| Pemalite said: Everything gets toxic, even Oxygen, it all comes down to it's particular concentration levels, so no. It's not just "opinion". |
The term you're looking for here I believe is "lethal concentration" and we're far away from that ... (CO2 is only starts being problematic at concentrations above 2000 ppm and we're currently only just over 400 ppm)
I tackled the idea of pollution being harmful from both a legal and a medical perspective so what's next ?
| Pemalite said:
That is more to do with healthcare than improved environments though. |
Industrialization leads to improved healthcare and there's a very high correlation between how industrialized a nation is and the quality of their healthcare ...
| Pemalite said:
I swear you ignored the evidence I provided earlier. The sea levels rise by about 2.3mm per year and sometimes it will increase by up-to 11.6mm a year. |
I didn't ignore the evidence you provided, I argued your concerns behind it ...
The sea level rise over time isn't all that significant. We're pretty much headed for a rise of ~0.5-0.83m by the end of this century which is OVER 80 YEARS away ...
Also as far as 10's of millions of people been displaced why do you assume that the people who live on those places most at risk currently will stay at the same place for over 80 years ? They'll have decades to create new settlements ...
| Pemalite said:
We can only expect water treatment to happen in developed nations that can afford such expensive approaches.
Clearly those water treatment facilities you promote are doing fuck all. |
@Bold On the contrary I'd argue otherwise according to WHO data. The amount of drinkable water is not a good measure of water quality. You'd want to take a look at waterborne illnesses ...
There's a strong positive correlation between industrialization and per capita waterborne illnesses. While China may not be perfect in it's drinking water, their treatment facilities do make a real difference in keeping their citizen's drinking water safe as much as possible while South Asia and Africa by comparison have vastly higher waterborne related illnesses per capita ...
It's why India should model themselves after China if they want their people to contract waterborne illnesses ~38x less likely than they do now ...
| Pemalite said:
I did provide evidence about the extent of deaths from pollution prior. But if you are going to demand evidence for my claims, I am going to expect it from you going forth. |
It should be noted that WHO data regarding "death from air pollution" is mostly 'extrapolated' data in this case rather than 'reported' data ...
When we look at the DALYs attributable to ambient air pollution, it's nowhere scary as you would put it. If we take China for an example they have a DALY of 1830 years per 100000 people and they have a life expectancy of 76.25 years. If they had no air pollution then it get's increased to a whopping 76.27 years which doesn't matter all that much!
For comparison China had a life expectancy of under 45 years in the 1960s which was just before they started mass industrializing. That's 30 additional years of life expectancy they've gained due to industrialization even if we factor in the air pollution as well!
@Bold If more pollution leads to a payoff in more industrialization then sure why not ? The numbers are at my side ...
| Pemalite said:
Erm... Green energy can be cheaper and more reliable anyway.
Besides, being "green" doesn't mean getting rid of coal, diesel or gas power generation anyway, I think that is ultimately the part you don't understand, being green does not and has not ever meant getting rid of all industrialization. |
Geothermal and hydropower are at near maximum capacity. Solar thermal energy may need consistent supply of water and there's distribution issues since the power transferred over long lines are lost. Nuclear power is high maintenance and has very long lead times so what's stopping them from truly proliferating is the fact that current reactor designs needs active water cooling which is very high pressure currently ...
At most from these sources which are geothermal, hydro, nuclear, and wind you could optimistically meet roughly 50% of the energy demands among the public so it's not worth getting on the bad side of an electric company ...
| Pemalite said:
The budget will balance out in the long term. - The Health System here is universal, so the Taxpayer picks up the tab, healthier environments, less healthcare costs. |
CCS isn't a silver bullet. Not all plants can be located close to a storage location so for many out there CCS isn't an option ...
| Pemalite said:
Nah. |
Given all that has happened so far the industrialists remains unconvinced with the solutions proposed by the greens thus they should "split up" and seek "their own idea of progress" ...
Industrialization at the expense of more pollution is the prevailing view of the world in the foreseeable future and has been for over a hundred years ...
