American pollution

Subject: American pollution
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 07:02 PM

THE RICH WORLD'S TOP 10 POLLUTERS

Emissions of carbon dioxide in 1990 (the base year for the Kyoto protocol). All figures are in millions of tons of carbon

United States 1,348.2

Russia 647

Japan 306.7

Germany 276.6

Ukraine 190.9

UK 159

Poland 130

Canada 125.7

Italy 117.9

France 106.6
So when does America accept the message and do its bit to help the planet? When britain is working to cut back, as are many other countries, but their efforts are cancelled out by America's growth?
Oh, and here comes China!

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 07:02 PM

Sorry, should be BS

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 07:31 PM

I don't mind having a go at the Americans when they deserve it, but I'm not too sure about this one.

Given that the British Isles could be dropped on Texas and cause negligible damage, unless by chance they landed on a big city, could somebody break down these figures to Tons per million head of population, or perhaps Tons per million square miles of land area? Then we would have relative figures which might tell a slightly different story. It might even give some self righteous nations a nasty shock. Just comparing UK and US figures, is the USA really only 8.479 times larger than the UK?

Even if it did show the good old US of A as the major villains,, it would then be a valid reason to make demands for changes of policy. I'm not sure that that reason might not be equally valid for some other nations who currently believe that they are less polluting than the USA.

Don T.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 07:38 PM

as i understand it population ratio is 6/1. making uk omissions equal to about 960 as opposed to 1350 so that's well over 35% more per head in America

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Layah
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 07:46 PM

Irregardless of who is the worst polluter pollution should still be cut down. It isn't just the worst who needs to fix itself. I do find it slightly annoying when I see statistics like this that are purposefully made to show something that isn't necessarily true. Sure the actual statistics are true, but the way they are presented gives a false impression. This would be more useful to see in terms of population and in terms of land area.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 07:47 PM

Russia, Poland and especially Ukraine use far more un-filtered fossil fuel than the US, Canada..etc...Carbon Dioxide by itself is not much of a way to 'rank' countries.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 07:49 PM

What I would do if I were the rest of the world is I would put as much of my resources as possible into creating and establishing an infrastructure for renewable energy sources that don't cause greenhouse effect problems and other environmental problems, and use economy of scale to create a large market for these things. And make a lot of money doing it. That would make the US pretty obsolete on the world stage in economic terms, and it would then be forced to play catch-up just in order to survive in the global economy. That is definitely what I would to.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 07:55 PM

I could also go on about what every individual world wide could do, but it's easier to say click here!
Anything we can do to help save the planet is a worthy thing.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Metchosin
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM

A very small thing I have not reconciled in my mind regarding flourescent bulbs saving energy and reducing pollutants, don't they have some sort of other nasty thing in them? I was told it is not wise to dispose of them in a land fill because of the stuff they contain.

Also some do not have the long life they are supposed to have. I've used them for the past 3 years and have already had to replace 2. I sometimes get that long a life, or more, from an incandescent bulb.

Although one gets heat as a supposed by-product of incandescent bulbs, in my house that heat is not wasted, as I derive benefit from that heat in the winter. A heat source is a heat source, is a heat source.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: GUEST, Holly Burton
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 10:40 PM

"So when does America accept the message and do its bit to help the planet?

Geez Guest Troll, aren't you paying attention? We've been trying to cut back pollution, first in Viet Nam, now in Afghanistan and Iraq, and soon in Iran and Korea. I suppose you'll get all pissy just because our method of choice is to kill large segments of the indiginous population and bomb the survivors back to the stone age.

You just can't please some people.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Gypsy
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM

Er.....forgive me for being technical, but where and how were these statistics compiled? Is there any basis for these numbers?

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Boab
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:11 AM

I believe the light emitted by fluorescent lamps is "cyclic" [i.e. varying according to the alternating power supply from turbines --60 /sec in the Uk, and, I think, 50/sec. in North America.] Reputedly bad for the eyes over a long period.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:30 AM

Ah...all home electrical power is cyclical. It comes in sine waves, and it doesn't matter to the current whether it goes into a computer or a lamp. If it's bothering your eyes, use something else -- I was getting ocular migraines from a CRT monitor and I switched to a LCD flat panel -- no more headaches.

As for CO2 emissions -- the Kyoto Accords are fine as far as they go. But the problem actually HAS happened, and the Accords only address NEW carbon dioxide emissions and do little or nothing about the CO2 that has already been emitted and the damage that has already been done. The "Greenhouse Effect" is not going away anytime soon, and we'd damned well better learn to live with it and see what, if anything, can be done to reverse it. (This is not to say that controls shouldn't be in place, but that they are a bit late in the game.)

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Metchosin
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:15 AM

Aha, after my previous senior moment, the stuff in fluorescent lights is mercury. Although the level of mercury in them has been reduced over the years, apparently it is still not technically feasible to eliminate the mercury entirely and the mercury levels affect the longevity of the lights. The higher the mercury per lamp, the longer the lifespan of the bulb. Which may explain my experience with them.

If one is really serious about reducing power consumption and pollution regarding lighting, skip fluorescent bulbs and go directly to white LEDs for task lighting. The amount of electricity required to run them is infinitesimal by comparison and they last way, way longer. I've been using a headlamp I constructed using 5 LEDs, for chores outside every night for the past three years or so. No problem with any of the LEDs and I still haven't changed the batteries.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 03:06 PM

Layah,

I think that's what I said.

Those figures are, to some extent, equating apples with oranges, and any mathematician will confirm, you can't do that!

Don T.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 04:59 PM

"I was told it is not wise to dispose of them in a land fill because of the stuff they contain."

Some bulbs contain a substance that will cause blood poisoning if ya cut yerself with it.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:06 PM

The powder within the flourescent bulbs (long office types) is hazardous. However compared to the nasty crap in the ballast that is required to run the flourescent bulbs it's not that bad.

I think the coming wave of gasoline prices will probably have some affect on reducing the CO2 emitted. My family for one will really have to curtail our travel. We already try to get the most out of every journey. It's rather hard with children though. They think the house has to be lit up like a Christmas tree. The boy is constantly turning up the heat. I'll whip them into shape.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:33 PM

A light bulb running on normal AC power will have twice the number of pulses per second of the power supply frequency - 50 -> 100, 60 -> 120


Compact fluorescents boost the voltage via an internal circuit, it may run at a higher frequency than the mains for efficiency.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:17 AM

Also, the newer electronic ballasts no longer use such things as PCBs. In fact, as far as I know they don't use anything other than electronics.

At work, the 10-year-old lighting system was put in "on the cheap" and is therefore "old" technology. My office, for instance, has a 22 foot ceiling and the flourescent tubes are flat against it. As you can imagine, we don't change the tubes often! More importantly is the waste of light -- the same lumens per surface area could be achieved at lower power if the lights were newer and lower.

So I'd like to turn the place into a model of modern energy efficiency -- the heating, cooling, lighting and all of it. Anybody know where I can get a couple hundred thousand dollars to do this?









(Yes, I'll be checking out grants.)

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:34 AM

1. Get real. The world's great polluter is China. Chinese diesel fumes and dust can be detected in air streams thousands of miles away. Do you think a government that admits to the deaths of 11,400 people per year on the job is going to worry about fumes?

2. As for "So when does America accept the message and do its bit to help the planet?" Who do you think did the most work in discovering and publicizing global warming? Whose cars have catalytic converters? Whose gas has no lead in it?

3. Take a walk down a street in Paris someday and see if you, like me, don't start choking on the diesel fumes. The air on main streets in Paris and in smaller cities was awful. Why? because diesel's cheaper than gasoline. Whether it's global warming, ozone destruction or something else, those fumes are going to hurt the planet one way or another.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 08:26 PM

Well gol danged.... How we 'sposed to have clean air and gas guzzlin' SUV's at the same time? Yeah, will someone answer me that one?

Yeah, the commies want to take all the SUV's away, crush 'um and turn 'um into ugle Volve station wagons... Yup, that's exactly what they would do if they had their danged druthers...

Heck, is there any more oil in Iraq? Don't answer. I tell ya'. Sure nuff is and it's going where its 'sposed to: in American SUV's, gol dangit. And Iran's oil, too...

Hey, this is the United States of friggin' America ain't it? Ain't no commie third world country where folks ain't got SUV's...

No sir, it ain't.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 08:40 PM

Why is it that Bush can get billions out of congress to wage war but so little for environmental protection, education and health?

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:32 PM

I had the opportunity to see first hand the cars that came out of the Soviet Union. Someone decided that they'd make a killing by importing these cheap vehicles and sell them as "exotics". THey had about two thousand of them on the port but couldn't get anyone to handle them. Since they couldn't afford to ship them back they just paid for the lot fee. Unfortunately the lease would expire and they would have to move them. The guy in charge of moving them would go out and have to work on two out of three cars just to get them running. What a mess.

Unfortunately the current administration has too much involvement with big oil to bother trying to get us out of the situation. They'd rather just poke more holes in the earth to find more of a dwindling resource. Not that it would matter. We haven't built alot of new refineries and we've been closing old ones. Supply will never keep up with demand.

We need to recycle and use as much solar, wind, and low impact hydro power as we can. Even so we may have to turn to nuclear power unless something better comes along.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:02 PM

Metchosin


Do you KNOW the pollutants used to produce those LEDs? Please look at the entire life cycle- the energy saved during use is only one aspect of the impact.

Subject: RE: American pollution
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:37 PM

The pollutants produced by the modern electronics industry are only exceeded in nastiness by those of the nuclear industry - because they are long term radioactive. Radioactivity is a silent killer - but many of the chemical poisons produced also never go away.