The shell games of the market speculators and politicians gives US the opportunity to substantiate our preconceived conclusions when those conclusions are to the benefit of the source.
And certainly the situation could be the result of ‘dumb luck.’ Long term economic planning is not a common talent in US politics currently… When Citi re-wrote the personal bankruptcy law several years ago my trust in politicians to protect the working class took a more decided downward slope.
Just a thought: the crust of this planet must be saturated with oil and gas (and coal). I think about all the billions of vehicles worldwide, cars, trucks, busses, delivery vehicles ,airplanes, boats, ships all burning up gallons and gallons of fuel everyday, not to mention all the plastic (food) containers that get used every day. Trillions of gallons every year being burned, this has been going on for many decades now and continues to grow every year. You’d think that at some point we’d start to run out of the stuff. I find it fascinating and a little scary too.
Remember ‘peak oil’? Folks were certain that we were heading down in oil production. Didn’t happen. It will someday, but with the huge shale oil resource, that day is much further off.
@EdFrugal No, we won’t be running out any time soon. The GAS reserves are actually many times the oil reserves, and we have so much coal it would take several hundred years to make a dint into it.
When all that stuff was formed the earth was hot and tropical. The CO2 content in the atmosphere was several times what it is now
It’s likely that we will have moved to renewables and green energy well before the fossil fuels are exhausted.
Well pollute our atmosphere to the point of not being able to breath before we run out of oil. Isn’t that a happy thought.
1.89 today
Well pollute our atmosphere to the point of not being able to breath before we run out of oil. Isn't that a happy thought.And yet, today's urban air is (likely) cleaner than at any time in recorded history...definitely cleaner than any time since the IR. All the "old" stone buildings in town are soot black...except those cleaned since 1980 or so...which show NO sign of re-darkening.
And yet, today's urban air is (likely) cleaner than at any time in recorded history
Cleaner - yes…but that doesn’t mean it’s CLEAN. And unless major strides are made to improve it more then air quality will go down do mainly to the increase number of cars on the road. More people mean more people driving and more vehicles.
Well, back up the calendar to the 1800s when cities like Chicago, New York, and LA were overrun with horses used as transportation.
Compare the air then to the air now; and omitting the part about watching where you place your feet discussion…
Everyone outside California should enjoy their blessings. To add to the high gas prices, the annual winter to summer blend shift is happening by this weekend in SoCal. News is commenting on a 30 cent jump in the next couple of days.
Cleaner - yes...but that doesn't mean it's CLEAN.**sigh** Some people are NEVER satisfied.
Wanna worry about something? Worry about land development. I could be the biggest polluter around (I’m not, but for instance) and at least when I die, I stop polluting and the Earth can recover. Bulldoze a forest for a housing development–that’s forever (or at least several centuries). Of course, harping on that would alienate the green’s core constituency–hypocritical bourgeois types. Much more “politic” to give them a pat on the back for separating out plastics, and buying a new Prius (see? car-related).
Ed Abbey was right (about target selection, not necessarily tactics): save wild land, use less stuff, and stop breeding so much. The rest will take care of itself.
Of course, harping on that would alienate the green's core constituency--hypocritical bourgeois types
What the heck are you drinking this morning? Where was I ever arguing about that? Get back to reality.
All I said is that while air quality has improved…it doesn’t mean that it’s clean. Especially in cities. Air quality could/should be a lot cleaner. It may be 10 times better then it was 100 or even 200 years ago…but it’s 100 times worse then it was 500 years ago.
. It may be 10 times better then it was 100 or even 200 years ago....but it's 100 times worse then it was 500 years ago.
50 years ago we were heating with peat, wood, and coal. London’s Thames was a cesspool. The Black Death was behind us, but not by much. Do you (chuckles) have an actual “source” for urban air in the 17th century being “100 times cleaner” than today? I didn’t think so.
Gotta call bull on this one Mike, unless you can substantiate your claims.
.Where was I ever arguing about that? Get back to reality."Reality" is that I respond to more than just your (completely unsubstantiated) claims. Just love exposing the greens as hypocrites, is all. "I'll take bourgeoios affectations for 100, Alex."
50 years ago we were heating with peat, wood, and coal. London's Thames was a cesspool.
Reading comprehension problem??? Where did I say Europe? We were talking about cities/areas in the US. How did you all of a sudden switch to Europe? Stay on topic…follow the conversation…and don’t argue against things I’m not even talking about.
So what were the sources of Pollution in the US 500 years ago? Indian campfires and a few settlements? Air quality was easily 100% better then it is now.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. If you were to extend your arms and forefingers and that represented the earth’s timeline, you could erase all of humankind’s history by clipping your fingernail.
The earth has been far, far warmer than anything predicted by the greenies, and far far colder. The African deserts were at one time green forests. And all on North America was at one time covered in ice. I remember in the '70s when the environmentalists were telling us to prepare for another ice age by the year 2000.
I’m in favor of and commend the EPA for cleaning up the billions of tons of industrial waste that was being dumped into our waterways and our air 50 years ago. But IMHO environmentalism has become a business and is out of control. I heard one environmentalist recently pontificating about CO2 and how it would contribute to the “greening of the earth” (his words) and how terrible that was. Really? The earth’s forests growing greater and greener is a bad thing?
Personally, it was 60F+ at my house yesterday and I loved it. That was a new record, but go back to my first sentence to see how meaningless that is in claiming we know what the earth is doing.
Sorry, but as much as I respect the early years’ accomplishments by eth EPA I believe it’s out of control to the point of being counterproductive.
Maybe the EPA has set its sights on replacing the Pentagon as the country’s greatest money pit.
Geez, Mike, I used the somewhat obvious example of Europe because I’m of European descent, not Native American. 500 years ago, that’s what “we” were polluting.
Obviously, if there’s (almost) no people, there’s (almost) no pollution. Thanks for stating the obvious! HOWEVER…since you insist on using depopulated North America…the natives heated with wood, and hadn’t (to my knowledge) invented the chimney. Outside air may (or may not) have been virginal, but they were probably breathing far more smoke (at least in the winter) than we do today.
By the way, I hear Antarctica’s pretty pristine…
But IMHO environmentalism has become a business and is out of control. I heard one environmentalist recently pontificating about CO2 and how it would contribute to the "greening of the earth" (his words) and how terrible that was. Really? The earth's forests growing greater and greener is a bad thing?
It’s a balance…always has been a balance. CO2 is at levels that Forests can’t absorb it all…And then there’s massive deforestation going on in China and South America. The business of anti-environmentalist is far far far far far bigger. Businesses and many people want to pollute without any regard for anything…If it costs them 1 dime more per year to pollute yes…they resist it.
Are SOME environmentalists extreme…sure they are…as I said it’s a balance. I for one want to have an environment that my future grand kids can enjoy. Do you really think we’re taking enough steps to ensure that? I don’t.
HOWEVER...since you *insist* on using depopulated North America
So you’re saying that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to achieve much cleaner air with the population we have? Maybe you’re right…but I’m not a defeatist. Won’t know until we try. Some areas we’ve made good strides…other areas not even close.
And by the way, I started this off by saying (emphasis added):
And yet, today's urban air is (likely) cleaner than at any time in recorded history...definitely cleaner than any time since the IR.
…which ought to have clued you in to the fact I was NOT referencing the Iroquois…because there weren’t “urban” areas to speak of here, 500 years ago, and because of the reference to the Industrial Revolution clearly is a Euro-centric reference. Ironically, weren’t YOU saying something about “reading comprehension?”