Who do we blame for pollution?

[donnashuggy]

the consumer

the advertiser

the manufacturer

the government

the naive

the rich man

the poor man

feel free to add to the list, I am going out with dark glasses on in case someone decides to light fireworks

have a good one everyone!

[polocross58]

Quote:

'  One-sixth of China’s arable land — nearly 50 million acres — suffers from soil pollution, according to a book published this yearby the Ministry of Environmental Protection. The book, “Soil Pollution and Physical Health,” said that more than 13 million tons of crops harvested each year were contaminated with heavy metals, and that 22 million acres of farmland were affected by pesticides.       

But the government has refused to divulge details of the pollution, leaving farmers and consumers in the dark about the levels of contaminants in the food chain. The soil survey, completed in 2010, has been locked away as a “state secret.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/world/asia/good-earth-no-more-soil-pollution-plagues-chinese-count...

China Says 8 Million Acres Of Farmland Now Too Polluted For Food

December 30, 2013

Quote:  ' An official from the Chinese government announced Monday that approximately 3.33 million hectares, or 8 million acres, of China’s farmland is now too polluted to grow crops,according to a Reuters report from Beijing.

China’s Vice Minister of Land and Resources Wang Shiyuan reportedly told a news conference that current farming on the now-too-contaminated land — roughly the size of Belgium — will be halted and rehabilitated in order to ensure food safety. It was unclear late Monday whether food that had already been grown on that land would be sought out or recalled.

“These areas cannot continue farming,” Wang said, noting that the Ministry of Environmental Protection had deemed all of the 8 million acres as having “moderate to severe pollution.”

The Chinese government has said that the country needs at least 120 million hectares of arable land to ensure it is able to meet the vastly populated country’s food needs. Though China started 2013 with a strong 135 million hectares of arable land, contamination — paired with recent efforts to convert farmland to forests, grasslands and wetlands — has caused the amount of stable cultivated land to drop to 120 million hectares (see more at link)  End quote

China Eases One-child policy

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/28/world/asia/china-one-child-policy-official/

Populations by Country and their percentage of world's total

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/population-by-country.htm

50% of Indians do not have a home toilet

It's not practical or realistic for developed nations to go daily to market to buy chunks of meat, fish and vegetables.  Hence, pre-packaged foods

People no longer spin, weave and make their clothing at home

Cities continue to expand and to outpace public transport, necessitating the use of private motor vehicles

People like to fly around the world.  Commercial airlines continue to grow

There are too many people on the planet.  But the only thing most people 'achieve' is to produce replacements for (more of) themselves

More, more, more

Look at China for example.  They're polluting their land, they know it, but at the same time they're desperate now to 'grow' new people to pay for those no longer contributing to national coffers

At this rate, they're going to have to stamp birth-certificates with date of death, i.e., people's end-by date

Once that's implemented, the death-date/use-by date will shrink backwards until people's life-spans will shorten, like it or not.  That's if the problem isn't tackled by brute-force in the guise of lab-created plagues to drastically reduce the world's population

Or -- maybe select groups will be seeded off-planet - if that isn't being conducted already

We're like a festering petri-dish that's taken over the laboratory.  An endless swarm of souls keen to inhabit human bodies in order to drink, fornicate, consume and enjoy

The lab assistants clearly ran for their lives years ago.  From space, earth must look like an orange being consumed and covered by fungal growth

[donnashuggy]

All these people against pollution must believe in Climate Change, or am I assuming too much?

[polocross58]

No idea, Donna

Would it be a good idea to phase out (fast) the driver of over-population, i.e. 'romantic' movies, films, books, music, etc ?

The concept of 'one true love' and 'happily ever after' is what, in most cases, produces more people

Organised religion also pushes population-growth and for its own selfish ends

How about world governments take a brave step and grant greatly reduced taxation for singles?  After all, without the enormous expense of children, singles would be able to fund their own retirements.  They wouldn't need large houses.  Governments wouldn't need to devote massive chunks of money to education of the young.  Government funding for medicals would shrink.  Mountains of garbage/packaging would shrink.  There'd be far less mental illness.  Court workloads would be greatly reduced through no longer needing to deal with millions of divorce and custody cases.  Public transport costs would be reduced.  etc

If people were not programmed, quite literally, to believe that 'lurve' was the solution to all their problems --- if they were instead encouraged to seek answers from within and to regard life as a single experience (which it is anyway) rather than believe marriage and children were the reason for life --- well, think about it .....

[cherry*135]

Whoever is the party of the Government of the day.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

The climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years ..........*sigh*

[monman12]

SRBA ; "There has been 4 billion years of change......grasp that."  "the climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years ..........*sigh*
Agreed, but naturally occurring change(s) over and within that period. (remember: "rate of change")

Some 2 million years ago the first genus Homo started appearing, in 1800 the world population was 1 billion, now it is 7 billion.

A look at the graphs below would be enough for an average person to conclude a causal connection between population and   GHG concentration based upon man's activities/presence and the loci of the graphs, then by applying a knowledge of basic atmospheric physics one would expect a slow increase in global  temperatures (thermal inertia) which would then translate into climatic variation.

I must point out (again) that the rate of change of GHG concentration since 1800 is orders of magnitude greater than any natural variation within 4 billion years of natural change,  "rate of change" is so important, and of course:   trend.........*Sigh*

 

nɥºɾ

[imastawka]

Just great.  Now we have duplicate threads complete

with graphs

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@monman12 wrote:

SRBA ; "There has been 4 billion years of change......grasp that."  "the climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years ..........*sigh*
Agreed, but naturally occurring change(s) over and within that period. (remember: "rate of change")

Some 2 million years ago the first genus Homo started appearing, in 1800 the world population was 1 billion, now it is 7 billion.

A look at the graphs below would be enough for an average person to conclude a causal connection between population and   GHG concentration based upon man's activities/presence and the loci of the graphs, then by applying a knowledge of basic atmospheric physics one would expect a slow increase in global  temperatures (thermal inertia) which would then translate into climatic variation.

I must point out (again) that the rate of change of GHG concentration since 1800 is orders of magnitude greater than any natural variation within 4 billion years of natural change,  "rate of change" is so important, and of course:   trend.........*Sigh*

 

nɥºɾ

---

Yes, 4.5 billion years of naturally occuring change.....glad you agree........

[monman12]

---

"Yes, 4.5 billion years of naturally occuring change.....glad you agree........"

However you  conveniently overlook my conclusion SRBA which equates anthropogenic emissions in  just the  last 200 years with a very large rate increase in CO2,  and thus global warming e.g. :

I must point out (again) that the rate of change of GHG concentration since 1800 is orders of magnitude greater than any natural variation within 4 billion years of natural change,  "rate of change" is so important, and of course:   trend.........*Sigh*

I say again SRBA  "rate of change" matters, not period.

nɥºɾ

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@monman12 wrote:

---

"Yes, 4.5 billion years of naturally occuring change.....glad you agree........"

However you  conveniently overlook my conclusion SRBA which equates anthropogenic emissions in  just the  last 200 years with a very large rate increase in CO2,  and thus global warming e.g. :

I must point out (again) that the rate of change of GHG concentration since 1800 is orders of magnitude greater than any natural variation within 4 billion years of natural change,  "rate of change" is so important, and of course:   trend.........*Sigh*

I say again SRBA  "rate of change" matters, not period.

nɥºɾ

---

Your conclusion.....giggle....... 

Prove that any climate change is not natural variation....prove that any rate of change is not natural.