pollution v global warming

[hammock monkey]

Hi,
I heard an opion at a recent lecture that has snowballed with me after my initial reaction slightly against it.
the offending statement was that the problem of pollution seems to have taken a back seat to the global warming issue, and that we can survive global warming (within reason) but pollution is actually the bigger danger.
i know the two issues are intertwined - but they arent quite the same. Once land or sea are polluted and lifeless - recovery i guess will be a long time coming, whereas warming - however abhorrent - is going to happen but at least we can survive it.
I'd just like to hear from those of you far more intelligent than me and my tiny monkey brain...
also, i do my bit in most ways i can, cycle 10miles to work, grow my own veg and buy local, recycle and generally do my best - but i still mostly feel like there is actually very little hope that things will turn out right...not necessarily for humans i mean but for the other 99.999% of inhabitants with us...so why bother? to slow down the inevitable?
dont get me wrong - i have a smile on my face because the world is a beautiful place, but a tiny part of me cant help feeling like we deserve it - so we should suffer!!
i'm looking for a charity that can actually make a difference..any ideas?
World Land Trust? seems like a good idea to just buy land and keep it for a rainy day so to speak.
on the other hand, at least with a small charity like 'gearing up for gorrillas' i know i'm making a difference to people literally on the front line

phew, tiny monkey brain hurt now..

[matt_xyz]

in my opinion, global warming is far and away the greater threat.

In the developed world, emissions of virtually all local air pollutants have fallen significantly in the last 20-30 years. This includes lead, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and so on. At risk of generalising slightly, pollution really causes us very few problems in the developed world.

Emissions are still a problem in some developing countries, but the difference between these emissions and the problem of climate change is that we at least have the technology to deal with local air pollution. This is not really true of climate change. We can't simply fit filters to remove carbon dioxide, but we can for sulphur dioxide. Instead, we need to change the energy source on which the entire world economy rests. A much stiffer challange!

I don't want to suggest things that you should worry about , but aside from climate change, it's habitat loss that worries me most. Pollution would be some way down my list.

Matt

[Gill Catton]

If I think about this too hard I start muttering 'we're doomed' like I've just stepped out of Dad's army. I just do what I can and hope that it all works out in the end. I can't help but feel - like so many, that a severe reduction in the number of people in the world would solve a lot of problems........
And sooner or later I do believe it will happen - keep any animal in very high densities and sooner or later a disease rips through the lot leaving only a few standing.

[hammock monkey]

i agree Gill,
the only solution i ever come up with is that we need to have some kind of huge tax insentive to people to only have one child....but the ramifications of that are unrealistic i guess....in that case we're doomed!
ah well, its a beautiful day, we do our bit and hopefully get to see a bit of the good stuff before its too late.
i think i'm almost beyond caring about it nowadays (i'll always do my bit as best i can tho), somehow global warming doesnt really scare me anymore...comes from growing up too fast after watching that film 'threads' about the nuclear bomb in the UK at the age of 12... learn to paddle a canoe and hope for the best!

[Kymba]

I think Global Warming is our major worry and needs dealing with NOW not down the road a few years. But I also believe Pollution is also a big problem and concern as this is already effecting wildlife both on land and in the sea.
A good example of this is the effect pollution is having on the Bleaching of Coral all around the world.. The link below make interesting reading....

NOAA 200th: How Pollution Affects Coral Reefs


Hammock monkey have you thought about trying to get a group of people together and buying your own woodland to preserve.and protect. I know in Wales and some other places people can buy a share in a woodland for as little as £50..

[BeowulfIII]

I have studied it recently through a Bsc at the OU and really believe that all three are inextricably linked. Pollution is predominantly the release of CO2 into the air as a result of burning fossil fuels which, with water vapour, is the greatest greenhouse gas. The general effect is global warming so I think maybe some of the focus away from pollution is simply recognition that it is one and the same problem as Global Warming.

I think the only way to solve the problem in the short timeframe we have is by selectively adopting stategies that target human self-interest and which in turn, conserve the environment. One way of doing this which I have been trying to put together with friends and colleagues is the development of a Carbon Exchange where units of anti-carbon can be traded like shares or bonds etc.

Essentially we are looking for a university at present to provide a table that distinguishes different types of climate and the anti-carbon (in tonnes) produced by that climate (forestry, tundra, cropland, etc). This is then used as a general key in which nations in the first instance can value there biomass, have that confirmed by the independent University Partner to the exchange and then trade the value of the anti-carbon present in national parks/rainforests/cropland against meeting targets such as Kyoto etc. Where biomass rich countries like Brazil can sell there anti-carbon to devloping nations like China. By valuing and providing a monetary measure to biomass-rich environments, countries, then property companys and finally Joe Bloggs who owns 44acres in Dorset could trade the anti-carbon units they own promoting the protection of such resources and providing an additional income source.. The world is beginning to value biodiversity and areas of large biomass (but not enough yet to protect it diligently). Very interested in WABBER's views on this idea?

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by BeowulfIII

I think the only way to solve the problem in the short timeframe we have is by selectively adopting stategies that target human self-interest and which in turn, conserve the environment. One way of doing this which I have been trying to put together with friends and colleagues is the development of a Carbon Exchange where units of anti-carbon can be traded like shares or bonds etc.

this is without doubt the best way forward. We need to create the right economic incentives. As well as trading carbon we should also be trading carbon sinks or 'anti-carbon' as you call it. Put another way, countries such as Brazil have to reap some of the benefit of keeping their forests alive. At present they suffer the full cost (in terms of lost agricultural and other commerical opportunities) but the benefit of keeping their forests alive falls mainly to the rest of the world.

Matt

[hammock monkey]

i've been looking into this for a little while wrt a 'voucher' system for energy users/ green consumers. it already exists.
the Goverment apparently have a scheme where by every person that wants to buy sustainably produce electricity can do so now - and the supply has to match demand within x number of years - if they have to buy it from abroad or whatever.
if everyone in the uk therefore signed up for it it'd snowball. as soon as i can (i rent and they wont let me change over) i'll swap onto it and try to persuade everyone else too.

the 'green pound' seems already to be gaining ground...investors after all want to invest in a sustainable business...

maybe if there's money in it people will actually do summat...hmmm...we'll see eh!?

[Gill Catton]

I do worry though that as has been pointed out, some developing countries have problems with emissions, how can they avoid this? When you go back to the levels of pollution created by us and similar nations during our industrial revolution, can we expect other countries to be able to avoid this as they go through their equivalent?
If countries like Brazil were encouraged to protect and restore amazon forest with financial incentives, is there a risk they they and similar countries are encouraged to reduce CO2 emissions in the same way and this might slow their overall development?

[overgrownbramble]

Sadly we are all paying now for the ignorance of previous generations, I can't help wishing I was born before all this mess, I feel guilty for breathing these days, all that's in the media is doom and gloom. Recycling is great, but on a global scale it's a drop in the ocean with countries (including developed ones like America) blithley carrying on. Unfortunately profit is always put first by the real decision makers, and even individulas rarely give up any convenience for the greater good. Just look how many people still eat meat, just for one example.

I agree with earlier posts, the only think that can help is a dramatic population reduction, both for our poor crowded country and globally, but with politicians in the UK only interested in future pension funds, they are still encouraging people to breed for the good of the economy!

[wyevilla]

This is a very interesting thread.

For too long, polution was the visible symptom of an illness that started with the beginning of the industrial age. Gradually legislation came in to clean up air, rivers etc. in the "developed" world, whilst we ignored the increasing industrialisation of countries in Asia and the pacific rim. Of course they are entitled to reach for the perceived benefits of the modern world but, having gone through the process, surely the G8 (or 9, whatever) now have a duty of care for those striving to join the club?

Sadly not all post-industrial countries have all put our houses in order (eg USA and what was the USSR) so this makes it difficult to preach to the developing world.

Other mistakes are being rectified; eg the hole in the ozone layer, I believe, is beginning to heal (correct me if I'm too optimistic). Other polution issues are similarly within our scope to deal with.

The problem with climate change is that it will be just that: a gradual period of global change until another state of equilibrium for the world is reached. With much more water in the liquid and vapour states (a lot less ice), more energy in the atmosphere and in the oceans causing more extreme weather conditions. This, at present, seems irreversible as the causes have taken 100 years to get to this point and the contributing factors are apparently still increasing.

Is there hope? Well as already stated I am a natural optimist. i do believe that not one single country will benefit from such a change and that pressure will be brought to bear on all countries to rein in the emissions. However, I do feel that what we do is essential to this process. It is perhaps a drop in the ocean, but to do nothing would mean condoning the problem and is defeatist. No, we have to increase our efforts in recycling, reusing etc. We must lead by example and show that we can live more simply with less inpact on the environment - all the things that Hammock-Monkey mentioned at the start of this thread.

Additionally, we must not let the politicians ever forget the issues of sustainable development in the face of financial gain and expediancy. There are always elections (national, local, european) around the corner. Use these opportunities to question, lobby and vote.

Also don't forget consumer power. Businesses have to respond to customers and we have the right to challenge their practices and vote with our feet. In an increasingly global economy we now have more power to influence corporations as we show our distaste for "cheap" products created in sweat-shops or at huge cost to a local environment many miles away.

Yes, do join charities, look after your own patch for your own wildlife. But also conciously make decisions in the way that you decide to spend your hard earned cash in a way that will influence the decision makers.

Let's do it.

[hammock monkey]

the "Green £/$" is something i personally feel is vital to the cause..its kind of one those annoying buzzwords but if it gets action with all the David Brent-a-likes, then great.
...and voting for the green party (which i have always done since i was 18) just so that the bigger parties will realise that some people actually want action, not just words is probably one of the best things i feel i can do....

you're right, even tho it is a drop in the ocean, it kind of keeps hope in me alive as well as having the 'hundredth monkey effect' with others.

[James_Owen]

Personally, I think carbon trading is part of the problem, not the solution, and the reasons are manifold.
Ideologically, it encourages flippant consumers like those of us in the West to carry on with our carbon-filthy lifestyles. Clearly the best way to cut down on your own carbon footprint, is to jolly well cut down on it! Not pay somebody else to do it for you. As a society, we need to grasp that concept.
Secondly, the carbon trading and other off-setting iniatives don't work. Earlier this week in fact, Channel 4 News reported on industries in India that qualify for credits under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism cited a study which found at least a third of such projects support heavily polluting (and supposedly green) industrial developments that should not be part of it. Neither is planting trees of much help, even a layman can figure out that trees planted today won't nearly absorb all the carbon released from fossil fuels that took millions of years to development, and more and more scientific studies are supporting that very obvious conclusion, some even suggest bare soil takes in more carbon - I suppose it just sounds nicer to plant a tree though. Carbon trading of all kinds have always been an economist's weaseling solution to the problem of Climate Change, and one that simply does not work! We really really must not fall for it.

What we do need is rapid localisation of our lifestyles. That means economic pain and requires the sort of leadership we will never ever have. So I suppose you might say, I'm part of the doom brigade.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by James_Owen

Personally, I think carbon trading is part of the problem, not the solution, and the reasons are manifold.
Ideologically, it encourages flippant consumers like those of us in the West to carry on with our carbon-filthy lifestyles. Clearly the best way to cut down on your own carbon footprint, is to jolly well cut down on it! Not pay somebody else to do it for you. As a society, we need to grasp that concept.
Secondly, the carbon trading and other off-setting iniatives don't work. Earlier this week in fact, Channel 4 News reported on industries in India that qualify for credits under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism cited a study which found at least a third of such projects support heavily polluting (and supposedly green) industrial developments that should not be part of it. Neither is planting trees of much help, even a layman can figure out that trees planted today won't nearly absorb all the carbon released from fossil fuels that took millions of years to development, and more and more scientific studies are supporting that very obvious conclusion, some even suggest bare soil takes in more carbon - I suppose it just sounds nicer to plant a tree though. Carbon trading of all kinds have always been an economist's weaseling solution to the problem of Climate Change, and one that simply does not work! We really really must not fall for it.

What we do need is rapid localisation of our lifestyles. That means economic pain and requires the sort of leadership we will never ever have. So I suppose you might say, I'm part of the doom brigade.

I disagree entirely. There may be problems with the implementation of carbon trading (just as there are likely to be problems with any policy which has to encompass activities in multiple countries), but the principles behind carbon trading are absolutely sound. Once carbon trading is implemented (and I'm thinking here of the EU carbon trading scheme rather than the CDM which is not really carbon trading) firms simply carry on profit maximising BUT now this will coincide with reducing pollution because firms have to take into account the cost of pollution. Any attempt to control climate change which requires firm NOT to profit maximise but to act in an altruistic manner is doomed to failure. If carbon trading doesn't bring about the required emissions reductions (although it has to if it is being enforced) then you simply issue fewer permits in the next round. There will be teething problems but carbon trading is the only realistic prospect we have of reducing carbon emissions across countries.

I would add that pollution trading has been extremely successful in the US in the case of SO2. It is therefore not an economist's attempt to 'weasle' out of cutting pollution, quite the reverse. As long as it is enforced, pollution trading is the only policy which is guaranteed to cut pollution because it requires a clearly defined emissions ceiling (i.e. the number of permits distributed). The other benefit is that it cuts pollution at a much lower aggregate cost, but I won't bore you further as to how that is achieved , but this is a benefit which should not be ignored.

Matt

[James_Owen]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

As long as it is enforced, pollution trading is the only policy which is guaranteed to cut pollution because it requires a clearly defined emissions ceiling (i.e. the number of permits distributed).

Matt

And therein lie to two fundamental problems with carbon/pollution trading. First of all rigorous enforcement on a global level isn't likely, in Europe we might manage it, but local government corruption and self-interest in India, China, etc, is very significant problem ignored by international authorities, and invariably at the moment trading schemes end up in poor or developing countries where regulations are lax.
Secondly, and this is the big one for me, the emissions ceiling - for example the limit of units of carbon released - only exists on paper. It's always been the way with energy sector forecasts, they double count their reserves and half count pollution, but so long as on paper it says the right thing nobody has to rock the boat.

I'm not saying that pollution trading is a waste of time, but like forest planting sequestration schemes it is far too heavily depended upon and the targets are plainly unrealistic. As policies they are more about keeping the status quo for as long as possible, and by the way they just happen to make a lot of businessmen who wrote the rules on carbon trading and just happen to be the agents selling carbon credits between industries, to get very rich indeed.

[matt_xyz]

do you have an alternative policy that can be implemented globally without being adversely affected by corruption or administrative problems?!!? I'd certainly like to hear it if you have

Matt

[BeowulfIII]

James, I have to say I also disagree with you and for a very simple reason. Your impression of the carbon trading model seems heavily dependent on the administrators of the model and how they act. The theory of the carbon trading system as I think Matt is saying (this is the one that does not yet exist!) is based on an economic model of supply and demand of a valuable commodity. Once you stabilise the value of a unit of anti-carbon and apply market dynamics to its sale and purchase, you bring to life the strongest possible motivator for most of us...turning a quid.

If people, countries, companies can make money from protecting the environment and the climate within their grasp, I 100% beleive the cause of wildlife and habitat conservation would be advanced far beyond the position now whereby altruism and "thoughts for one grandkids" is the supposed incentive.

Capitalism won.. Self-interest and greed are the reasons we are in this mess in the first place, humanity is on the whole pretty blind. Self-interest and greed can get us out of it too, just needs the right user-friendly mechanism/forum to be set up and the rest will sort itself out.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by BeowulfIII

James, I have to say I also disagree with you and for a very simple reason. Your impression of the carbon trading model seems heavily dependent on the administrators of the model and how they act. The theory of the carbon trading system as I think Matt is saying (this is the one that does not yet exist!) is based on an economic model of supply and demand of a valuable commodity. Once you stabilise the value of a unit of anti-carbon and apply market dynamics to its sale and purchase, you bring to life the strongest possible motivator for most of us...turning a quid.

If people, countries, companies can make money from protecting the environment and the climate within their grasp, I 100% beleive the cause of wildlife and habitat conservation would be advanced far beyond the position now whereby altruism and "thoughts for one grandkids" is the supposed incentive.

Capitalism won.. Self-interest and greed are the reasons we are in this mess in the first place, humanity is on the whole pretty blind. Self-interest and greed can get us out of it too, just needs the right user-friendly mechanism/forum to be set up and the rest will sort itself out.

Exactly. The beauty of market instruments such as tradeable permits and properly implemented taxes is that environmental goals and financial goals (i.e. maximising profits) coincide. The principles behind them are very clever to achieve this. Of course, their real world implementation is another matter, but that doesn't mean we should scrap the principle of tradeable permits.

Matt

[James_Owen]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

do you have an alternative policy that can be implemented globally without being adversely affected by corruption or administrative problems?!!? I'd certainly like to hear it if you have

Matt

Nope, but that's no reason to fantasise about measures that probably won't work.
There's nothing we could do without a wildspread change in our societies, economies and basic lifestyle that kids of the consumer culture just won't find unpalatable, and we'd have to change it all within a matters of years, that will make much of in Global Warming. Our best hope is that the worst predictions don't come true.
In all strategic energy problems two proposed saviours are always cited, the market and new (i.e. non-existant or impractical) technology, because they require the minimum short-term painful change, not because they actually work. And that is primarily because the world economy is based upon one tremendous faith-based fallacy - that of eternal economic growth whatever the situation is now, a source of all matter of others problems, from poverty to pension gaps, as well as Global Warming.

As you might be able to tell, I've something of a bee in my bonnet about all of this. Never talk politics, eh?

[Re-search]

Climate changes are increased atmospheric temperatures and lower air pressures. The troposphere is the lowest layer of the Earths atmosphere and it is invisible. This means that we cannot see local air pressure changes but can feel a change of temperature.
If a plane flies into an area of low air pressure then it might drop suddenly and cause passengers to leave their seats for a moment. If a bird flies into an area of low air pressure then it might simply drop dead due to axphyxiation or lose its immunity to infection.

If humans change the natural composition of air to one where lightweight alien gases reign supreme then there will be medical impacts upon wildlife and people globally.

[badgerwatcher]

If the richer countries took responsibility for the fact that they in the past conquered and enslaved other countries and races, and are now making 'generous' loans to those countries, having handed them, sucked dry, back to the people who lived there originally, and if they wiped the debt slate clean, then the poorer countries might stand a chance of functioning independantly, without having to devote their time and manpower to supplying the richer countries with our affluent needs!
Pollution, I feel, is responsible for a great many illnesses and problems, in man of eczema and asthma, among others, in animals and plant species countless numbers of problems, which will possibly be sorted Darwin's way. We fill our houses with air fresheners, bleaches, deoderents, cleaning products of all kinds. Powders to stop your carpet smelling etc., affect the lungs of a lot of people. The advertisers tell us that people won't visit us unless our toilets smell of strong artificial perfumes. We are told that our children are at huge risk unless everything they touch has first been wiped with disinfectant. With all these illnesses and others on the increase, should we not be wondering how mankind got this far without disinfectants and bleaches? Sensible measures of cleanliness can be upheld without stripping your skin and nasal passages with things to kill the germs.