- 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
Pollution Killed 7 Million People Worldwide in 2012, Report Finds
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:30 am
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:30 am
NYT
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
quote:
BEIJING — From taxi tailpipes in Paris to dung-fired stoves in New Delhi, air pollution claimed seven million lives around the world in 2012, according to figures released Tuesday by the World Health Organization. More than one-third of those deaths, the organization said, occurred in fast-developing nations of Asia, where rates of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease have been soaring.
Around the world, one out of every eight deaths was tied to dirty air, the agency determined — twice as many as previously estimated. Its report identified air pollution as the world’s single biggest environmental health risk.
quote:
Based on current trends, the study said, Chinese cities in the next decade will gobble up land equal in area to the Netherlands, leading to longer commutes, higher energy consumption and continued high levels of air pollution.
Sprawl will cost China $300 billion a year in premature deaths, birth defects and other health-related problems, the study said.
quote:
A study published last year in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that people in northern China, where the air pollution is worst, lived an average of five fewer years than those in the south.
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
23
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:32 am to a want
Well that's good right? I mean don't the environmentalist tell us the world is overpopulated?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:35 am to a want
quote:
Sprawl will cost China $300 billion a year in premature deaths, birth defects and other health-related problems, the study said.
On the whole, has life expectancy in China been going up or down since it's recent wave of industrialization?
It's not a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know, but it would seem a more relevant indicator here.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:35 am to a want
quote:When I see a stat like this, I'm always amused that few are like me and notice a glaring omission.
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
They focus only on ONE result(the negative one) for a given variable. For example, it's like when cars get tinier and they tell us about improved gas mileage without discussing how those cars do when they run into other cars.
In this case, while certainly there are negative results of pollution, pollution is also pretty much generated by stuff that ALSO does in fact save lives in some cases.
For example. Obviously, if one could wave a wand and eliminate ALL pollution, one would also be waving a want and killing millions of people worldwide.
I'm not saying your OP has no merit to consider. I want us to get as technologically clean as we can. I just hate having stats foisted upon me like this without telling me the good being done also.
Since you mentioned AGW, I'll use that as an example. Why is is that there is damned near ZERO discussion of the positive effects that GW almost certainly WILL have? Will those effects outweigh the negative? Who knows? I do know that no one can even discuss them now without being branded a kook.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:35 am to a want
quote:
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
Glad we are setting aside that which is not real.
Back on point, if the rest of the world implemented the US' current clean air standards it would do as much for the environment, at a fraction of the cost, than "green" energy is going to be able to do. Just on a cost basis the so called "green" energy is going to be a slow implementation.
Is it "green" to kill birds of prey in masses? Is it "green" to cause secondary environmental issues?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:42 am to a want
Do they classify "smoking" as polluted air?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:47 am to a want
quote:
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
These countries that have all this death from air pollution don't care about the green energy movement...
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:49 am to a want
quote:
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
Keeping the air clean is a far more persuasive argument for environmental regulations. In fact, you see no one complaining about NOx and SOx emission controls.
With that being said calling CO2 a pollutant is just dumb.
Why can't we evaluate each molecular constituent on its own properties and environmental interactions?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:55 am to a want
quote:Those numbers don't change my mind one bit. I would love for green energy to become a bigger deal but lets face facts. It is not economically viable without massive gov subsidies. Look at Spain it bet big on green energy and lost big. I would support some investment in it (after we got our overall fiscall situation solved) but I do not trust or believe this admin is capable of giving the money out.
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:57 am to a want
quote:No, not the way we do it. Green energy "investment" means tax dollars being funneled to marginally profitable businesses. I've watched it personally in the Geothermal business and it is sickening. We have literally based our spending decisions upon these Investment Tax Credits (cash grants) instead of the regular IRR or NPV numbers.
could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
Now if you are talking about truly private companies using their own dollars, then yes...if it's important to them.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:59 am to a want
quote:
World Health Organization
That said, no one I know of is opposed to clean(er) air. 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.
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 9:16 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 9:21 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 9:26 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 9:52 am to a want
I actually think there should be a greater focus on these more pressing, better understood environmental issues than on AGW.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:25 am to a want
quote:
could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
No.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:38 am to a want
So since we concerned with these people dying, how many unborn innocent babies was killed in Just America last yr?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:49 am to a want
quote:7 million, out of 7 billion? 1:1000 people? Surely, you aren't this guillable?
Pollution Killed 7 Million People Worldwide in 2012, Report Finds
quote:bullshite. Dysentery is the greatest third-world threat to life. Water based infection.
Its report identified air pollution as the world’s single biggest environmental health risk.
quote:Nope. Not a bit. Because... assuming the outrageous claim is true... how many lives are SAVED because of access to food, medicine, pesticides provided by (and only by) cheap energy. Without it... many millions would be starving and more would be dying from entirely preventable disease.
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
For example... I was in a medical equipment museum a few weeks ago. Stirking that almost all of the equipment was built of stainless steel and glass. Cleaned between each use. Rife opportunity for infection. Now that plastic is widely available, everything is sterile (and disposable).
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News