The people of the United States, while less than 5% of the World's population, consume 25% of its resources and produce 33% of its pollution. As Global Warming begins to take effect, glaciers melt and the permafrost thaws, is the American way of life an endangered species?

Mass consumption isn't harming the earth one single bit. Man is not yet capable of doing anything on a scale that can impact earth itself--nature is far too adaptable for that. What Man is capable of is creating an environment which is not hospitable for Man. That we are certainly doing. However, I don't think that is our future. We will reach a place at which recycling, efficiency, and harmony with nature are prime drivers--this will probably occur as many of our current natural resources run out. Then, the only way to continue mass consumption will be through policies that promote environmentally sound practices. So, it is really a self-correcting (and, I would say, self-correcting) problem--there isn't anything else that will stop this trend.

The environmental impact of meat production is equally deadly. The world's 1.3 billion head of cattle emit about 190 trillion quarts of methane gas annually -- the second-most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect (after carbon dioxide). Livestock raised for food produce 87,000 pounds of excrement per second, polluting U.S. waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the United States are used in animal food production. And making a pound of meat demands 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water. (By contrast, a pound of wheat or potatoes can be grown with 25 gallons of water.)

While our nation wrings its hands over starving children, every pound of beef it consumes diverts 16 pounds of grain to cattle feed. This colossal waste of resources is offensive in a world plagued by hunger and malnutrition. Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing U.S. meat production by just 10 percent would free enough grain to feed 60 million people.

Of course, there is another way to avoid war, risk, and the loss of our civil liberties. We could tell other nations that they are free to make their own economic and social rules. That is all the anti-U.S. Islamists want. But then we would have to give up the great American dream of a unified corporate capitalist system free to run things in every corner of the globe. That might "erode our lifestyle." And remember, the ultimate goal of World War III is to preserve our comfortable middle-class lifestyle.

Fatter and ever hungrier for the latest physical comforts and social-status symbols, the average U.S. citizen is leading the world in building a global consumer society that is wreaking havoc on the world's natural resources, according to the 30th annual edition of Worldwatch Institute's 'State of the World' released here Thursday.
U.S. consumption styles have not only spread to other industrialized nations, according to the "State of the World: 2004;" they have succeeded in penetrating much of the developing world as well.
In China alone, 240 million people have joined the ranks of the "consumer class,'' accounting for about five percent of the estimated 1.7 billion people worldwide who have adopted the diets, transportation systems, and lifestyles pioneered in the U.S. and quickly taken up by other industrialized nations during the last century, according to the 245-page report.
By contrast, some 2.8 billion people live on less than US$2 a day, 1.1 billion of whom lack access to safe drinking water
Some 122 million Indians are also living an essentially western lifestyle--more than the roughly 121 million Japanese, 76 million Germans and 61 million Russians, 58 million Brazilians, and 53 million French people who also enjoy the fruits of consumer society, the report said.
The report defines membership in the consumer society as people with annual incomes over $7,000 of purchasing power, roughly equivalent to the official poverty level in the European Union. Members, according to the report, typically use television, telephones, and the Internet, ''along with the culture and ideas that these products transmit.''
Consumption of physical goods is important, Worldwatch stresses, particularly in providing jobs and income to families and societies. That income is vital to securing peoples' basic needs for food, clean water, and sanitation, among other services. But consumption also has serious down In the U.S. today, there are more private vehicles on the road than people licensed to drive them; indeed, about one-quarter of the world's cars are found on U.S. roads. New houses in the U.S. were 38 percent bigger in 2000 than in 1975, despite having fewer people in each household on average.
Such consumption patterns help explain why, with only 4.5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. accounts for some 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions widely understood to contribute to global warming. The average U.S. citizen currently consumes five times more energy than the average global citizen, ten times more than the average Chinese, and 20 times more than the average Indian, according to the report.
U.S. consumers spend about $30 billion a year on toys, and U.S. children now receive on average some 69 toys a year. The number of clothing items bought by U.S. consumers increased 73 percent between 1996 and 2001, with the average U.S. consumer purchasing 48 new pieces of apparel a year.
Annual consumption of soda--a staple at fast-food restaurants that have introduced ever larger soda containers over the past decade--doubled to 185 liters between 1970 and 2001, and the United States has become the world's largest consumer of shrimp and caviar. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults are either overweight or obese.
Moreover, consumption levels have not translated into more leisure and less work. On the contrary, the need to worker longer hours to afford higher consumer lifestyles has meant that U.S. workers, on average, put in 350 more hours on the job than their European counterparts.

Normanconquest, please don't post 2 or more posts in a row. If you have something more to add, hit the edit button above your last post.

Also, the rules state it is forbidden...



You should also specify sources.

So, I am curious NC, is it the jobs and income you are against, or people securing basic needs?

You could say the American way of life is endangered, more so the Western way of life. Consumption is certainly a problem...

http://www.spe.org/spe/jsp/basic/0,,1104_1...1109511,00.html



The above source has more information on this, and will explain the statement I've singled out better. Oil and gas will almost certainly run out in the 21st century, its arrogant to believe that new technology will always find a way of sucking more of the Earths innards out so we can make all manner of useless junk.

It's high time all western nations put heavy restrictions on usage of oil and gas. All petrol and diesel powered vehicles should be made to have a lot of miles to the gallon, by law. The amount of plastic we get through is atrocious, where I live there is no obvious way to recycle plastics. All these pointless things like plastic throw away shoping bags, plastic bottles where we could use glass (which seems far easier to recycle with bottle banks everywhere). In fact just looking around my room, it's amazing the amount of junk we make out of oil.

We are definitely a wasteful species, selfish and irresponsible. You have to wonder sometimes that the global rich-poor gap may be maintained by those in power. If 6 billion of us were ALL using this oil and gas, how long would it last then?

I'm a fan of science fiction, so I'm a bit nutty But in the future I can see the need for interstellar space travel to be a case of survival, not exploration.

This is all very interesting and its a shame science cannot better explain what impact if any all this Consumerism is doing to our environment. I won't try to explain any thing because I am not an expert or even well informed, but i do have a concern which I openly wish to discuss. Water

It is a known fact the polar ice cap is melting, why I don't know but it is, the mass is shrinking in size as well as thickness, also lakes and rivers are low, Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes have lost about 3 feet of water, new Islands in the lakes have emerged and navigation is limited as well as cargo weight. It is assumed that this water has found its way into the Oceans, if this is true then why is there no coastal flooding as long predicted.

I have my own theory about this, Convection, heat moves to cold, and warm water from the earth I think is being lost into space, via convection and vapor, this I have to wonder , is it being caused by the hole in the Ozone, a point of escape. If you doubt it, think again, many so called Comets are made of frozen Ice. We know of no other planets that have water.

Cows and methane gas, hmmm could it be captured and used to heat homes, lol

Actually, it's no joke...Projects such as this one are in the works.

Many Europeans countries already do this.

No, because I am not convinced that global warming is actually an issue.

Freitas did a study to disprove the theories submitted by the IPCC. Global warming and cooling, appear to me, to be natural cycles of our environment. We were in a mini ice age not that long ago followed by a period of warming. The glacier effects would coincide with that. But there is evidence too that may even disprove that.

Still No Consensus on Global Warming Science



Bjorn Lomborg a former Greenpeace member had this to say:




Also see Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

John Stossil did an expose, Tampering with Nature, that addresses the "indoctrination" of our children. The scare tactics used in our schools to promote this theory. Instead of addressing what we know they resort to scaring the kids (and adults). If heard enough we will actually believe. Instead what we should be learning is simply that we don't know. The Fraser Institute has an interesting point on what real environmental education should entail.

So while I will hold that we just don't know and being environmentally friendly (as well as exploring different sources of energy) is not a bad idea. I don't see how our way of life is becoming an endangered species.

Lucky you have a link to make it all true, eh?

I would say, if you disclaim that Global warming is not produce by the Human Race, your on fluffy clouds making small fluffy sand castles.

I hope i do not have to show a link for my convictions (to admin)?.

This honestly shocked me. The Fraser institute is an organization that I would have never pegged to do a credible study regarding the environment. Then I read it and realized that they still haven't. Have you read it Dreampiper?

The Fraser institute is an extremely right-wing (yes we have those) Canadian think tank that advocates free market economics above all else. Not only do they have a vested interest in criticizing the environmental movement, but they have no experience in the area to qualify their research. I will pick out a few passages to show you how purile and silly their work is:



Here is one bit I love:



Have you ever read a credible paper on the environment that actually suggest that effective pollution controls hurt the environment?

Gosh, I would love to see some indisputable evidence that humans are causing global warming. Simply put, there is none.

Judging from your posts, you think the increased surface temperatures are caused by humans. Seeing as the causes of global warming remain a highly debated issue amongs scientists, it certainly hasn't been undeniably proved or disproved. For all we know, the AP may have been right back in 1997 when they reported that the sun was getting hotter.

So, in any event, I find the question to be based on unproven theory and non-cited statistics. I will, however, answer the specified question to debate.

Is the American way of life an endangered species?

Nope.

The American way of life as we know it is much different than the American way of life of 200 years ago, which is much different than the American way of life of 100 years ago, which is different than the American way of life of 50 years ago. The American way of life is constantly evolving, and it sure as heck ought to. I thank my lucky stars every time I have to use the bathroom in the middle of the night and find myself in my cozy, warm bathroom as opposed to my freezing, dirty outhouse.

The American way of life is to adapt to our surroundings. We will handle whatever is thrown at us. If it ever reaches a point that natural climactic changes cause the American way of life to cease to exist, well then we will have nothing to debate.

Mike

Jaime: I apologize.

To be more front about it then, Yes, our lifestyles are most probably the cause of global warming.

It will not change until it is "to late" either, as we humans have a tendency of selfdestruction.

Ultimate Joe, I read the expert that I posted and was more specifically interested in the education element. I read it a few months ago and have not reread it since. I don't find their suggestions to be inappropriate or right wing. What is right wing about having children learn the facts and not hyped up scare tactics? We should be taught to think individually. If all the information one is receiving is one sided then their response will be one sided and inaccurate.



Mike was clearer than I. The intention of my post was just that. That it hasn't been proven or disproved. Since the question for debate phrased in a way that it was proven I decided to point out that there is much contention that it isn't proven. Also surface temperature doesn't take into account the urban effect. Of which we certainly have more urban areas then we did 150 years ago.

Having access to a less than reliable computer system today, I will look for supporting links at a later time to support my position on this issue. From what I've learned in past discussions over the subject and in articles by leading science magazines, there is little to no doubt that industrialization and the production of greenhouse gases is playing a role in global temperature increaseses.

That having been said, the geological record also shows where the earth has undergone dramatic climate shifts all throughout its long history. Considering the estimated age of the earth and the relative youth of programs studying global warming, scientists are unable to definitively say that the current warming we are experiencing is due primarily to environmental factors or to greenhouse gases.

We basically don't have enough data from years past to compare to the numbers we have today and effectively determine how large a role industrialization is playing in the rising temperatures. That the hole in the ozone layer recently decreased in size in spite of continuing greenhouse gases seemed (if memory serves) to have cast further doubt on whether industrialization should be shouldering as much burden as is being attributed.

In either case, there is no denying that pollution levels are a danger to humans regardless of whether temperatures plateau, rise or decline. I foresee changes in the future to live a healthier, cleaner life across the globe. We may be a reckless species, but we aren't necessarily suicidal.

That issue could be debated

I do have the same view as Jesus, but with a more aggressive overtone.

I believe that our mass-production and mass-consumption
lifestyles are defintely detrimental to the overall condition
of our planet. Global warming may or may not be occurring for
reasons other than our abuse of the planet and its resources.
However, we will probably not know until it's too late.

The world in 50 or 100 years will most likely be in a much worse
condition than it is today. It is our children and grandchildren
who will be left to deal with the mess that we are creating today.
All for what? MONEY.

On this very subject: My children love Dr. Seuss books.
There is one in particular that has much relevance. It is called
The Lorax. It was written in 1971, yet it has more pertinence
today. It's about the abuse of our natural resources, and how such
behavior affects every part of the world. And for what purpose?
MONEY.

I don't want to be a troll here, but you do mean United States abuse of the worlds resources?

i will give "The Lorax" a glance.

Causes of Global Warming
NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming

Both links implicate industry playing a role in the current rise in temperatures. But there are still other factors to consider including, but not limited to, "changing incoming Solar irradiance" and the "cloud effect of aerosols from volcanic eruptions."

Even in light of whatever damage industry might contribute to global warming, we are more than capable of abusing natural resources without necessarily contributing to the greenhouse effect and rising temperatures across the globe.

As an American I will take responsibilty for what I have done
to contribute to the abuse of the planet and its resources.
I drive a car, I buy too many toys for my kids, many of which
cannot be recycled. (Nowadays, they make toys so they
won't last.) I still have dolls that my mom had when she
was a kid. Back in the day, the quality of "stuff" was much
better. Now, everything is disposable. It's a shame.

I think most of us just don't think about what we are really
doing to this planet. It's doomed.

As i stated earlier, i still have the same opinion as Jesus. And apparently he knows where to find links, comments and such to backup his statements. (which i am not very good at).

I would say, whitout much of doubt, that the human race is responsible for all none-positive things thats happening around the globe. And the people that for some reason don't agree whit this statement, feel free to give me your opinions, and what you base this on, as you seem to have a greater trust of the humankind then i do.




haha, get it, "doomed"... And your name is "doomed_planet", thats irony.

For my personal part, i do not care much for the environment, nor do i benefit negatively to it in any part, other then essential.

But our different countries do deal differently in these issues (i am swedish).

Yes our way of life is in danger. But not by global warming.

Until I see indisputable proof that the chicken little doomsayers are correct I am not really going to worry. They (Scientists) really have no strong ideas on why any of it acts like it does. Quite often the "We are killing the Earth" slogans come from those who have even less understanding of the sciences involved than those who are building the knowledge of it all. Their statements are then parroted by people even more ignorant than they. Honestly next time there is a protest near go and start asking people questions. The levels of their ignorance is astounding. Then it is frightening as you realize they think they are well informed and then horrified as you realize they could set policy for how we live. We have Global Warming ( but in the late seventies to early eighties they thought we were headed for another ice age) and now the newest theory is Global Darkening. That pollution is reducing the amount of light we receive.

There ARE things we need to change but I am not going to live as a dirtscratcher. Nor am I going to walk around feeling guilty about being an American just because we are talented at living well. at creating things which improve life. I am very far from being wealthy but ain't really going to complain about my life as it really not bad. Great family good friends and I am pursuing my dreams in life. I hold a job I don't like much but with some more hard work on my part I am very confident I can get much of what I want out of life. Just like ANYONE else can if they are willing to work hard and make a few sacrifices.

Could we be more environmentally friendly?
Yes we could. Yes we should. How to? Show business that it can make a profit by doing it better. Show people how you can create new industries and new jobs by doing it. Instead of demanding that it all be stopped, scrapped and people thrown from their jobs why not instead spend the energies to develop better ways. Offer incentives to do it. Tax breaks for new and inventive companies. Why not do it just to bring down those corporations that do indeed maintain less than honorable practices. Tear them down by being better than they. Beat them at their own game. Take their employees from them with better job offers. Enjoy watching as their CEOs are flung screaming to unemployment. Wouldn't THAT be FUN!

Better use of natural resources. Well DUH!
Are you actively supporting the companies who do?
Who owns at least a hybrid car.
ANYONE have solar panels on your roof.
anyone? HELLO?
Do you teach your children about this stuff. Try and get them interested in science so they could maybe want to create this kind of stuff. Not just teach them empty pathetic slogans and to hate those who disagree.
Some people will claim that by supporting candidates who are for these things they are doing enough. NOPE. sorry but where are the large groups who are very vocal about DEMANDING that, say automakers produce more efficient cars by threatening to take their money elsewhere. GM has a very good research effort going. Let them know you'll buy if they produce. Honda is very advanced in their research on this stuff. Not just for cars but home units capable of powering your home. Let them know you are very interested in buying.
Going to have to use your FINANCIAL power to bring about these changes. Organize and shout with a very LOUD voice. Not a bunch of disjointed uninformed fools blocking traffic in cities which hold conferences on Global business alliances.
Sit around chirping all day and offering no constructive and realistic solutions and nothing will ever change. Expect your demands to just be met and well get real comfortable waiting on that to happen.

As for the rest of the world. Look as Americans we have some definite flaws. However we are trying to fix them. The rest of the world needs to look at their ways of life carefully as well and see what needs to be fixed instead of trying to lump it all on our shoulders and blaming us or demanding we take care of them.
Common sense if you have high population numbers in a region that cannot support those numbers people are going to starve. The fact that we feed cows is not the reason there is starvation.

The Earth. She ain't that fragile folks. Be more proactive in your lives and we'll nix those things we think MAY be doing damage. I realize some of you are just very negative people with no belief that humanity has compassion or any desire for a better world. And that all business corporations and capitalism is just evil but until you come up with reasonable and realistic ideas. Shush!

I can't see whether it makes an awful lot of difference which aspect of pollution is the one that finally 'does us in', the facts are simple and stand for themselves. Our children have an increased risk of allergies, we have high levels of chemical contamination in our bodies, the bio diversity of the Earth is failing fast... and there is no giant meteor or global disaster to blame it on... just a lot of factories spewing forth filth, and a mass of cows producing methane.

Its ridiculous to quibble and talk of proof when the only real reason to delay is an unwillingness to sacrifice a few comforts. Whilst we prevaricate and blunder our way through pointless arguments as to the real cause, our own industry is destroying the planet around us. Our birthrate is too high, so our food production must increase. Where once a human being ate meat on rare occaisions, today we can have meat every single day, so we now mass produce animals with no respect or regard for their well being. In an effort to maximise our productivity and profit, we even feed animals to themselves triggering shocking diseases whose only real impact on the rest of us is trade sanctions rather than any moral self questioning.

We produce millions of gadgets and toys, each shiny and expensive, yet obsolete and ready for replacement in a mere six months time... some of us are good and keep the same computer for a few years...
In the mean time we keep fighting wars to prop up the vast swollen gut of oil commerce in order to feed the hungry vehicles we use to travel back and forth.

We fly about the world, drive up and down the roads and never give a second thought to who is going to pay for our pleasures when the oil is all used up and the world must survive without it.
Ask yourself. How will people in the future fly without aviation fuel?
Maybe a new way of powering an engine will turn up and save the day? Maybe it won't... it won't matter to us though, because we will have eaten our fill and left the party already.

Thats a good idea - but in the mean time, while those inventive companies are building up, we need to demand the government once again enforce the laws already on the books (well, at least the ones that remain on the books - environmental laws seem to shrink every day). Just look at the factory pork farms - the more environmentally friendly family farms are able to produce pork more effectively than the factory farms with recycled waste going into the soil to make fertile fields for growing food used to feed the pigs... while the factory farms have too many pigs, so the waste builds up and has to be properly disposed of and food for the pigs has to be shipped in from other places - the cost of which is so high the factory farms would be entirely unable to compete with family farms. Well, that is if they obeyed the laws. Instead, they blatantly disregard the laws on waste disposal - letting it drain into streams that lead to rivers and bays - and cause algae blooms that suck the oxygen from the water and result in massive fish kills among other more subtle effects... the damage is great, but as long as the government does not pursue these factory farms, making them financially accountable for these crimes, the family farms are unable to compete with the factory farms (b/c the factories are able to decrease their prices illegally by eliminating certain inconvenient pesky environmentally friendly rules).

What do I do about this atrocity? I quit buying smithfield pork... or any other factory farm pork - and in the state of Virginia Ham, it is easy for me to find alternative family farm pork... but thats changing even here, so I can only imagine the other parts of the country.

I know its just one small thing, but I hope actions like this will add up. I fortunately live in a city a mile from a bus stop - so I walk to the bus every morning - waking up an hour earlier in order to get to class on time. Some may say this is a danger to my American dream life - the one where I should be able to sit on my couch all day and the world comes to me. But I say its an example. I, my roommate, several of my fellow classmates - we are setting an example for the new american way of life.
As others have mentioned, the American way of life evolves - and I think right now that evolution is at a fork. Back in the evolution of man, there was a fork - so now we have humans and apes... humans who are able to more fully comprehend the consequences of their actions and look to the future and fully articulate their thoughts and apes who can command basic sign language when particularly intelligent, or may learn to understand that the bell means food is coming - but not that killing the holder of the bell will also stop the food. In the evolution of the "american way of life" we have reached a similar fork - we can go the way of the apes or the way of the human. The way of the human is to begin to take responsibility for our actions and to recognize that even passive support of that which we profess as bad for the environment will negate almost all active support for pro-environmental issues. For two years I drove my car every morning to class, while loudly decrying the horrendous SUVs and their possible environmental impact - and then as my old clunker car started emitting a foul smoke, I clearly saw my hypocrisy and was quite horrified... so I changed - I evolved so to speak. Even now with my newer, much more fuel efficient car (sadly not a hybrid) I still walk, b/c it has become a new part of my american way of life.

I fervently hope that more will hear the call of the wild - more people will see how our environmental policies involve more than an argument over CO2 and global warming - they involve basic ideas like arsenic and mercury in our drinking water and even what we feed our cows - and these issues have immediate impacts on our lives. Ask the people with the human neurodegenerative disorder that is equivalent to mad cow disease... or the fisherman with pfisteria infections... They will tell you that environmental policies do impact lives of people living today and not our hypothetical grandchildren that some environmentalists scream about.

okay, off the soapbox for now

Sigh.....

The Earth is not alive. It is a hunk of rock covered with an incredibly complex mosaic of living organisms, but the Earth itself is not alive, so we needn't concern ourselves about killing it. Whether or not we need worry about rendering it unsuitable for humans is worthy of considering, as is (in some other thread, some other day) the question of the efficacy of our "environmental" efforts. One simple question would be this: is pesticide use, on the whole, detrimental to the environment? In order to answer that question, you have to consider the alternatives, and their effects on both people and the environment.

1.3 billion flatulent cows, that's sure to raise a stink. My question is: so? Whether or not global warming will be harmful or not hasn't even been clearly established, given that a warmer climate also means more productive agriculture, etc, etc. It will be DIFFERENT, but the net effect? Could be better for us, worse, or simply a wash.

Back to the cows. In the "good ol' days" when there weren't nearly as many people, how many herd animals were there? Credible estimates put the number of bison (aka American buffalo) at over 100,000,000 prior to the American War Between the States. Add to that the massive herds of animals that roamed the African veldt, the pampas, the deer roaming with the buffalo, etc, and the question arises: has there really been a net change?

But hey, lets not bag on the cows too much, they're actually the THIRD most prolific producer of greenhouse gases. The most prolific is natural events, aka volcanic activity and forest/grassland fires. The next most prolific source of greenhouse gases are termites. Oh yeah, those little woodmunchers easily outstrip our bemused bovines.

Bikerdad, would you care to offer a link to back up any of those claims?

On the topic of Volcanoes, scientists are arguing amongst themselves about the effect volcanoes have on our environment.



Taken from: Here

There is no argument that volcanoes do release a tremendous amount of harmful gasses into the atmosphere, but there is also the argument that by the release of such large quantities of ash and thick metals that volcanoes are limiting the amount of sunlight back into the atmosphere, which would cause a cooling.

If you accept the opinion of the majority of environmental scientists that global warming is a problem & it is caused by human actvities and their emission of CO2, then the lifestyles of the developed world is to blame in the sense that SUVs and cars etc all produce a lot of carbon dioxide and we need to reduce the amount that we use.

But I don't think that driving cars that produce a lot of pollution is an integral part of the US lifestyle, its just that the automobile industry is very good at lobbying against environmental regulations in the US. I think the US gets unfairly blamed for a problem which everyone is part of - and sooner or later China will be producing more carbon dioxide than the US.

And to a certain extent, climate change is a natural process anyway, so some sort of change - whether the world gets hotter ot colder, is inevitable.

Personally I think that environmental regulation is the most practical course to take - you can't persuade people to be less materialistic. I think that regulations will inspire new technological developments that are cleaner and burn less fuel....and generally open up a new sector of the economy.

My bad:

American buffalo population, estimated at 60-100million prior to Columbus's arrival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison

Current US cattle population - approximately 100million.

Sources of methane emissions: http://www.epa.gov/ghginfo/pdfs/07-complete.pdf

Turns out that worldwide, domestic animals and rice production are the #1 anthropogenic sources. Of course, neither is #1 in the US, which raises the question of how it is our lifestyle...

I did misrank the termites though with regards to methane, they do rank below domestic animals. Of course, I also misranked natural wetlands, which is the #1 producer of methane worldwide.

One thing that has to be asked is: what if we do away with all the domestic animals? In the developing world, most domestic animals are not raised for food, but rather are beasts of burden. How are the fields to be plowed? Tractors?

More greenhouse gases, good news or bad? The upside of more greenhouse gases.

Its a little bit hard to debate the topic, for there were two very different kind of questions asked.

Global Warming: It is highly disputed, but the bottom line is that man has an effect on his environment. Its impossible to tell how far that effect reaches, but any change in the current environment will cause massive extermination of life. Since the development of new species usually takes a very long time, we should try to preserve the environment as it is by limiting our energy needs.

Mass consumption: That is the real problem. There are only limited natural resources and industrial nations, lead by the US, are responsible for wasting them. We do not know if new technologies will help to replace those resources.
It is necessary to set up progressive energy consumption models. The more energy a company requires, the higher the tax. That will teach them to be efficient with those resources.
But this is a big issue which I hope to discuss later on for it is far past midnight here and I am all sleepy....

Where are you getting your information?

Pollution may be worse in Europe but it sure is getting better in the United States. Here's a seldom discussed fact:
pollution in the United States is falling! This in spite of population growth, consumption rate, SUVs, etc. Pollution peaked at the turn of the 20th century and has dropped steadily since. The air is cleaner, the water is cleaner, and the trend continues.

Here's one more interesting note. Countries which have signed on to the Kyoto protocol in Europe have seen pollution levels increase. Huh? Not exactly what they've been talking about on your nightly news is it?

Conclusion #1: the American way of life is not endangered by the fear mongers of global warming.

Conclusion #2: socialism isn't the solution to everything.

Deerjerky, the first artcile you cite is so full of holes and carefully misdirecting language that I find it hard to assign any value to it whatsoever. Your deliberately misleading representation of the facts that it "represents" are equally disappointing. Lets start with the article itself.



While soot does qualify as pollution, to equate it with air pollution is just a bit ridiculous; especially since soot and other particulates that don't remain airborne don't contribute to global warming. This "cleaner" air you're talking about is describing only the air that's swimming in the lower lairs of the atmosphere, immediately above cities and industrial centers. Global Warming is concerned with pollution in the upper layers of the atmosphere; and this article does not mention those in any way, shape or form.

That article continues to obfuscate "definitions" of pollution. Here is how he describes water pollution:



While eliminating Jardhas and Cholera is certainly a good thing, that doesn't mean the water is not suffering under the strain of human intervention. Now, it is hard to say whether or not we are still having an adverse effect; since the article only makes vague reference to the elimination of "poor and severe" water sources. The rest of the author's "science" is equally indirect and misleading. But if you choose to accept his writing so be it; that's your choice. I suggest in the future you allow other people to see what it is exactly you are offering as evidence.

Then again, it seems unlikely you'll follow this course since you once again make an effort to deliberately obscure the nature of the material you're referencing in your second link. While emission levels have increased MARGINALLY in the last two years, these increases are both contingent on extraneous factors which are described in the article (and not surprisingly, not in your post.) Shall I demonstrate?



You also fail to mention that while emission levels HAVE increased a whopping 1.3% in the last two years the article mentions, that there is still a NET reduction towards the goal set out by Kyoto. So thank you for providing an article that proves that the Kyoto Protocols are working in reducing greenhouse emissions. Of course, by doing that you have both gone off-topic AND undercut your own position; but I am not qualified to assess your motives.

I myself think that world pollution has a lot to do with the Baby Boomer's, But i also believe that it has as much to do with them as are generation. like cars for example don't you think its about time for us to change to Hydrogen cell vehicles, I say this cause hydrogen cell's give off clean pure water as there exhost, and fossil fuel only has a nother 15 years tell its gone completely"and that is a fact".

Locke1