Having quite the 'green' discussion at the moment.
Leaders seem to be USA and China.
Any other opinions out there and why?
Also do you think we can reverse the effects in time for it to make a significant difference to our planet?
Carbon is the stuff of life. Green things die without it.
The earth didn't die when the Great Plains were teaming with the largest herd of animals the planet has ever known and the earth didn't die when they were slaughtered in a few years and left to rot.
Their farts didn't do it and their miasma didn't do it.
The great volcanoes have not done it.
I think the One Worldists will have to find another religion to sell to the sheep in order to bring them quietly to the slaughter.
Water is the stuff of life, too, but if you drink too much, too fast you die.
When 60 million bison were roaming the planet, they were roaming on native prairie, which is one of the most effective carbon sinks known to man. Now 99% of the tallgrass prairie, 60-80 percent of the midgrass prairie, and 40-60% of the shortgrass prairie have been plowed up, paved over, or otherwise destroyed. Pavement is not a carbon sink and farm fields are carbon sources. It is therefore ridiculous to claim that the farts of 60 million bison roaming intact native prairie would have the same effect as the farts of 60 million cattle fattening in feedlots (bare dirt is not a carbon sink either) on corn shipped in from across the county (releasing more carbon), or even across the country.
Moreover, the conversion of prairie to plowland following the destruction of the bison was one of the factors that raised atmospheric CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels of about 275-280 ppm in the mid 18th century to about 300 ppm in 1900.
Finally, volcanoes produce a typical min-max range of 65-319 million tons of CO2 per year, depending on the level of activity, compared to approximately 30 billion tons of CO2 per year from fossil fuel burning.
Volcanoes were major drivers of climate change at several points in the distant past, but that was during periods of much greater activity, as well as other significant differences, and the results, from a human perspective, were not necessarily pretty. They're one of the suspects in the biggest mass extinction ever, which wiped out 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates, and contributed to CO2 levels of about 1800 ppm in the Jurassic, a period in which much of what is now the continental United States was under water because there were no ice caps to speak of and sea levels were dramatically higher.
So, wrong on all counts. Next?
"Also do you think we can reverse the effects"
Not as long as corporate capitalists rule the world.
Can you expand on that a little?
Big Industries,Corporates etc..
Personally I dont think we(humans) care enough.
Times running out and still we produce more to pollute.
Maybe a little. Nature is conservative. It does not produce excess and profit. It only replicates itself infinitely. Excess and profit would be ok except it takes something to make something like resources, say the destruction of the rain forests. The primary function of corporations is to make profits for stockholders which is ever progressive more riches. What would be necessary is political and economic systems like nature, infinite.
"I think the One Worldists will have to find another religion to sell to the sheep in order to bring them quietly to the slaughter." Think they found it. It is called Fukushima.
China's coal fired power plants out pollute all of Japan's nuclear reactors, damaged or not.
China, USA and India (respectively) are the three biggest by a fair way - though in fairness they are also the three biggest by population.
A more pertinent question is to ask who are the biggest producers per capita:
http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorM … bd=0$inds=
The graph is interactive and shows CO2 oer capite vs GDP/capita on logerithmic scales - it's fun; have a play with it - press play in the bottom left to run it from the 19th century etc. Good site all round, this one.
It is cool Wags-My student son is impressed.
Get him to have a look at some of the other variables and have a play with them - life expectency vs wealth etc. Great stats - all from the UN.
superwags... the interactive per capita link is great find. Good job. Bookmarked.
I think slowing carbon production can take on a huge extreme. I think it's good when there are talks of reducing water pollution, planting more trees, and organic farming. The problems come in when the population control fans open their mouths.
There are people like Bill Gates (responsible for far more energy expenditure than average), who want to reduce the world's population. It's not the population that's the problem, it's the high ups wanting to control everyone else.
by Gordon Hamilton 8 years ago
Which country produces the best red wine in the world?A few days ago, I read a journalistic article about red wine producing countries around the world and the merits of each nation's offerings. It was in most respects very well written. When I got to the end, however, I was dumbfounded to realise...
by GlenR 8 months ago
by Someblogs 5 years ago
Do we actually care about the environment????We talk about environment and going green but how many of us actually look at our carbon footprint and work on minimising it???
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|