Why was there no effect from the ecological movement of the seventies?

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.

Much of the regulation and progress coming out of the 1970's relied on controlling of known contaminates; particularly those which negatively impacts human life and especially cancer. The reams and reams of submissions, testimony, arguments, and data leading to the Judge Bolt decision about West Coast Salmon was probably a corner stone of habitat consideration with respect to examining a problem of nature as being something more than just a simple, single, and direct cause and effect situation. Francis Lappe with her Diet for a Small Planet introduced economic, ethical, political, and other considerations to the general populace with respect to the use, abuse, and distribution of the earth's resources. Even so, it was not until the "energy crisis" of the late 1970's that fissile fuel depletion, alternative energy sources, energy reductions, and the more were addressed by virtually every household in the Western world; many were left with a memory that the problem was fully based in international politics, diplomatic problems with the OPEC nations, and a problem with the oil companies just trying to get rich. From what I know, it was not until the Spotted Owl case that the courts and regulation recognized the imperative need for habitat conservation; even with the Spotted Owl case, it seems that the collective we have failed to retain our recognition of the benefits of habitat conservation. Understanding the role of ecosystem preservation with respect to our human needs didn't seem to come to light until we started performing water quality testing for wildlife then discovering that preservation of our watersheds is pretty important for human drinking water too. With watershed management, we've come closer to understanding that we humans are but elements/critters within an ecosystem that includes the woods, wildlife, and something beyond our paved and blacktopped neighborhoods.

On and off during the past 40 years or so, much of the Western world have called for the reduction of regulation, taxes, getting the government out of business, and getting the government out of our business. Certainly in the US, this has allowed us to: under fund research into what is (has) happening; under report what data exists; relax our existing regulation, monitoring, and corrective measure interpretations; and certainly resist additional regulation. Further, there is an argument (which means there is still a pro and a con) that when business feels too bound by manufacturing labor and environmental regulation, it simply moves to another country. Certainly, it can be said that we have a global economy in terms of the production and sale of goods and services but, we do not have globally accepted regulation and practices.

All one has to do is go through some of the questions and answers in this little Yahoo corner of the world to discover that collectively, we are not in agreement that environmental problems exist in adequate magnitude to make change our lifestyles worth while. Much of the existing regulation and emission reduction efforts center around reductions in known carcinogens rather than addressing environmental issues. With some level of resistance, there has been some extrapolation and expansion of these carcinogenic regulations and intents to other health concerns. It is only with this latest "green" movement that we are addressing greenhouse gasses and CO2, habitats, ecosystems, and the concept that activities within one economic, geographic, and political border has tremendous effect on those outside of it. Heck it's only been a year or two since the concept of global warming is honestly sinking in yet, its been over 10 years since the data started rolling out in earnest after Hurricane Andrew.

The consequence of us cleaning up the environment so well is that those radicals that emotionally depended on it for their self worth had to invent some other kind of doom to worry about. That eventually got adopted by socialists around the world and they built up the mythology of significant warming (not really necessary to add human caused) into a religious movement..

The problem was fixed pollution wise by science. Because something beyond the control of human achievement controls how warm or cold out planet gets rhetoric is unable to change this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers....

i guess you are to young to remember the 70s . factories dumped everywhere , the air was heavily polluted . there are 30% more people on earth now , than 70s . CO2 levels have risen to 250ppm , after 350-400ppm the runaway global warming becomes irreversible .in 20 years there will be 15 billion people . unsustainable . we are doomed . soylent green is people .

because we are still drilling oil from the ground, there are still factories that pump smoke into the ozone layer and there are still people who drive gas guzzlers. Also we are cutting our trees down.