Environment vs industrialisation - have we done enough?

[Mike111 0]

"After barely more than 60 days in office, President Bush has placed a distinctive mark on U.S. environmental policy, rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions. And now the White House is taking steps to have the U.S. withdraw its support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan. Environmental Protection Administrator Christie Todd Whitman told reporters the president had "no interest in implementing it." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was even more blunt."
"

America, and many other countries around the world, and other fast developing and modernising contries, are paying slightly more attention to their industry than helping preserve the environment and world we live in. Such environmental problems such as global warming, pollution etc are damaging our health and increasing the chances slightly of destroying our planet .

Do you think these countries have the right balance, and are doing all they can , but need to think of their economy first? Or do you think they should put firstthe health of the world and protect the environment at the expense of their rate of growth?

Are they and we doing enough, or do we need to do more?

Any comments appreciated.
Thanks,

mike

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And now the White House is taking steps to have the U.S. withdraw its support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan. Environmental Protection Administrator Christie Todd Whitman told reporters the president had "no interest in implementing it." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was even more blunt."

Actually, the Clinton Administration had no interest in trying to implement it. The Kyoto Protocol was symbolically signed by VP Al Gore in November, 1998. Signing it was purely symbolic. It was never presented to the Senate for ratification as a treaty.

It entered into force just six months ago when Russia ratified it. Yes, in the 7th year after its negotiation. Russia only signed it because its economy is so bad right now that it won't have any problems cutting back 5.2 percent from 1990 levels. There just isn't enough industry there. This is the same with all of Eastern Europe.

There are now 141 countries that ratified it, which represents 61 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Of the countries that are not exempted from it, The US and Australia have not ratified it and do not intend to.

China and India are exempt. Per capita, their emissions aren't high. Put together, they are. This is a major stumbling point.

Quote

Do you think these countries have the right balance, and are doing all they can , but need to think of their economy first? Or do you think they should put firstthe health of the world and protect the environment at the expense of their rate of growth?

I think America has demonstrated a pretty good history of cleaning up after itself. Without world pressure, we've done a pretty damned good job of cleaning up domestic air, water, etc.

Also, industrialization has positive benefits to the environment. Industrialized and modernized countires seem to have healthier populations. We don't struggle with cholera, malaria, dysentery, etc. Industry typically involves creation of an infrastructure.

I actually do not think that India should not be included in the Protocol or any other treaty decreasing greenhouse gases for a while. China? Nope, not until they improve their agricultural system to diversify from rice.

Developing nations need to put an emphasis on growth at the expense of the world environment to improve the conditions of their citizens. Once they get a good infrastructure for health and sanitation that industry allows, they can take care of the local environment. Then, they can participate in the global environmental cause.

Here's why China should be exempt. Rice paddies are one of the single largest producers of methane gas. It also happens that rice paddies feed 500 million to a billion Chinese. I put famine as a greater risk to humanity than greenhouse gases.

We in the US are making great strides. We should sign on to a protocol that would be more cost-effective and more effective at reducing greenhouse gases (best estimates of the Protocol indicate at most a 1/4 celsius decrease in global warming by 2050, using the same models that predict global warming, anyway).

I think that the US could easilybe a signatory and do well if we built another 5 or 6 nuclear power plants.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think that the US could easilybe a signatory and do well if we built another 5 or 6 nuclear power plants.

Oh no, what shall the uninformed of the enviro freaks think? They aren't too fond of nuclear power either.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Mike111 0]

Certainly there are some environmentalists that do oppose nuclear power, and IMHO, are wrong to oppose it.

If contained, Nuclear power produces helluva lot of energy and no pullotion. But itis radioactive and takes thousands of years to lose that radioacticvity.

Overall though. it is a veyr good investment and one of the ways forward.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Certainly there are some environmentalists that do oppose nuclear power, and IMHO, are wrong to oppose it.

If contained, Nuclear power produces helluva lot of energy and no pullotion. But itis radioactive and takes thousands of years to lose that radioacticvity.

Overall though. it is a veyr good investment and one of the ways forward.

I agree. And I specifically said "uninformed" enviros, the informed types have much better positions on the topic.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Mike111 0]

Oops. i see what you mean.

Ill change the original post about having exempted china and India,

You mentioned nuclear power., do you thjink this is the solution, if countries have the money , to producing the same amount of energy with less pollution ?

What about wind power and turbines and all natural resources?

Agreed, the USA has and still does do well in cleaning any pollution, but could it do more do you think? (don;t get me wrong, i fully see the point of developing the state for the citizens, but it could be done better do you think - with the system it has in place now, - in other words, without the 5 other plants)

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Certainly there are some environmentalists that do oppose nuclear power, and IMHO, are wrong to oppose it.

If contained, Nuclear power produces helluva lot of energy and no pullotion. But itis radioactive and takes thousands of years to lose that radioacticvity.

Overall though. it is a veyr good investment and one of the ways forward.

I believe solar would be a better solution, considering that 1% of the Earth's sunlight could provide all the world's power at current usage rates. I'm not sure how nuclear energy could be more efficient than utilizing energy that is already being provided to us free of charge.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I believe solar would be a better solution, considering that 1% of the Earth's sunlight could provide all the world's power at current usage rates. I'm not sure how nuclear energy could be more efficient than utilizing energy that is already being provided to us free of charge.

It's not an either/or argument. It's about what's available and cost effective.
Solar - go get it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Mike111 0]

But isn't that weather dependant - if it was cloudy or whatever reason, you wouldnt be able to get all the energy you needed to power up the world.- if you needed it urgenrly and it was bad weather, youd be kinda in trouble!!!

+ isn;t nuclear cheaper?

[billvon 3,120]

>But isn't that weather dependant - if it was cloudy or whatever
> reason, you wouldnt be able to get all the energy you needed to
> power up the world.- if you needed it urgenrly and it was bad
> weather, youd be kinda in trouble!!!

That's why you don't go 100% solar. If you go partly solar, partly wind, partly hydro, partly nuclear etc then you're covered. Note that the sunny days in CA are the highest demand days (all that A/C running) so that works.

[Mike111 0]

What about methane lol, im sure all men could help in that front

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Agreed, the USA has and still does do well in cleaning any pollution, but could it do more do you think? (don;t get me wrong, i fully see the point of developing the state for the citizens, but it could be done better do you think - with the system it has in place now, - in other words, without the 5 other plants)

You can always do better, and we're getting better at efficiency. Look at vehicle engines. With modern fuel injection and other developments cars are getting more power with less fuel consumption than ever before. Improvements in aerodynamics also helps with efficiency.

My wife wants me to get a pickemup truck for home use. I told her, "I don't think so. Look at fuel prices. I have no intention of locking myself in to a gas guzzler with the current and probable state of fuel prices." Thus, the market will ensure that I do my part to help abate greenhouse gases.

Things could always be done better. The problem is that "better" and "cleaner" usually comes with a higher start-up price. It costs less to build coal-fired power plants than nuclear power plants.

Developing countries typically don't have a lot of cash on hand. They will do things cheaply (developed countries, too). A poor person won't be buying a Prius - they'll get the old clunker. Not good for the environment but it gets them around.

The same occurs on a macro scale with poor countries. How do we fix that? By having other countries help them out. That's where some countries have problems.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>The problem is that "better" and "cleaner" usually comes with a
> higher start-up price. It costs less to build coal-fired power plants
> than nuclear power plants.

Right, and that's partly our fault, because we don't take into account how much a coal power plant costs to operate vs a nuclear power plant. And that's the cost in human lives and lost livelihoods, not just the cost of the fuel.

>A poor person won't be buying a Prius - they'll get the old clunker.
>Not good for the environment but it gets them around.

Right, but if there is a huge surge in hybrids (or diesels, or natural gas cars, or PZEV's, or whatever) then the car they will be buying in ten years _will_ be a Prius or equivalent - because that's what will be on the road. Even today, what crappy used cars are people buying? El Caminos or Honda Civics?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Even today, what crappy used cars are people buying? El Caminos or Honda Civics?

Exactly. There's a long term plan. As things start moving along, this is what happens with it. Over time, efficiencies are brought forward.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Pendejo 0]

Guess who the largest source of hazardous waste pollution is in the United States of America (no don't look it up, just guess).


Anyone?

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Guess who the largest source of hazardous waste pollution is in the United States of America (no don't look it up, just guess).

my guess - Likely the private population throwing out batteries and flourescent bulbs and appliances and monitors, etc. But just about everything is categorized as hazardous nowadays anyway. We call it trash.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Pendejo 0]

You are exactly right. The general population creates over 4 times as much hazardous waste as industry does. The real kicker is that the EPA will classify it all "exempt" from RICRA and it almost ALL goes into a non-hazardous land fill. Its a shame that we all (or at least most) get caught up in what the media deems important. Global warming IS a big deal, but if we don't change what we are doing to the ground and water I don't think it will be our biggest problem in the future.

There are a lot of people at the EPA that are doing the best they can with the rules that are in place. The problem is (IMHO) that the rules are flawed. As an example, you can't throw away a bottle of white out (in an industrial setting) unless you dispose of it as hazardous waste yet it is acceptable to discharge water into the environment that has a Ph of 2.1. Thats the goofieness that goes on on the industrial side. As a private citizen you can throw almost anything in the trash and it is legal.... Now thats nuts...

As for the discussion about china. Look at the state of the American river system around 1970. I think you will see the same thing in china a few years from now.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[rehmwa 2]

I get your point.

I will immediately go to the facilities department at my company and offer to throw away stuff for them at my house at a discount to what the state and feds mandate for them.

Everybody wins and I make a few bucks.

THANKS

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>The general population creates over 4 times as much hazardous
> waste as industry does.

That's both bad news and good news. Bad news that there's so much waste from the private sector, good news because _we_ can do something about it.

I think the primary things people can do are:

1. Reduce the waste stream overall. Lower volumes are a lot easier to handle. Compost what you can, recycle what you can, reuse what you can.

2. Buy less toxic stuff. Nickel metal hydride batteries for tools are a lot cleaner than nickel cadmium batteries. You can get low-mercury flourescent bulbs now. LCD monitors are a bit less toxic overall than CRT's.

3. Send toxic wastes to the right place. Big hitters here are car batteries, used oil, paints and solvents. Most communities have a disposal program for these things.

[Mike111 0]

But aren't the higher pricre worth it in the long term? higher initial capital outlay will bring benefits in the long run - LESS money will be needed to clean up all the shit left over from still using mainly fossil fuels etc, and plus the new system wil be in place and hopefulyl running smoothly - a mixture of all types which create mimnmal if not no pollution

+ less would be needed to be spent on treating illnesses linked to pollution.

However, like you mentioned before, there does need to be a balance - the economy can't die at the expense of a perfect environment

[Mike111 0]

Thanks for that, i never considered the general population side of it, and come to think of it, that is spot on.

Here, in the UK, we have counties (equivalent to states just much smaller) and there all have their own policies. Recycling is really stepping up here, which highlights your point about too much crap being wasted and being disposed of irresponsibly, to the point we where we have different coloured bins for different types of watse.

[Mike111 0]

Would it be fair to say that if energy saving was applied more -we wouldn't waste as much energy at home would also help the environment as less fuel would be burnt.

One could prevent this by having good house inslutation to reduce heat loss or use a specific type of light bulb which reduces the amount of energy wasted.

That is one step i guess.

[billvon 3,120]

>Would it be fair to say that if energy saving was applied more -we wouldn't waste as much energy at home . . .

Of course. Fry's is selling compact flourescents for 99 cents now. You can get a 48 watt compact flourescent that's as bright as a 200 watt bulb to replace your current 100 watt bulb. Twice the light, half the power, ten times the life - a win overall.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Of course. Fry's is selling compact flourescents for 99 cents now. You can get a 48 watt compact flourescent that's as bright as a 200 watt bulb to replace your current 100 watt bulb. Twice the light, half the power, ten times the life - a win overall.

And that is the reason that the market does a good job - anyone will go with that bulb. When the bulb was $15 only the rabid environmentalists would buy it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Mike111 0]

i wish that would be the case for electric cars and stuff - cheap.

But as they are just been made literally, they are too expensive and uneconomic.