| SecondWar said: @Kasz216 (not quoting you as I to conserve space) Fair point that my argument was lacking depth. The mountains of waste that I was referring to that are produced every year are harmful as they contain a high level of substances that do not occur naturally in the planet's eco-system. Waste products that occur in nature (e.g. C02 and excrement) are re-used in other parts of the ecosystem. However, waste materials produced by humans contain harmful toxins and pollutant that the ecosystem is able to cope with. CFCs that used to be released by fridges (I don't know if they still are or not) have damaged the ozone layer, and due to the way they react with ozone, still exist after the reaction and are able to continue degrading the layer continually. Plastics, which do not biodegradable and make up a large portion of all waste that is discarded, simply break down into smaller and smaller pieces. There is actually a beach in the pacific that has had so much plastic refuse washed up on it the rock sand has been covered in a layer of plastic sand, to create a plastic beach. Plastic litter can be blow into the environment very easily and animals can easily mistake it for food. Theres a reason you don't eat crisp packets and sweet wrappers, and its the same for any other animal. I agree that it may not be about stopping global warming, but in order to be able to cope with its effects will require time to change and do things. And allowing the process to speed up is only going to make things worse. |
A lot of economists would actually disagree.
Most green iniatives cost jobs, hence stuff like why obama is scraping the smog rules.
Economists would argue that by maximizing economic activity and growth now, we will be able to better afford the changes needed... and geoengineering technology would likely advance faster.
VS slower economics making changes harder... and the technologies meant to increase... actually end up worse off.
The most effective way of stopping global warming doesn't really have anything to do with this, however... it's the least likely thing to happen.
Convince most of the world to become vegetatrians.
The biggest part of most peoples poluting isn't the gas in their car, or their heat, or whatever... it's how much meat they eat.
It's just easier to convince people to drive a different kind of car because the car drives the same way and there are other political benefits to alternate fuels.
Hard as hell to convince most people to give up meat.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839995,00.html
