So you don't accept global warming; do you accept air pollution?

Maybe you think carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels doesn't cause global warming -- despite the vast majority of the science that says it does -- do you think we should ratchet down on ...

Sulfur dioxide?

Wikipedia: "Inhaling sulfur dioxide is associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death." Union of Concerned Scientists: "Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution ... A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year." Burning fuels in ships and locomotives also contributes thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide every year.

Nitrogen oxides?

Union of Concerned Scientists: "NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year."

Particulate matter?

UCS: "Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year." Wikipedia: " Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles,[6] power plants and various industrial processes also generate significant amounts of particulates."

Mercury?

UCS: "Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year."

The point is, even if you don't believe the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, what about all these other hazardous pollutants?

Is this an advert for the nuclear industry??

Lord Foul wrote:Is this an advert for the nuclear industry??

No, I was just thinking about all the bad stuff emitted during fossil fuel burning, and that the discussion should be broadened beyond CO2 emissions. The fact is, NOTHING emitted while burning fossil fuels is good for living things.

that is true of course...but you need to put it in perspective...

how many MEGA tons of so2 and NOX are released by volcanic activity as opposed to man generated activity?

as for particulates, how much is generated by farming activities etc, let along geocentric "natural" activities?

dunno...

and what are your alternatives

nuclear?

so called "green energy"...(which often isnt)

perhaps we should indulge in a "cull"
perhaps we will get one sooner than we think (if your yellowstone caldera goes pop...it does seem rather......restless these days) (of course if it does...no doubt it will be due to the illuminate or some such exploding a nuke in it to 2encourage it )
ot a sodding great lump of sky rock

or a nasty flu like disease

etc...

dunno...

but of course you are overall correct...

fossil fuels are shitty stuff.....

BUT...no one is having my landrover UNTIL they can show and prove to me that the alternative can perform like it...and do me a one for one swap.....

It's hard to find a good source on SO2 from power plants vs. volcanoes, but if we haven't surpassed the amount put out by volcanoes yet, we will if we keep this up. That's obviously not the point -- the point is all the other pollution put out by burning fossil fuels.

Yes, I'd support building more nuclear plants. (Of course, this means I laughed as the people of Japan died.)

Typical you, to propose a culling of humanity and you getting to keep your Land Rover in the same post

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's hard to find a good source on SO2 from power plants vs. volcanoes, but if we haven't surpassed the amount put out by volcanoes yet, we will if we keep this up. That's obviously not the point -- the point is all the other pollution put out by burning fossil fuels.

Yes, I'd support building more nuclear plants. (Of course, this means I laughed as the people of Japan died.)

Typical you, to propose a culling of humanity and you getting to keep your Land Rover in the same post

well I did say i'd allow it to be replaced...free of charge of course, if there was a suitable alternative
I dont think thats unreasonable...

and yes a cull....

but you KNOW where I would start...

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's hard to find a good source on SO2 from power plants vs. volcanoes, but if we haven't surpassed the amount put out by volcanoes yet, we will if we keep this up. That's obviously not the point -- the point is all the other pollution put out by burning fossil fuels.

Yes, I'd support building more nuclear plants. (Of course, this means I laughed as the people of Japan died.)

Typical you, to propose a culling of humanity and you getting to keep your Land Rover in the same post

strangely so would I....as long as they were "somewhere else"....

seriously. with the tech now available theres not such a problem and indeed we should seriously be looking at the thorium reactors....

(nuclear cooling ponds make great fishing venues..the fish get huge.... )

yeah...I bet you held a party....

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's hard to find a good source on SO2 from power plants vs. volcanoes, but if we haven't surpassed the amount put out by volcanoes yet, we will if we keep this up. That's obviously not the point -- the point is all the other pollution put out by burning fossil fuels.

Yes, I'd support building more nuclear plants. (Of course, this means I laughed as the people of Japan died.)

Typical you, to propose a culling of humanity and you getting to keep your Land Rover in the same post

i think its a false equivalency
we cant do anything about volcanoes but we can do something about our contribution to the system

its like standing at the bottom of a swimming pool with a drain in it, your ok as long as the water coming in matches the water going out but once the water coming in exceeds the capacity for the drain to cope with you start to drowned

Ben_Reilly wrote:Maybe you think carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels doesn't cause global warming -- despite the vast majority of the science that says it does -- do you think we should ratchet down on ...

Sulfur dioxide?

Wikipedia: "Inhaling sulfur dioxide is associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death." Union of Concerned Scientists: "Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution ... A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year." Burning fuels in ships and locomotives also contributes thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide every year.

Nitrogen oxides?

Union of Concerned Scientists: "NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year."

Particulate matter?

UCS: "Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year." Wikipedia: " Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles,[6] power plants and various industrial processes also generate significant amounts of particulates."

Mercury?

UCS: "Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year."

The point is, even if you don't believe the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, what about all these other hazardous pollutants?

Particulate matter also cause global dimming

they are many ways to extract clean energy on this planet they just take money that nobody is willing to spend or indeed think outside the box


1 cover deserts with solar panels especial near the equator this will generate lots of power

2 Geo thermal energy from places like the Yosemite caldera or other places like that not only will that supply energy but help to cool the system thus decreasing the risk of a catastrophic eruption. lots of the Nordic country's use geo thermal energy now

3 hydro energy Scotland has lots of that and so does many other country's

it just takes commitment ,investment ,and a little bit of for site, but we are oil junkies and the company's that could do this wont

And the oil companies and the governments in their pockets make sure they don't.

sassy wrote:And the oil companies and the governments in their pockets make sure they don't.

pretty much

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's hard to find a good source on SO2 from power plants vs. volcanoes, but if we haven't surpassed the amount put out by volcanoes yet, we will if we keep this up. That's obviously not the point -- the point is all the other pollution put out by burning fossil fuels.

Yes, I'd support building more nuclear plants. (Of course, this means I laughed as the people of Japan died.)

Typical you, to propose a culling of humanity and you getting to keep your Land Rover in the same post

well I did say i'd allow it to be replaced...free of charge of course, if there was a suitable alternative
I dont think thats unreasonable...

and yes a cull....

but you KNOW where I would start...

So you'd ask that your now-useless hunk of junk be replaced free of charge with a clean-functioning vehicle -- are you sure you're not in politics?

I tell you what -- we'll convert your Rover to CNG if that will shut you up ... of course, the problem isn't really your Rover, it's the power plants, along with the global fleet of internal combustion engines deployed daily to transport people a few miles (or less).

As for the cull, I'm going to take my knowledge of you from here and guess ... cities with over 50,000 people?

Starting with Houston?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

well I did say i'd allow it to be replaced...free of charge of course, if there was a suitable alternative
I dont think thats unreasonable...

and yes a cull....

but you KNOW where I would start...

So you'd ask that your now-useless hunk of junk be replaced free of charge with a clean-functioning vehicle -- are you sure you're not in politics?

I tell you what -- we'll convert your Rover to CNG if that will shut you up ... of course, the problem isn't really your Rover, it's the power plants, along with the global fleet of internal combustion engines deployed daily to transport people a few miles (or less).

As for the cull, I'm going to take my knowledge of you from here and guess ... cities with over 50,000 people?

guess again

Re the OP...

There are many valid arguments against the 'man made, co2 based, global warming' theory...

There are also plenty of valud arguments against each of the many various types of air/land/sea pollution...


Not believing the man made co2 based global warming theory does not mean that you support pollution!


Stop conflating issues and twisting into a false argument...

Tommy Monk wrote:Re the OP...

There are many valid arguments against the 'man made, co2 based, global warming' theory...

There are also plenty of valud arguments against each of the many various types of air/land/sea pollution...


Not believing the man made co2 based global warming theory does not mean that you support pollution!


Stop conflating issues and twisting into a false argument...

I wasn't creating a false argument, I was showing that even if you don't accept anthropogenic global warming, there are plenty of other good reasons to support finding alternatives to fossil fuels.

I watched a program on tv that said millions of tons of Methane gas were released from the sea bed every year, together with what comes out of volcanoes must make a big contribution to "climate change".