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!