Cars cost more to pollute less, so we pay more? The world changes and now dinosaurs are extinct. It is not mans fault dinosaurs all died, or is it? Does the climate change make us all pay more for the good, or is it a way to permit CEO's to get more money? Here is something that no one cares to address.

---

Climate exchange or a way to get you to pay more to pollute less?

---

If the ships did not burn the toxic fuel what would become the crude? Maybe pump it back in the ground and create earthquakes again?

To me the biggest mess is the massive islands of plastic floating in our seas! Stop dumping trash in the oceans, all nations!!

quote:

Originally posted by Duane88:
To me the biggest mess is the massive islands of plastic floating in our seas! Stop dumping trash in the oceans, all nations!!

Litter is another topic, not exactly related to "Climate Change," but still pollution.

The topic of climate change, let alone mankind's contribution to it, is an extraordinarily complicated topic involving numerous processes we know of but do not fully understand, as well as unknown variables. It is far beyond the scope of this forum.

Suffice to say, global change is a given: several ice ages have proven that geologically. Obviously, we have experienced "global warming" ever since the last one. Also: mankind is changing the environment at a rate never seen before. Understanding the connection remains the trick.

Pollution is fairly easy to measure and trace to mankind. The effects again depend on the pollutant, the background normal level and the change due to mankind's contribution. The effects are not as easy to understand and measure.

So it is for groundwater, which we contaminate/extract at alarming rates. The great western aquifer running from the Canadian border to the Gulf is dropping 30 ft a year. The mighty Colorado, which carved the Grand Canyon, does not make it to the ocean.

Plastics at sea, ground pollution, water pollution, air pollution, and wasting of resources is what we humans do, there is no doubt about that.

As to the cost, do we mean personal cost in terms of our life quality, the environmental cost, the financial cost, effect on the economy and jobs, or the future of same, or scarcity of resources?

Our insatiable demand for energy drives much of our activity. Chemical energy sources have evolved but remain our worst offenders, bringing the carbon cycle into the mess, as well as mineral ash wastes. Investments in change here appear worthwhile to me. (Don't even get me started on "clean coal")

Personally, it doesn't matter whether we have global warming, are destroying ozone, or making acid rain, I can't personally sense these. Just visit Los Angeles on a hot summer day, or Denver. Compare to what it was 30 years ago. That's enough to make me want to avoid air pollution. Look at Lake Erie, dead in the 70's. The Love Canal caught fire... You can catch jumbo walleyes there now.

In a sense these topics ARE all related topics by their connection to man's carelessness. They all share a negative impact on the world around us. Why bear the cost of further destruction when we know how to do it better?

Steve: EXCELLENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Carl

Steve thanks for your hard copy here on Barthmobile.com! You and I have chatted over the years about the world we live in. Steve, you spoke the same comments. It is good to have the comments written down here. Most times I cannot comprehend as fast as you speak, but with written comments, it is easy to go back an read again. Thank you for writing your comments.

quote:

Why bear the cost of further destruction when we know how to do it better?

That is the fundamental question.