Environment

[JohnBirchSociety]

Well, here in the Peoples Republic of California, we are bombarded with advertisements proclaiming the perils of "global warming" and other such nonsense.

I thought I would list the absurd, and patently false claims of "environmentalists", and then through your comments we can address the real issues / solutions.

Nonsense (False):

1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man.

2) Nuclear power is unsafe.

3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters.

4) We make too much green-house gases.

5) We're polluting the oceans of the world.

6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate.

7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man.

Comments?

[abqfriend]

Why ask for comments-when you give the answer you seek?

I agree with every point mentioned. They are all true to a greater extent than false.

Nuculear Power -can be made safer-but it can/should be used in a safe manner.

We are called to be stewards of the earth-not destroyers of it.

-Carol

[JohnBirchSociety]

Why ask for comments-when you give the answer you seek?

I agree with every point mentioned. They are all true to a greater extent than false.

Nuculear Power -can be made safer-but it can/should be used in a safe manner.

We are called to be stewards of the earth-not destroyers of it.

-Carol

Do you know that in the United States, nobody has died as the result of a Nuclear Power Plant accident?

You are right, we ought not destroy.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Well, here in the Peoples Republic of California, we are bombarded with advertisements proclaiming the perils of "global warming" and other such nonsense.

I thought I would list the absurd, and patently false claims of "environmentalists", and then through your comments we can address the real issues / solutions.

Nonsense (False):

1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man.

2) Nuclear power is unsafe.

3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters.

4) We make too much green-house gases.

5) We're polluting the oceans of the world.

6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate.

7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man.

Comments?

I'll start with #1 "Our climate is affected by the activities of man"

If this is true, then why didn't the nearly 700+ above ground Nuclear Detonations since 1945 have any effect on the weather (other than than the obvious and brief local change)?

That's right, man's most powerful created force, nuclear weaponry, has been detonated over 700 times, above ground,in the short period of 63 years, with no noticeable global climate change.

You would think that if anything we do would change the climate (remember all the "Nuclear Winter" predictions during the "Cold War") it would be detonating Nuclear Weapons in our atmosphere over 700 times. This doesn't include the underwater tests (why aren't the oceans dead by now from them?) and the underground tests that at times release energy into the atmosphere as well. Why no changes of climate on our planet by such activities? Simple, man really is not capable of changing this planet to any significant degree, even while using our most powerful devices.

In comparison, the eruption of Krakatoa in August of 1883 was 13,000 times more powerful (208 MILLION KT) than the detonation at Nagasaki. That's 200 Times more powerful than the largest Nuclear Detonation of all time "Tzar Bomba" by the USSR in 1961. The result of this eruption was the following:

Lowering of the temperature average, globally, by 1.2degrees Celcius for about 5 years.

So, the largest eruption in recorded human history, over 200 times more powerful than the most powerful device man has ever used, lowered the temperature by a little over a degree for just 5 years.

And we think that anything we do can affect the global climate? Nonsense.

Even the largest of natural events in recorded human history could not accomplish the task for even a decade!

When we think this stuff through, instead of swallowing the media nonsense we see that the "global warming", or as my Dad say's "Gorbal Warming" nonsense is not REALLY about the environment, it is about Global control of mankind and our industrial might / standard of living.

[Palerider]

No one may have died as of it....but.....Al Gore says we have a little over 7yrs before we all die from global warming.....

[Kirajo]

While I think that environmentalists can be quite over the top, I do agree we should do what we can to protect the earth with simple things that are healthy for everyone and avoid taking part in harmul acts against our environemtn ie; smoking, littering, ect. I mean those things may or may not be having a huge effect on the environment but it doesn't HURT anyone to do what we can, right?

[Kirajo]

On another note, I think a lot of people just refuse to believe the " nonsense" because it scares the crap out of them and they don't want to consider the possibilities. I think anything can happen, and while I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what's being said by environmentalists, anything's possible.

[skalenfehl]

I agree that we are stewards of our earth and should be environmentally conservative. Heck, I earned a merit badge as a Boy Scout on the matter. I will not, however, subscribe to all the doom and gloom that the environmentalists profess. After all, I'm sure the subsidies and grants are enough reason to keep themselves busy with further studies of their claims.

The earth will not pass away until our Lord, Jesus Christ declares that His work is done. The only global warming we have to fear then is when He comes again and all corruptible things burn as stubble in a fervent heat.

[Jenamarie]

Whether or not the green-house gases and factory/car emissions we put into the air and water are causing global warming, they ARE affecting people's health. Just look at fish. There are some that are seriously contaminated with chemicals that are harmful to the human body in certain quantities, and so we have to limit how much of those fish we consume. And I know in some of the rivers around my area, they sometimes have to put BANS on fishing, because of pollution leaks (sometimes raw sewage, sometimes chemical leaks from pulp-wood plants). And that is reason enough for me to get behind finding cleaner energy sources, and recycle as much as I can.

And while nuclear energy CAN be done safely (and is done safely the majority of the time), when it goes wrong, it can go *really really* wrong (Chernoble, anyone?) and the effects of such a failure last for thousands and thousands of years. It's also not a renewable energy source (there's only so much uranium on the planet), and I'd rather find more renewable sources of energy, than saddle ourselves to yet another limited-supply energy source, like oil, which will eventually run out.

[a-train]

The real reason why global environmental concerns are voiced by the latter-day Gadiantons: They want us to support global regulation from a global governing body, so they need global problems to gain public support for their global schemes.

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'll start with #1 "Our climate is affected by the activities of man"

If this is true, then why didn't the nearly 700+ above ground Nuclear Detonations since 1945 have any effect on the weather (other than than the obvious and brief local change)?

That's right, man's most powerful created force, nuclear weaponry, has been detonated over 700 times, above ground,in the short period of 63 years, with no noticeable global climate change.

You would think that if anything we do would change the climate (remember all the "Nuclear Winter" predictions during the "Cold War") it would be detonating Nuclear Weapons in our atmosphere over 700 times. This doesn't include the underwater tests (why aren't the oceans dead by now from them?) and the underground tests that at times release energy into the atmosphere as well. Why no changes of climate on our planet by such activities? Simple, man really is not capable of changing this planet to any significant degree, even while using our most powerful devices.

In comparison, the eruption of Krakatoa in August of 1883 was 13,000 times more powerful (208 MILLION KT) than the detonation at Nagasaki. That's 200 Times more powerful than the largest Nuclear Detonation of all time "Tzar Bomba" by the USSR in 1961. The result of this eruption was the following:

Lowering of the temperature average, globally, by 1.2degrees Celcius for about 5 years.

So, the largest eruption in recorded human history, over 200 times more powerful than the most powerful device man has ever used, lowered the temperature by a little over a degree for just 5 years.

And we think that anything we do can affect the global climate? Nonsense.

Even the largest of natural events in recorded human history could not accomplish the task for even a decade!

When we think this stuff through, instead of swallowing the media nonsense we see that the "global warming", or as my Dad say's "Gorbal Warming" nonsense is not REALLY about the environment, it is about Global control of mankind and our industrial might / standard of living.

Carbon is not the only atmospheric catalyst to change climate, according to the global warming proponents.

For example, Mt. Pinatubo ejected 20 MILLION TONS of Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere in it's 1991 eruption. That is more than all of humanity released in years. This single event only lowered the global average temperature (notice that it LOWERED the temperature) by .5C for a few months. There is no human equivalent, atmospherically to this single natural event, yet I am to believe that we are effecting the long-term temperature of our atmosphere?

I don't buy it. You shouldn't either.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Whether or not the green-house gases and factory/car emissions we put into the air and water are causing global warming, they ARE affecting people's health. Just look at fish. There are some that are seriously contaminated with chemicals that are harmful to the human body in certain quantities, and so we have to limit how much of those fish we consume. And I know in some of the rivers around my area, they sometimes have to put BANS on fishing, because of pollution leaks (sometimes raw sewage, sometimes chemical leaks from pulp-wood plants). And that is reason enough for me to get behind finding cleaner energy sources, and recycle as much as I can.

And while nuclear energy CAN be done safely (and is done safely the majority of the time), when it goes wrong, it can go *really really* wrong (Chernoble, anyone?) and the effects of such a failure last for thousands and thousands of years. It's also not a renewable energy source (there's only so much uranium on the planet), and I'd rather find more renewable sources of energy, than saddle ourselves to yet another limited-supply energy source, like oil, which will eventually run out.

We don't need to find cleaner energy sources when we already posses the solution. Nuclear Power.

Nuclear Power Plants built to correct standards (not the absurd Chernoble) are the safest form of energy devised by man, period. In the United States nobody has ever died from a Nuclear related accident involving a Nuclear Power Plant.

We have enough Uranium in the United States (we are uniquely blessed in this respect) to meet our electrical power needs for the conceivable next 1,000 years, even if demand increases by 10,000 percent. One pellet of Uranium (2cm Thick) is the equivalent of 38 TONS of Coal. We have multiple BILLIONS of tons of Uranium in the United States.

Friend, we already have the answer. We don't need to spend billions on research for a solution. Build now, right now, and in 3-5 years we'd have no need for foreign oil for electrical generation (or even our own natural gas or coal, of which we have ENORMOUS reserves).

Our worst Nuclear "accident" at "Three Mile Island" released radiation equivalent to less than ONE x-ray! Nobody was hurt, and nobody was even close to any danger at all.

[JohnBirchSociety]

While I think that environmentalists can be quite over the top, I do agree we should do what we can to protect the earth with simple things that are healthy for everyone and avoid taking part in harmul acts against our environemtn ie; smoking, littering, ect. I mean those things may or may not be having a huge effect on the environment but it doesn't HURT anyone to do what we can, right?

I agree. Common sense agrees. But, it has nothing to do with a supposed global catastrophe...

[JohnBirchSociety]

On another note, I think a lot of people just refuse to believe the " nonsense" because it scares the crap out of them and they don't want to consider the possibilities. I think anything can happen, and while I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what's being said by environmentalists, anything's possible.

I don't believe it because it is scientifically false. In fact, it goes beyond false, to the absurd.

Friend, even if we tried to effect our global environment, using the most powerful devices man has ever devised, we couldn't.

We've detonated over 700 nuclear bombs in our atmosphere with absolutely no global climate effect.

The largest, most powerful volcanic eruptions in recent human history have only affected the global temperature for a few months, by a miniscule amount. They released more sulfur dioxide into our atmosphere than human activity has for decades, and they (volcanoes) do it all at once, to no long-term effect! Yet, the environmentalists would have us believe that feeble man can have a long-term effect?

This has nothing to do with environment. It is about the enslavement of humanity.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Carbon is not the only atmospheric catalyst to change climate, according to the global warming proponents.

For example, Mt. Pinatubo ejected 20 MILLION TONS of Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere in it's 1991 eruption. That is more than all of humanity released in years. This single event only lowered the global average temperature (notice that it LOWERED the temperature) by .5C for a few months. There is no human equivalent, atmospherically to this single natural event, yet I am to believe that we are effecting the long-term temperature of our atmosphere?

I don't buy it. You shouldn't either.

Friends, just the volcanic activity in Central America releases 10,000 metric tons of Sulfur Dioxide into our atmosphere PER DAY! Every day! With NO effect on global temperatures.

Thats 100,000,000 metric tons per YEAR!

We don't come close to that. Yet, we are to believe that we are changing our global climate?

[Elgama]

I for one am an enviromentalist because Heavenly Father created the Earth -

Fact pollution is horrible - I feel the difference in my lungs every time I go near a city and I see the destruction in the stonework of beautiful buildings that have stood for centuries - it makes family history more difficult in my area grave stones are beautiful, most from the 1700s are easy to read - my Family History is in cities and reading their stones in impossible from the 1900s. Removing our heritage and traditions is not good.

Pulling down buildings because its easy is wrong - restoring them is more costly but requires more skilled workers. Our throw up throw away cultures is losing us some of the most skilled artisans and buildings now have an official lifespan of 60 years - I've been in houses that are over 900 years old and they stand well.

Walking 3 blocks to the store instead of taking a car doesn't hurt anyone its good for you. Turning down lights allows you to see the stars better - I find it shocking that many observatories in the UK have had to be moved because the powerful telescopes struggle to see stars in major cities - our little one works fine.

I live in a small heavily populated island where you see just damaging huge landfills can be - throwing away too much stuff is wasteful, Have you seen what an oil slick can do to wildlife?

Multinationals have their good side but they can also treat people appallingly etc

Explain to me what anything an enviromentalist is asking you to do (not the reasons they give) is wrong? Explain to me how it runs contrary to the gospel to protect the Earth, its people and wildlife ??? show me where in the scriptures it says being overfed, underexercised and wasteful with the Earth's resources is what we are supposed to be doing?

-Charley

[Moksha]

I think we can safely store our future increase in nuclear waste, right above the headwaters of the Provo river.

[MarginOfError]

I'm not a big proponent of man-made global climate change, but I do accept that we could be contributing to the cause. Whether that is bad or good, who knows. The earth does its thing and we have to figure out how to survive.

What is clear, however, is that we do have an impact on the environment and, therefore, on our health. Just because you don't believe in Global Warming doesn't mean you shouldn't be recklessly consuming plastics, gasoline, CFC's, paper, etc.

At the same time, nuclear power is by far the cleanest of energy solutions. With proper containment, the waste will contaminate a space only as large as the concrete box it is stored in (yes, concrete can block radiation). The only major hindrance to nuclear power is cost and safety, which can also be managed successfully. Europe and Canada have developed systems that manage this quite well.

The key to a successful nuclear program, unfortunately for JBS, is standardization. The problem the US had with nuclear power before was every plant was built in a unique fashion. If a part in the reactor needed replacing, it had to be custom fit. That gets really really expensive. In Europe and Canada, all of the reactors are built to the same specifications. Replacement parts are cheap. If one isn't readily available from a manufacturer, and another plant has one, they can trade. All the parts are interchangeable between plants.

Unfortunately, to maintain that level of standardization across the number of plants we would need in the States would require either a) a Monopoly running the industry, or b) government regulation. Take your pick, but I'm not sure I like the idea of a national monopoly on electricity.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I for one am an enviromentalist because Heavenly Father created the Earth -

Fact pollution is horrible - I feel the difference in my lungs every time I go near a city and I see the destruction in the stonework of beautiful buildings that have stood for centuries - it makes family history more difficult in my area grave stones are beautiful, most from the 1700s are easy to read - my Family History is in cities and reading their stones in impossible from the 1900s. Removing our heritage and traditions is not good.

Pulling down buildings because its easy is wrong - restoring them is more costly but requires more skilled workers. Our throw up throw away cultures is losing us some of the most skilled artisans and buildings now have an official lifespan of 60 years - I've been in houses that are over 900 years old and they stand well.

Walking 3 blocks to the store instead of taking a car doesn't hurt anyone its good for you. Turning down lights allows you to see the stars better - I find it shocking that many observatories in the UK have had to be moved because the powerful telescopes struggle to see stars in major cities - our little one works fine.

I live in a small heavily populated island where you see just damaging huge landfills can be - throwing away too much stuff is wasteful, Have you seen what an oil slick can do to wildlife?

Multinationals have their good side but they can also treat people appallingly etc

Explain to me what anything an enviromentalist is asking you to do (not the reasons they give) is wrong? Explain to me how it runs contrary to the gospel to protect the Earth, its people and wildlife ??? show me where in the scriptures it says being overfed, underexercised and wasteful with the Earth's resources is what we are supposed to be doing?

-Charley

I think you've misunderstood the thread.

What this is about is false science. If man does not impact the global climate (and he does not, he is incapable of doing it) then demanding a global response to "global climate change" by mankind is WRONG. It is a means to lower the standard of living of mankind.

Pollution problems are local, and rarely regional. They should be prevent / solved by the local, elected, representatives.

Having grown up in Pennsylvania, USA, I'm aware of the local effects of pollution on the air quality. Pittsburgh was horrific for air quality. Now it isn't. I applaud those efforts. They were local in scope. They were done by elected people, locally.

The fact is that there is no "global" environmental problem. Therefore, so called "environmentalists" that demand "global" solutions and regulation are WRONG.

There is nothing, however, wrong with a free people deciding to not be wasteful. Nothing wrong with keeping you air clean, or water clean. Nothing wrong with efficiency of vehicles and lessening the use of fossil fuels.

If you want to walk to the store / work or ride a bike there, that's good for you. Demanding by government force that I do the same in the name of the "environment" is tyranny. Hope you see the difference?

As for oil slicks, like the Exxon Valdez...I'm not saying we should intentionally create them. They do cause short-term, localized effects on shore-lines. But they are not Earth shattering events that take "decades" to clear up (unless government idiots get involved). Oil naturally evaporates, and, is a natural product. I'm not for oil-slicks, but I am against the unfounded hysteria that environmentalists engage in about them.

Edited October 18, 2008 by JohnBirchSociety

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'm not a big proponent of man-made global climate change, but I do accept that we could be contributing to the cause. Whether that is bad or good, who knows. The earth does its thing and we have to figure out how to survive.

What is clear, however, is that we do have an impact on the environment and, therefore, on our health. Just because you don't believe in Global Warming doesn't mean you shouldn't be recklessly consuming plastics, gasoline, CFC's, paper, etc.

At the same time, nuclear power is by far the cleanest of energy solutions. With proper containment, the waste will contaminate a space only as large as the concrete box it is stored in (yes, concrete can block radiation). The only major hindrance to nuclear power is cost and safety, which can also be managed successfully. Europe and Canada have developed systems that manage this quite well.

The key to a successful nuclear program, unfortunately for JBS, is standardization. The problem the US had with nuclear power before was every plant was built in a unique fashion. If a part in the reactor needed replacing, it had to be custom fit. That gets really really expensive. In Europe and Canada, all of the reactors are built to the same specifications. Replacement parts are cheap. If one isn't readily available from a manufacturer, and another plant has one, they can trade. All the parts are interchangeable between plants.

Unfortunately, to maintain that level of standardization across the number of plants we would need in the States would require either a) a Monopoly running the industry, or b) government regulation. Take your pick, but I'm not sure I like the idea of a national monopoly on electricity.

I've quite obviously stated the position that we've not caused climate change, and rationally couldn't. So I'll not go farther on that with ya...

I've not advocated the reckless use of anything. That's a straw-man argument. I'm advocating against the restriction on productivity and standard of living imposed, based upon false, fraudulant science.

Yes we do have an impact, on a local, and rarely, regional scale. For example, the air quality in Los Angeles is not good. As bad as it is, it has no effect on global climate. Instituting regulations aimed at combating something to which man does not contribute (scientifically proven) is insanity...

Nuclear power in the US has been so expensive because of "environmentalist" road-blocks that make it impossible to build. Once built, even with the unnecessary and costly "environmentalist" absurd requirements, they make money.

Monopolies only exist through Government intervention, so you point is not valid.

Standardization is a good thing, and natural, to an extent, in the free market.

[Elgama]

I think you've misunderstood the thread.

There is nothing, however, wrong with a free people deciding to not be wasteful. Nothing wrong with keeping you air clean, or water clean. Nothing wrong with efficiency of vehicles and lessening the use of fossil fuels.

If you want to walk to the store / work or ride a bike there, that's good for you. Demanding by government force that I do the same in the name of the "environment" is tyranny. Hope you see the difference?

As for oil slicks, like the Exxon Valdez...I'm not saying we should intentionally create them. They do cause short-term, localized effects on shore-lines. But they are not Earth shattering events that take "decades" to clear up (unless government idiots get involved). Oil naturally evaporates, and, is a natural product. I'm not for oil-slicks, but I am against the unfounded hysteria that environmentalists engage in about them.

I didn't misunderstand the thread at all - my point is the science is incidental, as a Latter Day Saint I feel that it is part of my responsibility to treat my body, the Earth its people and wildlife as best as I can and it shouldn't take science to tell me its wrong to pollute the world around me more than I need, that eating large portions of food is greedy, etc My Heavenly Father created it for us and that makes it precious and maybe learning more about the phrase 'adequate for our needs'is the way I personally want to go.

I fot one feel governments should be encouraging us to waste less especially in the current financial crisis and its needs to be global because otherwise more and more societies will become greedy, putting greater pressure of the Earth its people and wildlife

-Charley

Edited October 18, 2008 by Elgama
my son was climbing over me and didn't finish

[JohnBirchSociety]

I didn't misunderstand the thread at all - my point is the science is incidental, as a Latter Day Saint I feel that it is part of my responsibility to treat my body, the Earth its people and wildlife as best as I can and it shouldn't take science to tell me its wrong to pollute the world around me more than I need, that eating large portions of food is greedy, etc My Heavenly Father created it for us and that makes it precious and maybe learning more about the phrase 'adequate for our needs'is the way I personally want to go.

I fot one feel governments should be encouraging us to waste less especially in the current financial crisis and its needs to be global because otherwise more and more societies will become greedy, putting greater pressure of the Earth its people and wildlife

-Charley

The science is not incidental when it is false, and is being used to demand Anti-American, un-elected, globally run regulations. That's the problem with this "global" nonsense.

I don't believe in being gluttons. You are right on that.

Using government force to manipulate free markets is wrong.

As a Latter-day Saint I'm sure you know that GOD has told us in Scripture that the is enough, and plenty to spare, on our Earth.

We ought not waste. We ought not needlessly pollute. None of that is global. None of that demands the abdicating of the United States Constitution to un-elected, supra-national, regulating bodies that are regulating based upon false science.

[Elgama]

The science is not incidental when it is false, and is being used to demand Anti-American, un-elected, globally run regulations. That's the problem with this "global" nonsense.

I don't believe in being gluttons. You are right on that.

Using government force to manipulate free markets is wrong.

As a Latter-day Saint I'm sure you know that GOD has told us in Scripture that the is enough, and plenty to spare, on our Earth.

We ought not waste. We ought not needlessly pollute. None of that is global. None of that demands the abdicating of the United States Constitution to un-elected, supra-national, regulating bodies that are regulating based upon false science.

I am not American and have to confess tend to find American's a little bewildering at times lol I often ask my husband to check my posts before I send them its been a long learning curve not to offend American's on the internet, Our different cultures can make that very easy - I agree there is no need for false science but I also feel the actions that are being taken as a result of it are the ones that should be taken anyway. The actions taken by one country especially one as big as the US affects the rest of the world, but I do firmly believe that the waste and greed practised by our countries has an awful effect on quality of life, I was shocked when asked in Gospel Doctrine how many of us were wealthy only myself put my hand up - I have a roof over my head, heating, food in my belly, good cheap healthcare and running clean water, I am wealthy.

-Charley

[abqfriend]

Sometimes problems are global. The air we and others breathe does not stop at national borders and neither does polluted water. Radiation knows no global borders either.

I live in NM where the first nuclear bomb was detonated and where the US has the largest research area for nuclear weapons-Los Alamos. They mine uranium here. The history is not pretty. Many people were made sick mining uranium. Power plants may be safe, but what about mining? What about long-term storage?

Is coal the answer-clean coal? Unfortunately the pollution and carbon emissions of one country does not stop at another.

Global problems and global solutions are needed.

Isolationism does not work in an area of global problems.

If you want to see the result of less government regulations-go to some of the developing industrial countries of the world. Take a deep breath. Taste and Smell the air and look at the rivers and streams and enjoy the pollution of their large industrial cities.

Global problems-demand global solutions.

-Carol

The real reason why global environmental concerns are voiced by the latter-day Gadiantons: They want us to support global regulation from a global governing body, so they need global problems to gain public support for their global schemes.

-a-train

[Traveler]

During the early 80’s I was working on a classified government program that involved the global effects of massive solar induced currents that flow through our planate creating magnetic variations (false compass readings). Such studies show that the prime factor effecting climate is without doubt the sun. Most of this study concerned careful annalists of solar cycles. We knew then that recent variations in the sun’s cycles were mild on the extreme side and that we are approaching an era of greater variations that could result in some very extreme changes including a possible reversal of the magnetic poles.

I am also an environmentalist that quit the Serra Club because it became more political than scientific or rational – I have never been a member of green peace. I have also commuted by bicycle for most of my life. With this in mind I would like to respond.

1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man.

Without question this is true but it is not about greenhouse gases – it is about the depletion of our forests on a global scale.

2) Nuclear power is unsafe.

Do not kid yourself – the people that know about nuclear power do not live down wind. There is however, a bigger problem with deposing of nuclear waste.

3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters.

They are expensive to clean up – from the standpoint of cost alone it is a grave disaster.

4) We make too much green-house gases.

The truth is that we do not make hardly any green house gases – vast herds of grazing animals create more greenhouse gases than humans. The primary carbon gas produced from burning fuels is carbon monoxide which is not a greenhouse gas. Converting carbon monoxide (which is not a greenhouse gas) to carbon dioxide (which is a greenhouse gas) is a process in nature that has little to do with anything humans are doing and there is no proof that the carbon monoxide levels will change significantly the aggregate amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

5) We're polluting the oceans of the world.

We are. Some are more polluted than others.

6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate.

This is true – however the reason appears to be volcanic activity. But that is not politically popular and there is nothing we can do about it. It is a lot more fun to blame somebody.

7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man.

We do not know if the ozone is in decline or if we are experiencing some kind of cycle. Freon will destroy ozone but Freon has a great alibi – it is too heavy – 6 times heaver than water and there is no water that high in the atmosphere.

The Traveler