Dear Banjo,

Whether you believe in climate change or not not is
a personal matter. The fact remains that after decades of
carelessly dumping noxious gases and particulars into the
atmosphere, most of the industrialised societies are now
enforcing clean-air standards, and air quality in these
societies is generally much better than at any time in the
past years. In the US, for example, auto-emission controls
have reduced the amount of carbon monoxide in the air by
40 percent since 1970. But clear air is a relative matter,
and vast amounts of pollution from American manufacturing,
power generation, waste incineration, and transport still reach
the skies each year, including more than 3 billion pounds
of some thirty-six chemicals suspected of causing cancer and
other chronic elements.

In the less developed countries there are
few controls on air-pollution, and as
these nations industrialise, they are
steadily increasing the sum total of planetary pollution.

This and other atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable
outcome of industrial technology,
it derives also from political decisions
to tolerate pollution rather than bear the costs -
probably including slower economic growth - by limiting it.
The US has some of the world's most stringent anti-pollution
laws, but these are clearly insufficient to prevent potential
grave damage to the atmosphere. Further control of pollution
is politically difficult, however, for the economic interests
behind "smokestack" industries are a powerful political lobby
that is reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the
task. We at least have a government that is trying to do something
moderate about the problem.

Dear Kerryanne,

I usually try to answer people's questions. What I do ignore
however is rants. There is a difference between the two.

Excellent points.

What does not go into the atmosphere winds up in our oceans:

"When we spew carbon dioxide into our air, it eventually ends up in our oceans, too — absorbed to the tune of about 22 million tons per day. This results in global warming’s evil twin: ocean acidification.

As oceans absorb carbon dioxide, or CO2, seawater chemistry changes and the water becomes more acidic. According to scientists, the oceans have become about 30 percent more acidic due to human CO2 emissions, and this spells trouble for ocean life. First of all, ocean acidification depletes seawater of the compounds that organisms need to build shells and skeletons, impairing the ability of corals, crabs, seastars, sea urchins, plankton and other marine creatures to build the protective armor they need to survive. To make matters worse, fish and other ocean organisms may be adversely affected from the rise in acidity in their ocean habitat. Fish are common ocean prey, and plankton are at the base of the ocean food chain, so when these animals suffer, so do the countless animals that eat them. Ocean acidification could disrupt the entire marine ecosystem."

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ocean_acidification/

"What is ocean acidification? What is causing it?

The ocean absorbs approximately 1/3rd of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. However, this valuable service comes at a steep ecological cost - the acidification of the ocean. As CO2 dissolves in seawater, the pH of the water decreases, which is called "acidification".

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, ocean pH has dropped globally by approximately 0.1 pH units."

http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQacidity.html

We need to stop arguing about global warming and get on with cleaning up our act. We can see what is happening to our environment. Only those with vested interests in maintaining business as usual are arguing against observable evidence.

As Tony Windsor stated:

"There should be substantive debates on substantive issues,
not just slogans and one-liners and abuse on the airwaves.
If we construe this debate narrowly (in terms of fuel prices,
and electricity bills et cetera), rather than in ways
we may adjust our patterns of consumption we will miss on
opportunity to adjust to a low carbon future.

We will be trapped in an absolete and uncompetitive economy
and we will still be paying high prices for fuel and
electricity!"

Ammonite "We need to stop arguing about global warming and get on with cleaning up our act. "

Ammonite I suggest you stop pretending you make decisions for anyone else and

stop telling everyone else what they have to do

I am not convinced AGW is "real" in the first place, especially when the "Anthropogenic" component is a tiny contributor to overall CO2 generation.

Just as you are convinced of the dangers of AGW

I am, likewise, convinced that AGW is a politically motivated hoax

I further believe the earth to be an integrated, self-compensating system of incredible complexity, which the scientists, who seek funding from claims of dire AGW, do not understand.

So we will continue to argue because

Your "theory" does not hang together and

lets face it, from your post it is clear, you simply refuse to listen to a dissenting opinion, aka "the voice of reason"

and as for me cleaning up my "Act"

you are not authorised to judge it any more than I am authorised to judge yours.

Better you just tend your own back yard, as I tend mine.... and on that topic: I must say, the orchids and citrus are doing very well at present but we are open to suggestions on promoting fruiting for the avocadoes

Ammonite please do not expect anyone with a brain to be impressed by propaganda. Most of us stop reading when we encounter much spin. Something which is mostly spin doesn't got far at all.

If you like reinforcing your preferences with this stuff, go for it, but, please, don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

Dear Hasbeen,

As I understand it - the point that Ammonite was
making - was that we should be looking at ways we may
adjust our patterns of consumption
( i.e. clean up our acts),
so that we could adjust to a low carbon future.

Now you may
not agree with climate change et cetera, but most people
can see that there are problems associated with
industrialisation, rapid population increases, and
endless expansion in people's material desires.

The most
technologically advanced societies are now digging ever
deeper into the planetary environment for the raw materials
and energy they need to fuel their economic development.
And if this same voracious pattern persists in the future
in other industrialising societies, an expanding demand may
well exceed the planet's finite resources.

As Mt Windsor pointed out -
"There should be substantive debates on substantive
issues, not just slogans and one-liners and abuse on
the air-waves... if we construe this debate narrowly..."

Well you know the rest.