posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:34 PM
Excellent points, and a S&F for your trouble!
Yes, pollution is a serious concern. The good news is that technology is progressing, making fuels with less sulfur content, controlling the amount of
NOx in the exhausts, and minimalizing carbon monoxide emissions. The bad news is that while all this is going on, the current attempts to paint carbon
dioxide as a poison are derailing any attempt to further decrease pollution.
Let's face it: carbon dioxide is a pretty harmless gas, and a necessary component of the atmosphere, both for its slight mitigating effect on
temperatures and for its contribution to the food chain via photosynthesis. Sulfur dioxide, on the other hand, is not harmless; it is a deadly poison,
and a primary component of acid rain. Soot, mainly from unburned exhaust, is indeed a danger to respiratory systems in animals, including humans. NOx,
while itself a natural trace gas, is far and away more affected by man's burning of fossil fuels than carbon dioxide, due to the heat produced in an
oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere. The same can be said for methane, a fuel in itself if it could only be captured.
There is no possible way to combust anything containing carbon (and that includes about every combustible fuel known save hydrogen) without creating
carbon dioxide. It simply cannot happen. We can remove the sulfur; we can manage heat levels to minimize NOx; we can design to thoroughly burn any ash
and soot produced. We can not produce power on the scale civilization needs it without producing carbon dioxide. So what the present argument
is saying is that in order to be 'environmentally friendly', we as a society must give up our civilization itself... we must return to
pre-industrial living with low life expectancies and meager living conditions.
Of course any sane person will oppose that!
What the issue should be over is how we can each, individually, make a difference. Those differences add up! Things like not buying products with
extraneous packaging where possible (saving a few bucks in the process usually), recycling (which would be a huge thing today if only recyclables were
sold, even for a pittance, as opposed to people having to sort and give them away for no personal return), re-using things instead of just tossing
them (again, saving money), and planting a tree outside or even just a potted plant in their apartment (cheap to do, and if planting something that
provides fruit or nuts, it returns that small investment many times over).
You will notice that every method I mentioned could have a positive financial impact on the individual. But nowhere is any positive impact mentioned
by those who wish to save us from ourselves. Instead, the impacts are all negative to the individual. More taxation, more regulation, more sacrifice,
less energy, higher prices, more lack and want... Sure, everyone should be for that... NOT!
In the end, the real tragedy behind the Global Warming fiasco is not that it is simply that - a fiasco - but rather that it takes center stage,
pushing the real solutions off to the side and out of the public eye. When was the last time you heard about acid rain on the MSM? It still falls, you
know, admittedly less than at one time, but it does still fall, and it still kills trees. When was the last time you heard about clearcutting on the
evening news? Clearcutting is a very inefficient method of logging, as it leaves nothing to rebound and produce another crop. But of course
clearcutting continues as long as public land is available for logging without restrictions requiring replanting. And who allows, and even encourages,
this? The government; the same government now trying to tell us that everything will be fine if we regulate carbon dioxide with a new hidden
May we survive this fiasco. Never in my days have I seen so much disinformation and propaganda over something that once was considered elementary
science. Never in all my born days have I seen TPTB come so dangerously close to full control of the lives of us whom they consider 'peasants'.