket in and take away with you? Not much yet it is available all over the world in quantities more than what we would need in water on a daily basis.

 

[mgmine]

If the goal is to reduce overall pollution (water, soil and air) then, out of fairness, no polluting industry should be granted a reprieve, though logically the larger contributors to pollution should be targeted first. That is what is now happening. The largest industrial polluter(s), fossil fuels, are first on the list.
There is a fast rising player in the palette of pollutants that is currently getting intense scrutiny by scientific researchers---nanoparticles. Current results are suggesting that, in the case of heavy metals, the toxicity is augmented. Technological advances are great, but compounding an existing problem(pollution) in creating these advances of prime consideration and more research needs to be done to limit the extent of this pollution before an advance is widely adopted.

Pollution isn't a huge problem any more in the U.S or Canada. I have not heard about nanoparticles but particulates have always been regulated (at east as far back as I can remember) The oil industry is targeted (IMHO) because it is the oil industry. The industry has been targeted for decades by environmentalists. The issue for the industry now is co2. I don't know any industry that is getting a pass on any type of pollution.

 

[mgmine]

We humans are the only creatures on this planet that have the concept of an economy.
We use the earth's resources to improve the quality our lives and lengthen our lifespans.

(Squirrels may gather nuts, but they don't trade with other squirrels for a higher or lower position on the tree.....)

There is no possible way that the earth's environment is going to "improve" as long as we humans exist.
The best we can do is manage the resources in as much of an efficient manner that we can so we can live as long as possible. Given that we live in almost every corner of this planet and there is a vast range of education about this issue, I still think that the answer is improved education and technology, and we won't improve in either of those areas if we strangle our businesses to death.

.

I agree. Necessity is the mother of all invention. If we give up on something then we may be giving up on the greatest invention ever. Will we be stuck for the next century with wind and solar? How much do you hear about nuclear power plants anymore. There are many other ideas that never get off the drawing board. Solar sails, ocean tides, magnetic energy the list goes on. Would we even be talking about those things if fossil fuels weren't under attack? Everything is regulated and over regulation kills innovation.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Everything is regulated and over regulation kills innovation.

And if corporations acted more responsibly most regulations would not be necessary.

Pollution isn't a huge problem any more in the U.S or Canada. I have not heard about nanoparticles but particulates have always been regulated (at east as far back as I can remember) The oil industry is targeted (IMHO) because it is the oil industry. The industry has been targeted for decades by environmentalists. The issue for the industry now is co2. I don't know any industry that is getting a pass on any type of pollution.

Yes, air pollution (non-carbon) has been greatly reduced in North America over the past couple of decades thanks to regulations.....Oops! there's that word again.
Meanwhile water pollution has increased.

The fossil fuel industries have been targeted because these products are the largest, by far, contributors of CO2.

Present day, no industry is getting a pass on pollution. That is correct, but there are those (even some on the Forum, it seems) that believe that certain industries should be "getting a pass".

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Very true so why don't we come up with a way to use ocean water more affordably? Possibly the salt that has to be taken out could be used for something that we have not thought about yet. Plenty of research into something that hasn't produced any product yet.Look at everything that came out of the billions spent of space research. Now look at what has come out if climate research...I'm only saying. As far as only 1% of fresh water being accessible how much oil or gas can you simply drop a bucket in and take away with you? Not much yet it is available all over the world in quantities more than what we would need in water on a daily basis.

I would say that climate research has produced several valuable results, most notably much more accurate tropical cyclone (hurricanes, tropical storms) forecasting resulting in lives being saved.

Put the same price tag on water as there is on petroleum (which is a strong possible scenario) and fresh potable water will become more plentiful........to those that can afford it. Bottom line, a water shortage will still exist only then because of affordability and not accessibility.