Yes there are constant debates on whether global warming exists or not...but shouldn't we work towards putting less garbage in the air for another worthy cause - like "fresh air"? Ok, so we take a economic hit...isn't it worth it to have clean air to breath and a cleaner planet to inhabit? Can we not accept "smog" as a fact of life?
2007-01-08 13:09:28 · 5 answers · asked by trer 3 in Environment
Yes, absolutely. Global warming aside, the air will eventually become more and more toxic as we dump garbage in the air. You hit the nail on the head mentioning the economic "hit" because preventing this is precisely why government and industry will not stop until it's too late. Pollution will never stop until people start dying from it, and probably not even then until it hits the vicinity of the powerful.
2007-01-08 13:24:57 · answer #1 · answered by heartmindspace 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I actually agree with you, but this is a far, far more complex issue than most people realize. The fact is, standard of living is directly tied to energy use, or consumption. So maybe the air would be absolutely clean if we all returned to a stone age hunter-gatherer existance. But this is not realistic, I'm sure you agree. So then the question becomes, "how much standard of living will we allow, with its attendant air polution?" This is an extemely touchy subject with most people. Would you advocate cutting the US standard of living by 50%, in order to cut the CO2 emissions by the same percentage? and how will you get a 50% reduction in standard of living passed through Congress? Who would vote for it? The Chinese are opening a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, I am told. I would like to see you tell them to "please stop it", and after they finish laughing, they will aim their nuclear warheads at you and tell you, very politely, to mind your own business. And I could go on and on. ALL forms of energy production have their drawbacks. Even wind power requires an extensive pollution burden in the manufacture of those very complex machines, that are expensive to maintain, with relatively little energy produced by them after they are installed. And I personally think they pollute the landscape in the sense that they change a peaceful wild serenity into a high-tech rotating whining busy-ness that completely destroys the beauty of being out doors. But that is just my opinion.
So you see, it is not quite as simple as you make it sound. This is another "inconvenient truth".
2007-01-08 22:45:47 · answer #2 · answered by Sciencenut 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The simple answer is "yes", the complex answer is "but at what cost?" And I'm not talking about money.
Consider Australia. If Australia complied with the Kyoto protocol it would lower annual world Carbon dioxide emmissions by a mere 0.0112% but at a cost of billions of dollars. Australia is currently experiencing a severe drought and the citizens have been placed on strict water restrictions. If that money was spent building water infrastructure and desalination plants, Australia's environment would be far more liveable.
So it's a nice idea, but it is vital to see where your limited resources will have the biggest benefit to mankind. Very often, this is not the obvious answer.
2007-01-09 02:52:19 · answer #3 · answered by Graham S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely!!!!!!!
Global Warming is hack science.
But keeping our environment clean and natural is just good sense!
2007-01-08 21:17:24 · answer #4 · answered by socal pal 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
good proposition, i agree, clean it up just 'cause. fine idea! who cares if it causes global warming, just do it for better air quality!!!
2007-01-08 21:16:09 · answer #5 · answered by tyco88 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋