The Pollution Reduction Humbug

[Valve Bounce]

I just wonder how many people really believe that the Leaders of most nations seriously want to reduce Pollution. Just look at China - if they were really serious about reducing pollution to any level where their populace could breathe safely, they would have done it decades ago. I remember in the nineties there was a meeting in HK Government to reduce pollution in HK; the outcome was to permit those causing pollution to increase the pollution by 20%.
Then there is Indonesia, where they burn off forests to clear the land, and the smoke is so extensive that there is a huge cloud of smoke which affects the whole area right across to Malaysia. This has been going on for years.
Thailand has been de-foresting so long that areas marked as forests on their maps are shown as cleared land on satellite photos, and this is back in 1977 when I was working there.
De-foresting in the Philippines is so bad that an entire port has been silted up and rendered unusable in the north of the country.
Huge problems with de-foresting in Nepal. And I only include these countries because I have worked there and have first hand knowledge. I am sure many such stories exist in many, many other countries. India, we don't even need to spell it out.

And anyone who thinks our Prime Minister KRudd is serious about the whole business of reducing emissions should have a closer look: the main polluters are exempt from control to save jobs; and if that isn't enough we'll just export the polluting coal to other countries so they can pollute the globe. Sure the guy makes a lot of noise about an Emission Trading Scheme, and why not - he wants to appear as the hero who saves the world because he is facing an election next year.

Who can tell me how pollution can be measured accurately and precisely now so that any country in 10 years' time can claim they are reducing pollution? There just isn't any. Anyone can fudge test results, even I can.

Please excuse me for being so cynical, but the only solution to pollution will be death: when the number of deaths from cancer and lung diseases among the relatives of those who govern the countries become so great that they themselves cannot tolerate the pain and suffering that affects their families.

[Rollo]

Companies do not "deliberately" cause pollution. Companies exist to turn a profit for their shareholders. By that basic logic, companies aren't likely to change any production method at all, unless directed to by legislation. It isn't because they deliberately want to harm the environment, but merely because the environment is not an economic concern unless it has something to do with making a profit.
(The classic example of this is the Triangle Shirtwaist Company or on a worse scale Bhopal)

Politicians of themselves largely do not invent policy unless they are directed to by those people who are stakeholders. Either the people (corporate or real) who donate monies to their political parties, or the voters who have the option of removing them entirely from power.

Mr Rudd will only be as serious about the of reducing emissions as either the companies which donate to the Labor Party or the voters will allow. Companies in principle do not like an emissions trading scheme which is essentially a tax because it reduces profits, and the voters don't like it because it is essentially a tax.

[F1boat]

I hope that they will manage to do something. Pollution IMO is a big problem, no matter whether the global warming exists or not. Dirty is dirty, no matter hot or cold.

[leopard]

My understanding if the land clearing is done properly, they will cause pollution but will not to be bad that of just want to save time and cost. They have to cut off the bushes, cut down the tree and wait until it went dry before burning it. It takes time and a lot of money.

There are numerous forest in this word burnt off for industry? I hope that there is enough concern to give enough room of forest for animal, such as the wild life of Africa to survive.

[Valve Bounce]

Companies do not "deliberately" cause pollution. Companies exist to turn a profit for their shareholders. By that basic logic, companies aren't likely to change any production method at all, unless directed to by legislation. It isn't because they deliberately want to harm the environment, but merely because the environment is not an economic concern unless it has something to do with making a profit.
(The classic example of this is the Triangle Shirtwaist Company or on a worse scale Bhopal)



This is quite true - companies do not deliberately cause pollution - the point is : they do not care if what their factory causes pollution. I used to have to inspect a slope behind a factory high rise (which housed many, many factories) in Tsuen Wan, and there were outlets behind the building which belched out fumes which smelled like epoxy in very large volumes which went unabated for the entire period of the slope stabilisation works.

And the time will come when these factory owners, or the politicians who permit such works start to suffer deaths in their family, especially a first born son, from cancer as a direct result of such pollutants in the air they breath. That is the only time anyone will start to take pollution seriously.

[leopard]

Who can tell me how pollution can be measured accurately and precisely now so that any country in 10 years' time can claim they are reducing pollution? There just isn't any. Anyone can fudge test results, even I can.


Pollution as is emitter can be measured mathematically, air pollution can be measured, water pollution should be easier. I think there is body who perform that measurement.

[Valve Bounce]

Pollution as is emitter can be measured mathematically, air pollution can be measured, water pollution should be easier. I think there is body who perform that measurement.

I stand by my post which you quoted. My explanation being that in HK, pollution was measured from the tops of some buildings where the air was less polluted than at ground level.

We can run into a park on the windward side of a factory and measure the pollution which would be minimal compared to the leeward side of the same factory. It all depends on who does the measuring. :rolleyes:

[Valve Bounce]

My understanding if the land clearing is done properly, they will cause pollution but will not to be bad that of just want to save time and cost. They have to cut off the bushes, cut down the tree and wait until it went dry before burning it. It takes time and a lot of money.

There are numerous forest in this word burnt off for industry? I hope that there is enough concern to give enough room of forest for animal, such as the wild life of Africa to survive.

We are talking about situations where a government denies there is any land clearing citing it is against the law, and therefore cannot exist. The fact that logging lorries come out of these forests is merely caused by fairies.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Pollution first off is different than the reason the world is meeting in Copenhagan this week, which is the topic of much debate; and that is CO2 production.

We have a world where CO2 ppm counts are making the most noise, and in theory (and it is unproven and in my mind NOT the reason the earth is warming) is the villian to some in the global climate change story.

So do you want to reduce pollution or CO2? How about both? Will methods to control pollution be different or counteract that of controlling CO2? Who pays for it? THAT one is easy, sooner or later we will as taxpayers.

Pollution means nothing to regimes like the People's Republic because they have no one to answer to. They are not elected, they rule as if they know what is best, and they are trying to beat the West in economic output, with no real time for dissent or talk about what is good for the enviroment. In many ways, they are no different than the robber barons of capitalism that made the Industrial Revolution in Europe so evil, or the people who owned the sweatshops and dangerous factories of North American in the Victorian era. The difference is, democratically elected leaders and enlightened men such as Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Carnegie and the like knew things had to change on how the worker was treated, and by extention the enviroment. As time went on, an educated populace that had the vote pushed to have the enviroment and working conditions improved. In China? Good luck with that.....

When you go to places like Indonesia, or Brazil where they were burning up rainforest to create cattle ranches, the pressures on government are still not there but could be in time. India is turning the corner and starting to look for cleaner and greener ideas, but India is a developing economy with a lot to juggle, not of the least is a huge population, too few jobs, and much poverty.

How we get out of all of this I don't know. I do know this: Without the Chinese and Indians, not to mention other developing economies making change in production of pollution and CO2, anything talked about in Copenhagen will be hot air.

China produces 22% of the worlds CO2, and probably half of the world's air pollution. If they do NOTHING with their current growth rate, you could shut down Europe and half of North America and it would still be meaningless. This is the great lie that people who support stupid ideas such as the Kyoto protocol and the Cap and Trade market don't seem to want to admit to.

The US has to drop their emissions as they are second behind China BUT they wont be able to do it and make it fit domestically if the Chinese keep right on as before. The morning paper's in my part of the world was full of stories of Greenpeace and others calling Canada a villian for the Oil Sands development in Alberta. We produce less than 2% of the World's CO2 and the oil sands might produce 1% of THAT and we are the villian when China is building many power plants EVERY YEAR burning soft lignite coal? Attacking those who have while ignoring the real pollution producers is nothing but western guilt designed to get us to pay money to the 3rd world to create a wealth distribution racket to make dictators rich, the libreals to feel better and do nothing to actually reduce pollution or CO2.

Just remember people, the company that most wanted the US to sign Kyoto and go into running a Carbon Market was ENRON, and we know how ethical THEY were......

[anthonyvop]

Considering that the Debate about Man-Made Global Warming is Over all they are doing in Copenhagen is a effort to install world wide socialism.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Considering that the Debate about Man-Made Global Warming is Over all they are doing in Copenhagen is a effort to install world wide socialism.

Yes...and no. THey don't even see it as that..at least some of them. It is in my opinion not going to help the world's pollution or Climate change problems unless everyone shares the pain. EVERYONE. That will stop the socialistic part of it if every nation does their own reductions independently. Of course...you and I both know this isn't what will happen if a few of them have their own way.

[leopard]

I stand by my post which you quoted. My explanation being that in HK, pollution was measured from the tops of some buildings where the air was less polluted than at ground level.

We can run into a park on the windward side of a factory and measure the pollution which would be minimal compared to the leeward side of the same factory. It all depends on who does the measuring. :rolleyes:
Not sure, if the pollutant supposedly from industry have high exhaust we can find pollutant around the exhaust bigger than at ground.

I think there is certain method in which high that measurements can be considered representative, it may require measurements carried out at various highs.

The most important thing how high our concern to eliminate the pollutant as a result of immense expansion of industry. We only need to pick the most representative figure, no need measurement too detail... :)

[Valve Bounce]

Not sure, if the pollutant supposedly from industry have high exhaust we can find pollutant around the exhaust bigger than at ground.

I think there is certain method in which high that measurements can be considered representative, it may require measurements carried out at various highs.

The most important thing how high our concern to eliminate the pollutant as a result of immense expansion of industry. We only need to pick the most representative figure, no need measurement too detail... :)

Or take the measurements which suit the policies of the government. Just like when we used to fudge Physics Prac calculations.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Or take the measurements which suit the policies of the government. Just like when we used to fudge Physics Prac calculations.

Cant even trust the scientific community. Just look at the East Anglia scandal.....

[anthonyvop]

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents. Photograph: Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

now that the debate about man-made global warming is over the "developing nations of the world" want to act quickly to steal money before everybody wakes up to the farce that it is.

[Wade91]

i dont think pollution is really a big issue

[Mark in Oshawa]

Wade, it really isn't...and it is.....depending on what you call pollution. Obama's administration wants to call CO2 a pollutant...never mind plants need it to grow.

[Rollo]

Doesn't that sound like a perfectly sensible solution to getting rid of the stuff then?

If we planted heaps and heaps of trees (which are pretty cheap to run), then wouldn't they act as a giant carbon sink, and we could get about achieving not only carbon reduction, but actual removal of carbon from the atmosphere, because it'd be locked in the trees?

I'll take the €100 million or so that they're wasting on this whole shebang. This Copenhagen battle is ovaa!

[Ranger]

Doesn't that sound like a perfectly sensible solution to getting rid of the stuff then?

If we planted heaps and heaps of trees (which are pretty cheap to run), then wouldn't they act as a giant carbon sink, and we could get about achieving not only carbon reduction, but actual removal of carbon from the atmosphere, because it'd be locked in the trees?

I'll take the €100 million or so that they're wasting on this whole shebang. This Copenhagen battle is ovaa!

That's what I was thinking too.

...but then you realise huge sections of fully developed 1000-year-old rainforest are being cut down as we speak. And no, they aren't replacable with lots of little spuds.

Self interest will also mean few countries will be dedicated enough to dedicate more area (needed to accomodate growing population, less so Australia than elsewhere) to simply plant trees. They would rather take that land and make some money from it.

[Valve Bounce]

That's what I was thinking too.

...but then you realise huge sections of fully developed 1000-year-old rainforest are being cut down as we speak. And no, they aren't replacable with lots of little spuds.

Self interest will also mean few countries will be dedicated enough to dedicate more area (needed to accomodate growing population, less so Australia than elsewhere) to simply plant trees. They would rather take that land and make some money from it.

OK! how about good crash crops which still takes in CO2 and replaces it with O2?