Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould government policies mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 68% | 105 votes | Total: 154 votes | |
| No | 32% | 49 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesObviously government if competent would regulate carbon dioxide emissions away toward the zero point-the gas is after all causing atmospheric green housing mildly with anticipated severe consequences. This significant intellectual challenge of an environmental nature demonstrates the failure of democracy to promote intelligent ideas unless they are forced upon them. Americans in some respects that are incredulous that humanity actually can adversely affect the air they breathe fail the I.Q. test in satisfaction such as might a chimpanzee in comfort possess (perhaps loaded with a bag of bananas).
Government acquiescence in permissive carbon dioxide releases comprises an abnegation or civil responsibility-when the people are idiots and mired in the mud of swinish consumerism political leaders need to give them a hand out-even if they seek to bite it. Each year humanity releases 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it builds up over time. It has been recently reported that so far since the industrial revolution nearly a half trillion tons of carbon dioxide have been unnaturally added to the planetary ecology warming the world a couple of degrees. Perhaps some people haven't noticed but the Earth is the only planet with much of an oxygen rich atmosphere remaining. Mars lost its oxygen comparatively quickly with just reddish oxidized dirt remaining, and the Earth also may experience a quickening rate of atmospheric oxygen depletion through leakage in to space as the upper atmosphere warms up and the hydrogen molecules increasingly active achieve orbital escape velocity.
One trillion tons of carbon dioxide has been set as a likely number for a compilation of the gas that will be a tipping point in climate catastrophe's and that could occur in just a couple or three decades at the present rate of gassing by the public with automobiles and coal burning plants etc. The adult thing would be to comprehend the anthropogenic effects of carbon dioxide gassing, but the social dumbing down through corporate collectivism and brainwashing by mass broadcast media owned by and for concentrated wealth owners of global polluting industries unwilling to get out of business and let a competent government suggest new business tactics without global warming consequences too substantial that conserve and restore ecological viability.
In times of planetary mass extinctions the carbon dioxide content has been shown to rise-while at times of life's increase of species the atmosphere was more oxygen rich. Dumb creatures in the midst of the planetary mass extinction may not discern the loss of an oxygen rich environment or the missfiring of a few hundred thousand or million brain cells. The social reality that promotes irresponsibility and moral relativism such that a majority or an elite minority may be believe that if they don't mind increasing carbon dioxide emissions then it don't matter (mind over matter) may be surprised when disaster befalls increasing portions of mankind ahead. One may get the feeling that Satan has a good day every time some twit claims that global warming is illusory, or that carbon dioxide isn't significant factor on the increasing acidity of the oceans of the Earth. Time is running on those brainless automobiles burning fossil fuels and factories that release carbon dioxide profusely-and time is running on mankind while the creatures in their comforts deny reality.
Learn more about this author, Gary C. Gibson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
We hear the constant drumbeat, played by environmental groups (emphasis on the mental), politicians, and the mainstream media (bandwagon hoppers that they are) about the dangers of CO2. While they will get no argument that air pollution is bad, especially in big cities, their science classes seem to have failed them as to the causes.
Cars and trucks don't put out mostly CO2; the exhaust contains CO better known as carbon monoxide, which is a deadly gas. CO2 is carbon dioxide, which combined with sunlight and water allows plants to survive through photosynthesis. If we get rid of CO2 we will be getting rid of ourselves as well.
To break this down into basic terms, for the uninformed, we humans inhale oxygen to keep our bodies functioning and alive. Our cells need the oxygen. People exhale carbon dioxide as a waste product. Plants, on the other hand, inhale carbon dioxide and mix it with the water they get through their roots and the sunlight to perform the same or similar functions in their bodies. Those plants inhale that carbon dioxide and exhale the oxygen that we need as their own waste product.
People are beginning to discover that, in big cities, parks, vacant lot gardens, and rooftop gardens are not only pleasant places, but they help reduce the air pollution. Certain trees and shrubs are great at processing polluted air and returning oxygen to us. Even houseplants help process the air in buildings that would otherwise be sick buildings where people are working. Living houseplants can reduce the air pollutants in office buildings drastically. Many places have the fake plants that look pretty, but that is all they do for the office, besides collect dust.
Some examples of plants for reducing indoor air pollutants can be found at http://www.zone10.co m/technology/nasa-st udy-house-plants-cle an-air.html
Their studies have found plants that remove benzene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and trichloroethylene from the air and come from many cleaners used in commercial buildings as well as homes that are bad for our bodies.
http://housep lants.suite101.com/a rticle.cfm/houseplan ts_pollution_fighter s
offers more information about plants that can make your indoor environment healthier. Sure you have to water the plants, but the benefits far outweigh the work. There are also businesses that provide the work, the plants and the maintenance of these little green workers that improve your life.
http://www.tree servicesmagazine.com /article.php?id=1300
This site offers advice on tree planting and maintenance to add beauty and pollution control in cities outdoor areas. Since this site is by tree professionals the information is really good. Another source of information on trees and shrubs that thrive in specific areas is your local nursery operators. They have to be informed on what shrubs and trees will do well in their specific area of the world in order to stay in business.
While pollution and land usage does present problems for air quality around the globe, ignorance and miss-information present large problems as well. People need correct information and education to solve problems and listening to politicians and the mass media is not the place to get that information. Check with local tree services, nurseries, farmers and farm co-ops and businesses that deal with live plants in your area. They will give you the right information and even direct you to other sources.
CO2 is only a problem for us if we allow ourselves to be taken in by the doom purveyors that get money to convince you that all is hopeless unless you do things their way. The biggest problem with those people is that they don't take their own advice and they don't listen to those that really know the truth. If they did listen to true experts, and follow their advice, those purveyors of doom and gloom would have to work for a living and that would just be terrible, for them.
Learn more about this author, Heather Foster.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should the government regulate the terms of cell phone service contracts?
- Is the baseball steroids scandal any business of the US Congress?
- Should employees of government contractors have the same whistleblower protections as federal employees?
- Should Congress set limits on the compensation of corporate executives?
- Should the national drinking age be lowered to 18?
- Should the Food and Drug Administration regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products?
