global warming vs pollution

[hammock monkey]

One point made at the RM talk recently that is snowballing in my mind is the idea that the 'carbon footprint' / global warming problem is no way near as big a deal as the pollution issue.
Its true that rising seas etc is a problem, no doubt about it, but if they do rise we can still live happily ever after (convieniently ignoring the issues such as reduced salinity etc)
but if the water becomes polluted, then the level wont matter... its game over for us, or at least the game isnt so great any more.
its the kind of subject i can hardly stand to think about because its too hard to imagine how bad things could be, but my point is that there's too much media attention given to a neat sounding issue 'carbon footprint' and pollution has kind of become a secondary problem....not so.
i'm at the point where i'm kind of ignoring the carbon stuff, its the levels of pollution that will poison our seas, land and rivers and ultimately all life that is ringing alarm bells with me.
nightmare. cant really escape it either.... it inspires me to make an effort anyway. i dont care if the products i buy do cost more, i eat from the garden as much as possible in the summer and do my best. fingers crossed the kids in school now will have the issue hammered into them so much that they'll actually do summat about it.
The concept of the 'green pound' is gaining momentum, gives a bit of hope anyway

 

[gregorach]

Actually, on the pollution front things are now better than they have been (in this country anyway) for a couple of hundred years. We're moving in the right direction there. However, there's a substatial risk that rising CO2 levels will change ocean chemistry sufficiently to wipe out many of the micro-organisms that the oceanic food web depends on.

As for us all living happily ever after, tell that to the 2 billion people who are totally dependant on shrinking mountain glaciers for drinking water and irrigation.

 

[hammock monkey]

it maybe that pollution is reduced in this country in the relative short term, but worldwide, it is not the case.
I'm saying that global warming is obviously a huge issue - but people can migrate when it becomes neccesary, and i'm sure it will unfortunately.

if there's no-where to go there are problems.

i'm saying that pollution should be the number one worry, not global warming.

 

[EdS]

global warming (or man's increasing of it) is the result pollution by green gases. The 2 or very much linked.

 

[anthonyyy]

Generall pollution is declining. The pollutants causing global warming are increasing.

 

[gregorach]

[...] but people can migrate when it becomes neccesary, and i'm sure it will unfortunately.[...]

Where to? Mars? Where are the polar bears, or the capercaillie, or the mountain hare going to migrate to?

 

[Joseph]

The human population is around 6 billion and rising. People alrady migrate to escape famine, persecution and lower standards of living. The concept that rising seas will just mean people move to the next bit of land does not work. That is a longer term problem in the immediate 50 to 100 years or less melting glaciers, changes in weather will results in increasing aridity. In a world were water is already a limited resource and clean drinking water is the exception too many and not the rule this is going to result in increasing problems. That is an immediate impact to us, watering the huge monocutlures of crops reliant on great amounts of water is another. Pollution is as already been mentioned intimately linked with global warming. The by products of coal, gas and other fossil fuelled power generation methods are in themselves huge polluters, acid rain is a classic example of acidification of atmospheric water by nitrogen oxide. Both issues need to be addressed. If by pollution you mean things such a toxic mine run offs, the materials used in manufacture of the disposable electronic goods with already planned obsolescence to meet consumerist demand then this is of course a problem. The ocean is the greatest biome and photosynthetic diatoms living there sequester huge amounts of carbon dioxide. How these will be affected is unsure. Changing temperature of the water changes its "viscosity" for want of a better term. Will this mean these diatoms will not be able to adapt and die or become more efficient and sequester more carbon is unsure. But they and other phytoplankton are the base of the ecosystem and its food webs such as the plants are on land.

Both issues are complex and result in changes. The potential global catastrophe of both is present and currently unstoppable it seems to me. With a population more concerned with mobile phone upgrades and celebrity big brother there is little hope. There are too many people in the world wanting a standard of living such as ours, and why shouldn;t they? The consequence of this is they would all need as much energy as we use and cause as much damage. Increasing habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity and unsustainable farming practices are other issues again linked with the aforementioned.

One or the other cannot be ignored all are linked.

 

[JimJam]

hi guys

i totally agree with what you are saying hammock monkey. I've thought of several ways the ideas are probably already out there but i havnt heard a thing first of car emissions could be stored withen the car to stop co2 emissions the gases could then be store in a warehouse and be frozen until they become a solid then every 5 yrs a rocket could be launched and fire the frozen cubes of into space. next rubbish that is not recycable could be taken to a special factory and burnt but the resulting gases would be caught between the factory and some kind of sheild (the resulting gases would mostly be methane and carbon dioxide then following the other processes frozen and flown of into space were it could be left unharmed

well that was a bit of a ramble

thx

jimjam

 

[madrussian]

The best way to reduce carbon emissions was invented long ago. Its inexpensive, green, very low maintenance, consumes very little energy and has tons of other benefits. Here is picture of it:

We just need to build more of them.

 

[locum76]

beautifully stated joseph.

the human population is huge and growing and we produce a lot of waste. this is unsustainable whatever we try and do about it.

loc

 

[Joseph]

It's am awful truth but one which will change. Evolutionary history shows mass extinctions at periods of climate and geographic change. One day the records may show a period of accelerated anthropogenic extinction just after the 19th century. Extinction or our serious reduction as a species would certainly mean a drop in carbon dioxide. The fossil record shows that although animal diversity has fluctuated and there have been many of extinctions, plant diversity has mostly increased, till now of course. Good times. Planting trees wold be ace but of course this makes no money unless used as a crop and makes less money than many alternative crops (money is needed to elicit change it seems). Silviculture (growing trees as a timber crop) has impacts on local biodiversity. It is thought the old growth trees, not present in such systems, with associated lichen and fungal biota are very much needed for everything else. Fungi are very important nutrient cyclers. It is a question of using our knowledge. Sustainable logging under some circumstances is possible. Agroforestry (crops and trees together) are an elegant solution. Crops such as tea and many spices grow better in shade. Growing these together means two sources of income the crop and timber in the long term. Canopy farming (finding something that grows in the canopy (eg many orchids) that we need (or more likely want) and utilising it, the trees are grown as a substrate and could be used for timber later) is beginning to be researched from a scientific standpoint. All these things however will not stop the expansion and subsequent destruction which is a product of globalisation and population growth. Our present standard of living is a product of such things. What do you prefer tescos finest organic imported raspberries in winter or what is locally in season here? I have consumed a pizza tonight made in germany with brazillian beef, talk about food miles. I need to change my mind set and hope to do this when I have my own home and garden. Good times.

Joe.

 

[hammock monkey]

Thanks Joeseph, as loc said, beautifully put.

madrussian, where can i get one of those things? tried ebay, i've heard that Amazon has a few of them left...?




ive said it before, and i'll say it again, what we need is a good old fashioned plague.

 

[gregorach]

[...] first of car emissions could be stored withen the car to stop co2 emissions the gases could then be store in a warehouse and be frozen until they become a solid then every 5 yrs a rocket could be launched and fire the frozen cubes of into space. next rubbish that is not recycable could be taken to a special factory and burnt but the resulting gases would be caught between the factory and some kind of sheild (the resulting gases would mostly be methane and carbon dioxide then following the other processes frozen and flown of into space were it could be left unharmed[...]

And how much energy would that take, and where would that energy come from? (Bearing in mind that we in the UK alone are emitting about 558 million tonnes of CO2 per annum.) Not to mention the fact that you'd be shooting our oxygen into space along with the carbon...

 

[sandsnakes]

There is a solution and here it is

www.rainforestsaver.org


Rainforest Saver

The destructive effects of intensive slash-and-burn techniques are greater than those of logging on the loss of rainforest. Slash-and-burn destroys the possibility of regeneration. In the past it worked reasonably well with fallow periods of perhaps 12-20 years, but today it is leading to the remorseless destruction of both primary and secondary rainforest, while also failing to provide either food security or income to around 300 million subsistence farmers.

Almost two decades of research into alley cropping with Inga trees have found effective and alternative techniques which will enable sustainable farming on the degraded former rainforest soils, providing the farmers with both food security and cash crops without exposing them to debt or an intolerable workload, and without the need to cut down more rainforest.

A more ambitious and longer term project is the regeneration of the biological corridor connecting the different bits of surviving rainforest in and around the Pico Bonito park. A matrix of Inga trees can be used to smother the weeds and support the growth of other rainforest trees planted strategically among them. The larger trees eventually grow above the Inga. This is a large scale project that will require substantial funding.

By sunstantial funding they mean about a million pouns, peanuts really.


Anyway take a look

Sandsnakes

Rod-the-elder

 

[hammock monkey]

Ive been looking for a charity to build and auction a fully sustainably sourced guitar for - hopefully at least one per year... i need to look into it a bit further, but think i may have found it in rainforestsaver,
thanks Sandsnakes

the world land trust also worth a look.

its hard to know what charity to help when you get the opprtunity, small/ direct things like Gearing up for Gorillas where 100% of what you send goes to the rangers on the frontline (literally), or a huge body that have a big voice - but you cant help wonder where the money goes.

 

[sandsnakes]

What say you all about reccomending this as a link to Bushcraft UK?

More than most we see the impact of environmental change on a small scale. Lets fight back and create a sustainable change.

Sandsnakes

 

[Dexter]

One of the most alarming thoughts with regards to all of this is that for the last seventy or so years, (since the so called 'green revolution') we have been pouring petroleum and natural gas derived fertilisers and pesticides onto the land. Although this has resulted is something like a 200% increase in output, it has led is into a false sense of how many people this planet can support. Estimates of how many humans this planet can support using only energy derived from the sun (directly or indirectly and not including fossil fuels) are something in the region of 3-4 billion. Our obsession with fossil fuels may thus be leading us into a population overshoot of some 4 or 5 billion. When we reach the peak in global oil production those pesticides and fertilisers will rocket in price as global demand continues its rise. Unfortunately a return to natural products will be difficult as we have effectively turned most of our arable land into a sponge, depleted of its natural micro organisms.
An additional problem with rising sea levels is that most of the Earth's fertile land is near the cost which will only enhance the problem. Check out some interesting reading at

www.peakoil.net

 

[dave k]

I heard somewhere that the ocean is the biggest provider of oxygen in the planet, far more than the rainforests and all the tree's. It's because of all the green-algae and plant-life that lives in the very large surface area's.

although I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong

tree's are not really a very good solution - all you do is lock away the co2 for 100/200 years, then it's released again. it's sort of like burying nuclear waste - at somepoint it's going to surface again.

 

[gregorach]

I heard somewhere that the ocean is the biggest provider of oxygen in the planet, far more than the rainforests and all the tree's. It's because of all the green-algae and plant-life that lives in the very large surface area's.

although I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong

As far as I know, you're right.

tree's are not really a very good solution - all you do is lock away the co2 for 100/200 years, then it's released again. it's sort of like burying nuclear waste - at somepoint it's going to surface again.

Yep, I reckon you're right there too. The problem is that we've taken lots of carbon that was in long-term geological storage and dumped it back into the atmosphere. It's all about boundaries and timescales...

 

[madrussian]

If memory serves me I believe 50% of our oxygen is produced by photoplankton in the ocean. The remaining from trees especially rain forest. Though some co2 may be locked in trees not all. Otherwise we would run out of oxygen. Right?