- 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 8:37 am to constant cough
quote:
Well that's good right? I mean don't the environmentalist tell us the world is overpopulated?
Yep...
Air pollution responsible for more than 2 million deaths worldwide each year, experts estimate
This report says 2 million, I wonder which is more accurate...
quote:
More than two million deaths occur globally each year as a direct result of human-caused outdoor air pollution, a new study has found. In addition, while it has been suggested that a changing climate can exacerbate the effects of air pollution and increase death rates, the study shows that this has a minimal effect and only accounts for a small proportion of current deaths related to air pollution.
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 8:51 am to wickowick
quote:
These countries that have all this death from air pollution don't care about the green energy movement...
What are you talking about? China has been investing billions. The article specifically states air pollution will cost China $300 billion per year.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:52 am to GumboPot
quote:
Why can't we evaluate each molecular constituent on its own properties and environmental interactions?
Novel concept you have there. It makes too much sense. Will obviously never work.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:53 am to GumboPot
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?
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 8:56 am to a want
quote:
The article specifically states air pollution will cost China $300 billion per year.
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.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:57 am to willthezombie
Again. I'll ask in a shorter form.
Isn't this stat missing a critical number? How many people every year are ALIVE because of the things that cause global warming?
I mean, it would be helpful to know this. Is the number of people who owe their lives to such things smaller or greater than 7 million worldwide?
I suspect the answer would be surprising to many.
Isn't this stat missing a critical number? How many people every year are ALIVE because of the things that cause global warming?
I mean, it would be helpful to know this. Is the number of people who owe their lives to such things smaller or greater than 7 million worldwide?
I suspect the answer would be surprising to many.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:57 am to SettleDown
quote:
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.
Freudian slip?
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 8:58 am to Paluka
quote:LOL. Oops.
Freudian slip?
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 9:01 am to SettleDown
quote:
Is the number of people who owe their lives to such things smaller or greater than 7 million worldwide?
There are too many confounding variables in play. The OP's source's estimate is essentially invalid as would the estimate of those you mention. There's really no way to know to either way. However, I support your position.
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News