Features

The One and Only... · #1

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...tory_ID=718860

Zhukov · #2

Better or worse I still think more than enough people are starving.

ranxer · #3

worse..

my town just lost funding for several pollution measuring sites.. the tactic seems to be if no one tests the water it must be ok

Jeanette X · #4

That depends...worse compared to what time period?

Anonymous · #5

I did like how the article infers that money is more important than preserving the environment. Not that I'd expect less from a site called economist.com.

The One and Only... · #6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

That depends...worse compared to what time period?

As in, is it progressively getting worse.

I doubt that. Particularly since our air is the cleanest since sometime in the 1500's.

ziggytrix · #7

Unless you live in LA :P

Jeanette X · #8

I don't know how one could qualitatively measure the state of the entire environment... :/

mburbank · #9

The best since the fifteen hundreds? Can you share the method by which that bizarre statement was arrived at? Using what research, best where, meaning what by 'best'? I know your all hard for economics, but what science are you refering to here? I have never, never heard any such claim, ever.

The One and Only... · #10

You can't even read an article when I post it, can you?

"Today, air is cleaner than it has been since 1585."

Here is another article by the same person which provides more information on air pollution: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...239182,00.html. In it, he boasts this:

"We have data for air pollution in London since 1585, estimated from coal imports till 1935 and adjusted to measured pollution from the 1920s till today. This shows how levels of smoke and sulphur pollution increased dramatically over the 300 years from 1585, reaching a maximum in the late 19th century, only to have dropped even faster ever since, such that the levels of the 1980s and1990s were below the levels of the late 16th century. And despite increasing traffic, particulate emissions in the UK are expected to decrease over the next 10 years by 30%. Smoke and particles are probably by far the most dangerous pollutant, and London's air has not been so free of them since the middle ages."

I'll give you two good reasons to give it some merit: one, the article is hosted by the The Economist and The Guardian. Those are fairly respected magazines. Two, the guy who is writing this article used to be a left-wing environmentalist. After being beaten to a pulp in a debate with Julian Simon, his views drastically changed.

mburbank · #11

I know it was in your article. It's unsuported. An economoist saying

"Today, air is cleaner than it has been since 1585." is of absoluetly zero imperical worth.

"Today, the air has more monkey liver in it than it has since 1585."
I said that. Feel free to quote me as if it means something.

Your second argument shows you either don't understand science or as usual made a 'provocative' statement you knew was virtually without merit because in some way you think it makes you charming instead of a weiner.

At very, very best ( and this is conceding an awful lot, since your author doesn't bother to site his sources) that over London, a population center that for a great deal of it's history relied solely on burning coal for energy (since forests have been depleted around London since well before the fifteenth century) has less coal related pollutants in it than today. You extrapolate London to everywhere, which is something I doubt even this idiot would ever think of doing, and London may well be the worst city on earth (becuase of it's age and reliance on coal) on the planet to make this comparison based on. Try the same study in Beijing, LA, Moscow, Tokyo or anywhere else and then get back to me. The key faulty phrase? "adjusted to measured pollution". What does he mean? Adjusted per capita to relative population? That could mean that the air is actually dirtier today, there are just more people. Adjusted for other pollutants? Whichh ones? "Estimated from coal imports" is also not empirical, although it's a good place to start an argument. It's what scientists would call a secondary indicator and it's okay for a reason to set up experiments. It doesn't 'show' anything about smoke or sulphur, it indicates a good reason to look for it. It's like saying purchase records from Macdoanlds show obesity.

Rabid left wingers who convert to rabid right wingers are not any reason to view their science seriously. My guess? This guys science was crap when he was a left winger, becuase it's certainly crap now.

I think you site crap like this under the guise of "I just wannted to make you think" which is a very convenient way of hiding your extreme credulity.

The One and Only... · #12

First of all, this guy isn't an economist. He's an environmentalist and statistician.

Second, are all his sources on air pollution from his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, are listed here. Compare the List of Figures and appropriate pages to the pages on air pollution, and you will see quite a bit of backed-up, verifiable, research.

mburbank · #13

I have to go pick up my daughter at school, but eventually I will check out this guy and see if he's the total quack I'm guessing he is or if you merely extrapolated his material to mean things it doesn't.

The bit you presented is crap science and the way you interpretted it was less than crap science, in that there was no science at all.

The One and Only... · #14

How are facts "crap science"?

ranxer · #15

"facts"

ItalianStereotype · #16

"ranxer"

kahljorn · #17

"Monochromatic-intentionless-deviation of standard Oysterial protocal"

ranxer · #18

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...6482/story.htm

Quote:

In a 45-page report on the continent's electricity market, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a Montreal-based agency created under the North American Free Trade Agreement, said power companies cut expenditures on energy efficiency measures to $1.4 billion in 1999 from $2.4 billion in 1995.
That added to air pollution in the United States, Canada and Mexico, which hurts both the environment and human health, the agency said.

Power companies made the cuts largely because of the restructuring of the electricity industry, which includes the privatization of public utilities, the commission said.

"Much of the electricity demand growth during this period could have been significantly moderated by energy efficiency measures, thus avoiding the associated air pollution and other environmental impacts, had these programs not been left to languish under restructuring," the report said.

The study came just two days after the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush said it would relax costly air pollution rules when utilities are repaired or expanded. The move triggered a storm of protest from environmental groups, who warned that would increase air pollution and worsen respiratory ailments such as asthma.

the above is a little old but bush has a long record of easing pollution restrictions to solve short term budget problems.. just more examples that corporations have more rights than the people who suffer under thier practices.

mburbank · #19

Crap Science: Using questionable records of coal imports to extrapolate air quality. If he did chemical analysis of soot deposits in soil, middens and old buildings he be a lot closer to where he might wantg to get.

No science: Creating a thread called "The Environment Better or Worse when the ONLY piece of crap science even remotely relaated to the thesis of the article regards a highly questionable guess at air qulaity within the city limmits of London.

Science is rigorous.

kellychaos · #20

Is pollution cumulative? What I mean to say is that, even if we have the best pollution controls in place, are we battling pollution that has taken centuries to produce so that, in essence, we're only fighting the pollution that we're making today? Are running in place, or are our cleaning efforts actually taking a bite out of past pollution? I know some of this depends on the pollutants involved but I guess I'm thinking in general terms.

mburbank · #21

Depends on what you're thinking of. Some pollutants dissipate and break down pretty quickly. Others (I'm thinking of Mercury and other metals in particular) hang around for a very, very long time.

And then there's radioactive waste, some of which will be with the planet probably quite some time after we're not.

That's why W's plan to let power plants buy and sell Mercury emissions is so evil. It's been a succseful program with CO2, but that dissipates and spreads out. Mercury tends to drop within ten miles of it's emission point and get right into the ground water. This plan is going to cuase Mercury poisoning hot spots as older plants buy the right to drop even more mercury than they currently do, and anyone who can't afford to move away has to lump it.

But hell, that scrubbing technology is expensive. And, like most evil enviornmental protections, green technology creates no jobs whatsoever and has no impact at all on the economy.