Comments on: Comments on 8701

Post number 8701

techgnollogic — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:23:40 -0800

Our environment is improving. Good work, guys. Favorite quote: "Cleaner fuels and clampdowns on emissions mean the last time sulfur dioxide emissions in London were so low was in the 16th century. "

By: Postroad

Postroad — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:27:09 -0800

This is great news for sensible people and we always thought the Lefties were full of beans. Now if they could tell this exciting news to the penguins, which were just this week reported as beginning to disappear because of harm to the environment, all would be ok and we would all be back in the Garden of Eden, with two naked humans and a talking snake and a tree filled with apples--and a fig tree or bush for playing dress-ups.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:28:52 -0800

hooray!

By: rebeccablood

rebeccablood — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:43:44 -0800

why does it have to be either/or? the improvements that have been made have been through conscious effort (and often regulation) on the part of people who care. this guy acknowledges that some things are getting worse, just not at the rate others claim. even if you take his claims at face value, we still need to work to stop the damage being done, and reverse it wherever we can. yay! for the good news. let's see what worked and build on that. and let's get cracking on the rest of the problems that still exist. - rcb

By: moz

moz — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:46:19 -0800

hooray! vague studies referenced! UN figures cited in the smallest detail! and don't forget the all-knowing lomborg! i'm totally convinced.

By: moz

moz — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:50:43 -0800

although i did find something to confirm the claim that deforestation isn't so bad.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:56:55 -0800

hooray! vague studies referenced! UN figures cited in the smallest detail! and don't forget the all-knowing lomborg! i'm totally convinced. what do you expect, a 20 page bibliography? if you e-mailed them, I'm sure they would provide you with adequate references.

By: moz

moz — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:16:14 -0800

sorry mcs, i might have sounded a bit more harsher than i meant to be. i guess i'm always kind of skeptical when an article says, hey you know all that stuff you've believed for a long time? well a lot of it's untrue! i'm not saying it's not possible, i'm just saying i'm skeptical.

By: th3ph17

th3ph17 — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:22:28 -0800

sometimes info and stats like that come out with a lot of spin on them, so that people will relax and think everything is ok, rather than getting the correct message of, "congrats, we made an improvement, get back to work." so, i can see why moz would be skeptical. especially if stuff like this ends up in some bush[or other] speech about reducing enviromental protections because they aren't needed. with that said...i agree with rebecca, yay! for the good news. It is significant that people can impact something positively.

By: frykitty

frykitty — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:22:42 -0800

If it's true, it's fantastic--but it came about because of the scare-mongering he decries. Perhaps it's time for a different tactic, but it certainly isn't time to stop and sit on our laurels. That's what I'm most afraid of: that anti-environmentalists will use this as ammunition. That's ridiculous. Just because we're doing better doesn't mean we now have carte blanche. It does mean we're getting a bit wiser, and that is gratifying.

By: dr. zoidberg

dr. zoidberg — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:11:06 -0800

Firstly, I hate the title of this article, which implies that there's nothing to worry about environmentally.

The reason that we have improved or stopped some environmental problems is that, as rebeccablood wisely pointed out, people woke up and finally decided to do something about them. That's absolutely fantastic. What bothers me about this guy is the implication that environmental problems never existed to begin with. Some of the conclusions are rather spurious. Sure, Buffalo, Grizzly Bears and California Condors have been saved from extinction, for the time being, but it's unlikely that Americans will ever see one in their backyards, living in the wild as they were meant to do. Plenty of old growth forests are still being chopped down. You get the idea.

As we all know, if you can find one person to state one opinion, you can find another person to state the exact opposite. The truth usually lies somewhere in between.

By: CRS

CRS — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:22:56 -0800

I agree with you there, dr. zoidberg. For instance, I believe that the whole global-warming thing is a bunch of scare-mongering mumbo jumbo based on bad science. Lots of people here disagree with me. And while I love the idea of grizzlies still living in the wild, I'd really hate to see one in my backyard. My only problem with the whole environmental movement is the extremes to which it's been taken. I am a person who has always loved the outdoors and would like to do something to support its preservation. Unfortunately, most of the environmental groups take protecting the environment to extremes in my opinion. This leaves me with nobody to support except Ducks Unlimited and the TPWD. I wish there was a group out there that wanted to do something to protect the environment without going overboard.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:25:06 -0800

While the planet as a whole may not be getting any healthier, they are certainly right about London. London has come along in leaps and bounds in regards to pollution. No longer is there constant smog as in the early 1900's, and even car emissions are down on 1980, due to the improvements in cars and petrol itself (many central London gas stations ONLY sell 'super' now). So, the cities and developed nations might be getting cleaner.. but the developing ones are not.

By: rodii

rodii — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:37:36 -0800

As we all know, if you can find one person to state one opinion, you can find another person to state the exact opposite. That is just completely false.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:17:12 -0800

It's entirely true.

By: Espoo2

Espoo2 — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 20:31:14 -0800

I'd say its somewhere in the middle.

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 22:44:05 -0800

moz: although i did find something to confirm the claim that deforestation isn't so bad.

Just to clarify: that link to the Earth Observing System doesn't suggest that deforestation isn't as bad as once thought; rather it explains that earlier UN reports were highly inaccurate due to subjective and varying claims of what constitutes a "forest" by countless different national agencies around the world. It claims that with satellite systems we'd have the ability to tell objectively the level of [de]forestation on a global level more accurately than ever before. The opening line:

Estimates of deforestation that are significantly better than those currently used by the United Nations can be developed...

The estimates are significantly better- read: Accurate and Precise- not the deforestation itself.