Count Bleck wrote:It should be obvious...this is just the government wanting more money.
And if the planet is really heating up, then why did we have one of the worst winters in the worlds history in parts of the world? Here in Seattle we had the biggest and most avalanches and biggest snow fall we've ever had in the mountains. If global warming was true, then shouldnt the opposite be happening?
Lyude77 wrote:I don't really think that global warming is much of an issue. I just think we should be doing the stuff that would reduce global warming anyway, because whether it's correct or not, the steps we take to protect the environment would be good for us. That's just what I think.
SirKent wrote:we very much have the power to destroy ourselves, or at least a very large chunk of us. We can make our home inhospitable to human life.
Animals venting themselves is a natural occurrence that is biologically necessary. Us driving around in SUVs and HUMMERs isn't. We can live perfectly fine without that.
As the temperature climbs, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere climb as well. Scientists can measure the amount of CO2 from thousands of years ago using ice core samples, and it shows that we're at about the same level of CO2 in the atmosphere (and thus temperature) as the Earth was at prior to the last ice age.
I don't know how much anyone else cares about the animal population, but for the first time in recorded history, we're seeing polar bears drown because there is so little ice in the Arctic during the summer. If the polar bear population drops, the population of other animals (seals, for example) will be allowed to climb. These animals are then allowed to over hunt/graze, diminishing the populations of other species, which in turn affects whatever else relates to them and so on and so forth.
So, which sounds worse? Being subjected to the horrors of green cars and alternative fuels, or complete and utter chaos? Those are the stakes. That's what your opinions risk.
Evidence of the effects of chronic air pollution on the brain comes from several
studies performed in Mexico. Researchers compared the brains of accidental death
victims, both adults and children, from cities with highly polluted ambient air versus
cities with relatively clean air. Similar studies were performed on healthy domestic
dogs. The more polluted cities typically had ozone and particulate matter levels
above our national ambient air quality standards. The results of these studies
showed that levels of inflammatory markers and abnormal protein deposits were
higher in the brain tissue of those from the highly-polluted versus the relatively
clean cities. Both of these changes resemble those that typically precede
Alzheimer’s disease. However, these changes do not necessarily imply the onset of
Numerous scientific studies have linked these pollutants to lung cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, and early death as well as increased hospitalizations for breathing problems. Research also shows that ozone air pollution – or smog – may actually cause asthma in otherwise healthy children.
Fortunately, some planners now realise that we really need to do something. Many cities, such as Portland and Toronto are putting in greenbelts that stop the expansion of cities outward and force intensification. It's pretty much been proven that with safe design elements, high-density planning with mix-use can create an economically strong city with a great sense of place and varying culture.
If we learn to live cleaner lives, the environment will surely benefit.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users