Page 1 of 4
Pollution, Your Views?
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:45 am
Just wondering what everyones views, opinions, and facts towards the fact of pollution are? Where will we be because of it? What does it hurt most? What do you think about it? And what can be done to stop it?
Thanks guys, and I look forward to hearing your input. 8)
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:27 am
Not to open up another "Bush bashing", as my sentiments are not against him alone, but the fact is that the US is the world's largest polluter, and the only country that didn't sign up to actually do something about it. The Gulf Stream has 20 years left before it collapses, the polar ice caps are in a quickening decay, and there's threat of more ozone holes. We're going to be living on very crowded high/central belt land soon if they, amongst others admittedly, don't do something about this. There are alternatives, but it doesn't appear to suit the lazy western lifestyle, and hey, the problem doesn't affect us now, so we'll continue living in blissfull ignorance untill it's too late...
We really need to wake up. Not just America, though, they have the most work to do. The EU is making great steps in these areas, especially the likes of Germany and Sweeden. Recycle what you can, walk/cycle when you can, give lifts to others who would normally use their own cars when you can, etc. This is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg in terms of possible solutions.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:05 am
In the United States, walking or biking places really isn't a viable option to even go a few miles. The trails don't exist on which to travel, we are largely a rural country so the distances are fairly great, and so forth. In urban areas though, mass transportation could come a long way. For example, the best mass transit system around is in Chicago, the "El". Other, closer systems are cutting back because of low usage and so forht.
I personally think industry is the biggest polluter. I live in an industrial area, and I recall several citations from the EPA in the last decade or so to local factories and foundries.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:08 am
Yes, industry is bigger, and I appreciate that inter-state travel on one's bicycle is perhaps not exactly practical, but I was simply outlining some general ideas that are possible for us citizens, not just in America, and I was thinking more urban travel there anyway - though we don't have a lot of trails in the UK either. We cycle on the road.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:32 am
Every country should sign the kyoto protocol. No surprises which one didnt...
In NZ, we even put a tax on farmers because cows and sheep produce a lot of methane
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:35 am
Hybrid cars should help. But ultimately, there are limits to what you can do with efficiency technology when people insist on doing too much. At the end of the day, if you use a 6000lb SUV to drive everywhere, then you are doing much more physical work (in the physics sense, not the personal sense) than you would be if you were driving a 3000lb sedan, and that means more energy used up, more pollution, etc. And the US is filled with people who really do use a 6000lb SUV for every little thing.
Having said that, industry is a huge polluter as well. But governments are afraid to discipline them for fear that they will take their factories (and jobs) elsewhere, such as a third-world country with lax environmental laws.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:40 am
Increase the gas price in the US to fund research for alternative fuels.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:03 am
Typical combustion engines found in 90% of cars today waste an incredible amount of energy,
The Hybrid cars get closer to the goal
and the SUV's, well they just waste the environment, let alone fuel
My Prime Minister refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol, which is a pity because he was only just re-elected and it was one of the issues, he also supports old growth logging, i.e. forrests we don't need to log ever,
Part of the problem is the oil companies hindering the development of fuel efficient transportation methods,
one thing ecconomists only ever look at short term gains, and never realise long term losses that will be required to rescue the environment
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:49 am
For example, the best mass transit system around is in Chicago, the "El". Other, closer systems are cutting back because of low usage and so forht.
You must be kidding. I lived in Chicago for some amount of time and public transit was laughable it was so poor.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:09 am
I guess I'm rather environmentally friendly - I cycle around 200km per week (but not as a mode of transport), I walk to school which is 3.2km both ways & if I need to go somewhere I take public transport or ride my bike.
I must admit the cycling in Brisbane is at best, lousy - despite riding at 5:30 in the morning traffic still poses a problem if you're riding by yourself. We do have a lot of bike paths on roads but that's just a politically correct name for 'parking lane' as cars can and do legally park on them.
Generally cycling is pretty good in groups as cars will normally give you a whole lane - and will not cut you off and even though there are a few dedicated bike/ pedestrian trials none of them compare to the ones in Toronto and Europe I've been to.
As for pollution in Brisbane it doesn’t seem to bad but our government has just completed a half a billion dollar plan to encourage public transport, like building a rail line to the airport, putting in bus lanes etc. and now our government has and is doing a 500million dollar plan to make non-public transport easier – like building a sub-river tunnel and turning the bus lanes into traffic lanes etc.
I think they need to build a really good public transport system and then just gridlock ordinary traffic till the point where people will have to use public transport
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:11 am
^ gridlock is conducive to idling, which in turn is conducive to pollution.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:58 am
The problem of pollution is not any country specific, but it is a globle problem. I think there are many cause of pollution which include fumes from industries, jungle fire, waste from industries etc. But i think the major cause of the pollution is waste comes out of vehicles.
There should be some alternative now to petroleum product, i think water, which shuld be used to drive vehicle. It is also available everywher easily.
What all u think guys.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:32 pm
you mean like a hydrogen fuel cell?
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:28 pm
About the pollution, there exist many sources of pollution. Definition of pollution is something that can endanger the world and the biotope of the living being.
So it can be about the pollution of the atmosphere, but that can be also the sound (including infrasound and ultrasound), the pollution of water, the radioactive pollution, and many other pollutions that we don't think (radiowaves or cellular waves)
So it's complex. But the first thing to do IMHO is to find a better ecological solution for the car/truck/... and to find the best solution for the industry.
What can happen in 2050 is maybe the result of the 19th and 20th century activities, so i hope really that the 21th will be more ecological and with respect of the biotope, because if not, that will be worsen in the next centuries. The humanity is still a child. He has to grow and be wiser
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:16 pm
Well the fact we have a hole in the ozone is because of actions of those who went before us (grown ups in the 70s)
I think that alot of young people these days are environmentally aware, but feel powerless against corporation and government and have little idea where to start, but a good place is to turn off the light/computer when your not using it (or at least donate your spare CPU cycles to worthy causes and to turn off the monitor.), Take shorter showers, use less product, and place general waste paper in your recycling bin.
It's little things like that around the home which can make a big difference.
Unfortunately I don't know of a way to recycle AOL starter discs yet...