Global Warming by Political Affiliation

[PeterMP]

I think I get your point, but those are all local/regional problems rather than global.

Some of them were only local issues in the context only a few localities were producing the pollution. LA smog is not unique to LA. Plenty of other places have smog. There are other places that don't have smog, but they don't have the characteristics of LA (e.g. the number of cars). Other places didn't have acid rain, but that was because they were far enough away from the places that generated energy in a manner that produced acid rain causing molecules. There was nothing really special that prevented them from having acid rain. The occurence was related to the generation of the problem causing molecules.

For CO2, every where in the world generates CO2 so you can't be "far" from a CO2 "pollution" source like you can for smog and acid rain generating pollution.

Well, the ozone hole isn't/wasn't a local problem. There are plenty of other examples that aren't as well. Nuclear winter and associated issues from possible exchange of nuclear weapons. Those could cause global catastrophic issues.

There are other issues that are global, but less catastrophic, which we are still going to have to do something about. Mercury in big game fish and other toxins and big game fish. BPA has become a global issue that we don't even know the full extant of the issue yet. BPA is a lot like CO2 and other types of pollution. It COULD be local in nature, but since its use (and production) has been global in nature, it is a global problem.

The penalty of doing nothing related to those issues is surely going to be enough that is reasonable to do something even if doing something bears some costs.

[PeterMP]

I absolutely believe man is capable of killing itself on a global scale... I think other scenarios are more likely than man-caused climate change.

Nobody is claiming that man is going to kill itself on a global scale (like would happen in an exchange of nuclear weapons). The claim is that the cost of doing nothing will be extremely expensive in terms of human life and property issues to the point that it makes sense to do something about it.

[DjTj]

I think I get your point, but those are all local/regional problems rather than global.

The ozone layer is a local issue? :whoknows:

And why would it be possible for man to affect the environment on a local scale but not on a global one? Isn't global just the sum of many locals?

[December90]

Now that CO2 is classified as a pollutant, how long before Oxygen is. I sure hope that we never eradicate the "pollutant" CO2.

[cedk]

The ozone layer is a local issue? :whoknows:

And why would it be possible for man to affect the environment on a local scale but not on a global one? Isn't global just the sum of many locals?

Do not know anything humans did to reverse the ozone layer issue.

[PeterMP]

Do not know anything humans did to reverse the ozone layer issue.

We banned CFCs. The US did it first unilaterally. Then there was something called the Montreal Protocol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

I will take this time to point out that ozone hole hasn't really reversed. Its growth has slowed, but (at least recently) it was larger than ever. CFCs are long lasting molecules, and it takes them a long time to reach the ozone layer. The end result is that there were still be ozone depleting molecules out there for quite a while STILL even though most of the world quit releasing them a while ago (also note some places and processes use CFCs). In addition, one CFC molecule starts a process that can last for an extended period of time and destroy a large number of ozone molecules.

Generally, it is agreed that as CFCs do diminish, which will happen based on the minimal amount that they are used now, that the ozone hole will shrink and that we did act in time to prevent any serious damage to the majority of the human population.

(In the past here, I've compared CFCs and the ozone hole to a hammer on a wall (with some repair processes and "natural" destructive processes). Normally, the combination of repair and "natural" destructive processes gives you a wall of a certain "strength". If you take a hammer to it, you can overwhelm the repair processes and weaken it. If you slow down the amount you are hammering, you will decrease the rate at which you are weakening the wall, but will still continue to weaken the wall as long as your damage + the natural destructive processes are greater than the repair process.

That's where we appear to be with the ozone hole. Once our hammer is diminished even greater, until the wall gets back some of its strength the repair processes will be able to overwhelm our minor hammering + the natural destructive processes and the wall will gain more strength.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Now that CO2 is classified as a pollutant, how long before Oxygen is. I sure hope that we never eradicate the "pollutant" CO2.

If we pumped too much Oxygen into the atmosphere it would be a bad thing too, try not be so simplistic.