Why was there no effect from the ecological movement of the seventies?
Ok so I believe that that mass burning of fuel can have an effect on the environment. I recycle and believe in energy efficiency and conservation. I believe in the mantra of think globally and act locally.
What that effect is and how we solve it is the subject of debate on this forum.
But there is something that does not seem to be addressed and was wondering if there were an answer.
I was a kid in the late sixties and early seventies. I can remember the smog was so bad that it hurt your lungs when we played sports. We even had some practices canceled because it was too smoggy and back then coaches were not as kind and loving as they are today. You could on the worst days see feel it and smell it. It would seem that we have less smog in the 1998 to present compared to the dire pollution of the sixties and seventies.
When cars went to the catalytic converter and unleaded gas the difference was huge.
Factories across the nation have significantly reduced the off gassing from that time as well. The Ohio river has not been on fire since that time period.
So why are we seeing Temperature rising after these measures of significant reduction of greenhouse gases were employed?
2009-08-21T13:37:34Z
edit
Dart
I agree the contradiction is what I seek to understand
The data says we started warming in 1998 it would seem polution was worse in 1968 why did we not see warming then and why do we see warming now?
Dave as I stated I lived in the seventies and remember them well. Why insult me? If the C02 is greater than the seventies then that might be a good answer. If that is the case please support it with data.
bubba2009-08-21T13:56:47Z
Favorite Answer
Good question. The effect is called dimming. Those pollutants actually cooled the surface. I'll explain.
The Clean Air act of 1970 was passed because of air pollution episodes and this law cut down of harmful pollutants known as criteria air pollutants. These are harmful by themselves or can react in the environment to make toxic combinations. The criteria pollutants are CO, NO2, SO2, O3, particulate matter (now 2.5 micrometers or smaller), and Pb (lead). CO2 was not in the mix and more is actually produced as the combustion process becomes more efficient (less of these other pollutants that are made, the more CO2). CO2 and water vapor is the byproduct of clean combustion.
Some of the pollutants you are talking about actually cause cooling , not warming, because they are easily aerosolized in the atmosphere by water vapor (SO2 + water vapor = sulfuric acid vapor, NO2 + water vapor = nitric acid vapor). These aerosols, along with particulate matter actually cool the earth because they reflect sunlight or prevent it from reaching the surface.
This effect is called "dimming". With the advances in clean air, dimming has decreased allowing warming to increase (or unmask). CO2 (the most abundant greenhouse gas behind water vapor) is actually the desire result of of "perfect combustion" that the Clean Air Act has been encouraging. We have decreased the criteria pollutants that were identified as bad in the 60s and 70s, but in doing that, increased carbon dioxide. Now we can recognize the problem with CO2 and must take steps to control these emissions too. It is very ironic.
Why do you contradict your question with your answer?
there WAS, but once some things got better, big business and people's need to economize tended to make them revert some.
Catalytic converters ARE STILL PUT on every gas burning car. Solar energy is being used. Wind energy is being used. People recycle and use products made from recycled material. People buy organic foods. Use more natural gas (less polluting than other forms). You can't even FIND leaded gas in the US anymore...not since the early 80s! Have you ever been to Mexico! PHEW! (no one uses unleaded there, and YOU CAN SMELL IT! It STINKS and it's smoggy! Everywhere!) People ride their bikes more, take mass transportation.
Have you ever heard of the "Earth Ships"? That community (and many others like it) was begun in the late 1970s, to use recycled products...check it out online...I was just there...very interesting. Not far from where I live.
This was started by the ecological movement of the 70s.
The environmental qualty of water and air was vastly improved. We have to decide how much we want to pay for clean air and water and just how clean we are willing to make it. To clean it significantly more will be exponentially costlier. Overall I support much of the regulations and they paid my salary for a couple decades but sometimes the regulations get in the way of cleaning up the sites. They focus on nonsense and waste money and resources. A similar thing is heading our way if we let government regulate our energy. That would be begging for corruption and incompetence and it will remove money that would be better spent elsewhere.
Any corrupted flesh presser or government expert , ought to get screwed. India ought to enhance into like a kingdom the place the punishments must be very severe. Then in ordinary terms an undemanding guy ought to spend his life thankfully. I thoroughly help Anna Hazare. persons who does not help in my wisdom is a thoroughly corrupted guy and doesnt need to be a man or woman.
Any corrupted baby-kisser or government expert , could get screwed. India could grow to be like a kingdom the place the punishments could be very severe. Then in basic terms a client-friendly guy could spend his existence luckily. I thoroughly help Anna Hazare. persons who would not help in my expertise is a thoroughly corrupted guy and doesnt should be a man or woman.