posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:01 AM
Originally posted by sardion2000
I just think we need to stave off the Ice Age as much as we can and releasing C02 into the atmosphere isn't one of those things thats gonna help.
I know this because I suffer from Moderate Asthma and when its really Hot and Smoggy out(Like today) I can actually feel my airways closing as I
inhale the toxic smog which has recently been proven to cause about 1300 deaths per year in Ontario alone. I literally have to take refuge in an air
conditioned house or I'll be miserable and maybe even get sick...It ain't pretty.
I do sypathize with you for your asthma. As a child 30 years ago, I suffered with it and my son also did at an early age. I'm glad he had the
benefit of bronchial inhalers and steroids that I did not. He's been free of an attack for over a year while barely out of the toddler stage. Mine
continued with them until my early teens and I still get chest colds every spring. I think thats a different problem. The smog is usually termed
"dust domes" in physical geography. They are an observable fact and usually form over major cities. Definetly a true problem. The haze, at least
in my state, is high humidity which is really bad here in the southeast US. Although, this year, it hasn't been that bad. I guess we are
benefitting locally from the change in climate. I agree that we have some affect on localized climates, my only argument is that C02 rise isn't
changing the planet's climate globally.
I think the lead post was correct. I think solar activity and cosmic radiation have a far greater affect. I think we have proven the corrolation.
That doesn't mean that I think poluuting is good or that it does no harm. I've locally began working with a local watershed project to try and get
our local streams and rivers clean again. I think this is where we need to concentrate efforts. On tangible goals.
If we destroy our economy which is largely based upon carbon based fuels, how are we going to have the wealth to work on projects such as these?
I know I've quoted this on ATS before but I think it cuts right to the heart of the matter.
The environmentalists try to inject guilt into people for consuming, as if consuming by itself causes destruction to the environment. There is no
truth to that. You have the wealthiest countries on earth with the best looked-after environment. Poverty, not wealth, is one of the biggest threats
to the Earth's ecological health. Look at the environmental destruction caused by poverty. They have no money left to reforest, they have no money
left to prevent soil erosion, and there is no money to clean their water after they make it dirty. It's that kind of arrogance that is coming from
a movement that is basically white upper-middle class and is saying that it's neat to have Africans with no electricity. They are mainly political
activists with not very much actual science background who are using the rhetoric of environmentalism to push agendas that are more political than
they are ecological.
-Patrick Moore, head of the environmental advocacy group Greenspirit, and a former founding member of Greenpeace. Moore left Greenpeace in the 1980s
after becoming disillusioned with what he considered the group's radical approach to environmental concerns.