- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pollution Killed 7 Million People Worldwide in 2012, Report Finds
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:03 am to Paluka
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:03 am to Paluka
quote:Yep. I know.
There are too many confounding variables in play
quote:Agreed. BUT, the purveyors of the OPs source don't agree so, they could have at least done the courtesy of applying their silliness to answering the other question.
he OP's source's estimate is essentially invalid as would the estimate of those you mention.
I say this because in order to actually make an INFORMED decision, one can't have the answer to ONLY ONE of those questions.
For example. What is someone put out a stat that ONLY listed those saved by pollution? A reasonable person would say "yeah, but how many does it kill?".
And yet, the average idiot hears such half stats and gobble them up.
1
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:03 am to dante
quote:
What happened to all the smog in LA? I have not seen or heard anything about it in years. Did environmental regulations fix the problem or did the media just quit reporting about it?
IDK. But the catalytic converter, unleaded gasolines, and low sulfur diesels have likely helped. I have very little issue these kind of regulations because without them third party private property is negatively affected.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:06 am to a want
quote:You cannot "set aside the AGW argument" because AGW sucks the life out of all other environmental funding, research, and alternatives.
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
Consider the environmental advantages of running 18 wheelers, Hydrocarbon-based electrical plants, locomotives, etc. on NatGas. But AGW stops that discussion dead in its tracks.
OTOH, poor sanitation as a 'pollutant' kills far more people annually than does air pollution. Again, consider the potential low cost improvements in that arena if we weren't throwing money hand-over-fist at the AGW idiocy.
Similarly, over-population is another major issue. It is solvable. Intense focus on AGW takes away interest in addressing that too.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:11 am to udtiger
quote:
However, blowing billions chasing pipe-dream "green" energy, when that $$$ could be better used in developing cleaner means of using existing, cheaper energy sources, is foolhardy.
You do know you can invest in making green energy more efficient, right?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:12 am to a want
quote:Of course. But, he is rightly pointing out that resources are finite and as such, choices mean trade offs.
You do know you can invest in making green energy more efficient, right?
I still want to know why the stat in the OP is missing the other half of necessary information for their stat to mean anything?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:13 am to SettleDown
quote:
What is someone put out a stat that ONLY listed those saved by pollution?
Can you give us some examples of people who have been saved by pollution?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:16 am to a want
7,000,000/7,125,000,000 = 0.00098
Sounds okay to me.....
Sounds okay to me.....
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:16 am to a want
Why just green energy? Don't you think manufacturing has a lot to do with it as well?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:18 am to a want
quote:Seriously? How many people eat every day because of things that get food to them that pollute as they do it? How many people eat every day because of farming methods that increase production? How many people survive winters every day because their house is warmed by electricity provided by even the cleanest of power plants?
Can you give us some examples of people who have been saved by pollution?
I could literally do that all damned day. And you can't think of any? Cmon. You're not trying.
I don't know how many people are alive today because of things provided by technology that pollutes, but I damned sure know the number aint small.
Acting like such technologies have negative consequences ONLY is just a glaring issue.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:21 am to constant cough
quote:
Well that's good right? I mean don't the environmentalist tell us the world is overpopulated?
It is hilarious. Liberals tell us polution is bad then promote population growth with their handouts and policies. It makes no sense.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:21 am to a want
quote:
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
Do you know how many would die? I mean third world, brown/black people
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:25 am to SettleDown
quote:
How many people eat every day because of things that get food to them that pollute as they do it? How many people eat every day because of farming methods that increase production? How many people survive winters every day because their house is warmed by electricity provided by even the cleanest of power plants?
Pollution isn't saving those people. Technology is saving them. Technology generally must be powered by something...coal, petroleum, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:26 am to a want
quote:
could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
Nuclear is the only viable option. Look at France's energy grid as a great example. France has the lowest energy costs of any European country. It has the cleanest air in Western Europe and it is a net exporter of energy to its neighbors. 80% of France's electric grid is nuclear.
Popular green alternatives such as Wind and Solar simply aren't viable. They do no produce enough energy to support a fraction of the energy needs of a developed country much less a developing country. Furthermore, wind and solar are unreliable in terms of constant production and therefore must be supplemented by natural gas, a fossil fuel. Any international policy on energy that prohibits nuclear and limits fossil fuels is sentencing developing countries to remain in 3rd world status.
While I agree that we must begin the move from fossil fuels for a variety of reasons - environmental, security, etc. - the solution is not wind and solar.
There is a relatively new documentary called "Pandora's Promise" that discusses this issue focusing on environmentalist who have changed their stance on nuclear power. It's a rather interesting film.
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 9:30 am
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:29 am to a want
quote:The same tech that pollutes.
Pollution isn't saving those people. Technology is saving them
quote:Exactly. And, at least today, solar and wind only would mean a LOT less of the things that save people.
Technology generally must be powered by something...coal, petroleum, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.
Hence, if one is going say certain tech is polluting and therefore killing 7 million, then it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to know what effect not having said pollution would have.
If you don't know the latter, the former is literally a meaningless number. If you don't have the latter, you might think simply reducing the former is good all by itself.
But, if you COULD wave a magic wand TODAY and suddenly, only clean energy we are able to use today was used, people most certainly WOULD DIE. Let's not pretend we don't know that.
Do we want cleaner energy? Yep. But, I don't need to be scared into it because I also know that there are people EVERY WINTER who would be dead if current tech wasn't being used.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:40 am to SettleDown
quote:
Exactly. And, at least today, solar and wind only would mean a LOT less of the things that save people.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "investment". It doesn't mean dumping all existing technologies in liue of existing green technologies. It means investing $ to improve the efficiency of existing green technologies.
Think about how difficult it is to get oil out of the ground and turn it into gas for your car. You have to find where it is. You have to drill thousands of feet underground to reach it. You have to pump it out and store it or pipe it to a centralized location. Then it has to be shipped (possibly overseas) to a refinery. Then it has to be refined. Then it has to be trucked to a distribution station where it is finally sold to you for a measly $3/gallon ...which could transport you 5 times farther than it could 50 years a.go There have been incredible breakthroughs in efficiency in this process. It's pretty damn impressive.
Why is it so difficult to think we can't improve the efficiency of solar or wind energy? The industry is what? 15 yeasr old.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:41 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Nuclear is the only viable option.
I agree for now.
quote:
Popular green alternatives such as Wind and Solar simply aren't viable.
In their current state, yes. But see my thread above. Why is it so hard to believe we can improve efficiency in these technologies over time?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:45 am to a want
quote:
In their current state, yes.
So why is the US providing grants, loans, and tax credits for products that are not effective?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:47 am to LSURussian
quote:
7,000,000/7,125,000,000 = 0.00098 Sounds okay to me.....
Would be interesting to know where those people died.
The article indicates that 1/3 or 2.3M+ were in Asia. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the combination of increasing regulations and therefore manufacturing costs in the US combined with globalization has shifted these deaths towards undeveloped countries.
I think what a lot of people don't realize is that businesses need to make a competitive profit in order to provide goods and services. It's not that Samsung needs to make an awesome TV at the highest margin possible, it's that Samsung's margin needs to be better than Sony's in order to please both customers and investors. Investors by the way aren't just guys with top hats, wear monacles, have pocket watches, and roll around in piles of gold in scrooge mcduck vaults, it's everyone that has a 401k plan.
If we really want to minimize pollution we need to make regulations and enforcement more realistic to lower manufacturing costs here and incent companies to manafacture here. Otherwise you are asking less developed countries to increase their regulations; and how are you supposed to do that? How are you supposed to force china to "do the right thing" for pollution at the expense of their economy (without military force)?
So, we can lament the deaths and think that we need to do something, but until someone comes up with a realistic and workable solution nothing will happen.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:47 am to a want
quote:
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "investment". It doesn't mean dumping all existing technologies in liue of existing green technologies. It means investing $ to improve the efficiency of existing green technologies.
I understood. I simply took issue with a stat that is flatly false. In order to calculate how many people total are dead due to a cause, one must know if that cause has any SAVING effects also. We'll call that X.
Hence, a valid stat would say the total number dead today because of polluting technologies is 7M - X.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:48 am to a want
quote:
Why is it so difficult to think we can't improve the efficiency of solar or wind energy?
The one possible problem with your pov is say we drop oil, coal, natural gas, etc. type energies that comes out of the ground. Just how many solar panels, wind turbines and any other above ground sources of energy will dot the countryside in order to provide all the fossil fuel energies now being used to provide energy at this day and time?
I would think that it wouldn't be a breathtaking pastoral picture.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News