Interesting test.<br />
This is interesting, too:<br />
<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41">http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41</a>
Those oil company executives won't stop at anything to make a buck. Truth or lies, it makes absolutely no difference to them as long as it gets them what they want.
I honestly tried to take the test. That is, I tried to make it through the entire thing with a straight face. I got as far as the suggestion that pollution is good for the environment and couldn't take it anymore.
Which question suggested that pollution is good for the environment? Oh, you must mean the one that says that forests require CO2 to grow, guess what, it is true. They take in CO2 and emit O2. So if you want to drop CO2 levels then plant more trees. No need to have another tax foisted on the working classes.
"Which question suggested that pollution is good for the environment? Oh, you must mean the one that says that forests require CO2 to grow, guess what, it is true. They take in CO2 and emit O2. So if you want to drop CO2 levels then plant more trees. No need to have another tax foisted on the working classes."
I am well aware that it is true that plants breathe in CO2 and exhale O2 but what they are suggesting is that POLLUTION is beneficial to the forests of the world. That would be true if there weren't already an adequate supply of greenhouse gases for the forests to use - which, in case you missed it, they also state. The (indirect) suggestion is that producing more greenhouse gases is good for the environmnet. It is not. It will not grow forests faster than we can and do cut them down.
- The statement that global warming is created by greenhouse gases is true.
- The statement that the majority of greenhouse gases are natural is also true
That does not mean that it is ok to produce more greenhouse gases because by so doing, we upset the NATURAL balance.
No one is arguing that pollution is bad for the environment - that's what pollution means by definition. <br />
<br />
Let's look at the question again:<br />
<br />
"Question: Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants damages forests"<br />
<br />
Of course the CO2 does not harm the forests, but just about everything else produced by a coal-fired plant causes harm to the environment in general, and even the act of feeding a coal-fired plant with coal causes harm to the environment.<br />
<br />
This question demonstrates the folly of the "Global Warming" induce hysteria, because what we should be concerned about is being obfuscated through chasing down a theory that is considered to be highly questionable, and is also something that is disconnected from many kinds of harmful pollutants that are being completely ignored.<br />
<br />
Absolutely no one will disagree that pollution levels that are too high are harmful, however a lot of people will question the unproven and highly questionable theory that the Earth is doomed because of man made CO2 levels. Even without the doubts, the idea that forcibly applying a global taxation scheme on CO2 production (where you pay to produce it) will somehow save the world from a catastrophic failure, is insanity beyond any doubt.<br />
<br />
I'm all for reducing pollution levels, but CO2 is obviously not a pollutant, and I'm not buying into the man-made version of the Global Warming theory because the evidence is in doubt, and finally it is very clear to me that the last thing we need is another taxation scheme that'll do nothing but rip us off.<br />
<br />
All that the taxation scheme will do, is force poor nations to use less fossil fuels, and to make ends meet, will be forced to sell it all off to the rich nations who'll burn it like there's no tomorrow despite the tax.<br />
<br />
I did have a problem with the explanation that was given because although it does mention pollution, it trivializes the problem of a coal-fired plant as follows:<br />
<br />
"The actual exhaust emissions come from the smokestack, which is the tall skinny tower. Because modern technology makes it possible to remove much of the fly ash and sulfur before releasing smokestack gases to the air, smokestack emissons today are often almost invisible."<br />
<br />
I highly doubt that anyone who lives near the fallout of a smokestack will agree with the above assessment. The smokestacks are made very tall for a good reason, and it's done because the smoke is unhealthy to breath otherwise the smokestacks would not be as tall as they are. The height is used to dilute the filth as much as possible before it falls back to earth, it also is done to direct it away from the local area otherwise no one would be able to even work in the plant, let alone live in the general area. True, the filters or "scrubbers" may be highly efficient in theory, but in practice they don't operate at peak efficiency, and they regularly break down.<br />
<br />
One more thing, it is a little known fact that coal-fired plants emit significant levels of radioactive materials. Also the act of supplying a coal-fired plant through mining activities causes all kinds of environmental damage. <br />
<br />
See: Coal Combustion<br />
<a href="http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html">http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html</a><br />
To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)
Stumble It!
This is interesting, too:<br />
<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41">http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41</a>
---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm
I am well aware that it is true that plants breathe in CO2 and exhale O2 but what they are suggesting is that POLLUTION is beneficial to the forests of the world. That would be true if there weren't already an adequate supply of greenhouse gases for the forests to use - which, in case you missed it, they also state. The (indirect) suggestion is that producing more greenhouse gases is good for the environmnet. It is not. It will not grow forests faster than we can and do cut them down.
- The statement that global warming is created by greenhouse gases is true.
- The statement that the majority of greenhouse gases are natural is also true
That does not mean that it is ok to produce more greenhouse gases because by so doing, we upset the NATURAL balance.
---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm
<br />
Let's look at the question again:<br />
<br />
"Question: Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants damages forests"<br />
<br />
Of course the CO2 does not harm the forests, but just about everything else produced by a coal-fired plant causes harm to the environment in general, and even the act of feeding a coal-fired plant with coal causes harm to the environment.<br />
<br />
This question demonstrates the folly of the "Global Warming" induce hysteria, because what we should be concerned about is being obfuscated through chasing down a theory that is considered to be highly questionable, and is also something that is disconnected from many kinds of harmful pollutants that are being completely ignored.<br />
<br />
Absolutely no one will disagree that pollution levels that are too high are harmful, however a lot of people will question the unproven and highly questionable theory that the Earth is doomed because of man made CO2 levels. Even without the doubts, the idea that forcibly applying a global taxation scheme on CO2 production (where you pay to produce it) will somehow save the world from a catastrophic failure, is insanity beyond any doubt.<br />
<br />
I'm all for reducing pollution levels, but CO2 is obviously not a pollutant, and I'm not buying into the man-made version of the Global Warming theory because the evidence is in doubt, and finally it is very clear to me that the last thing we need is another taxation scheme that'll do nothing but rip us off.<br />
<br />
All that the taxation scheme will do, is force poor nations to use less fossil fuels, and to make ends meet, will be forced to sell it all off to the rich nations who'll burn it like there's no tomorrow despite the tax.<br />
<br />
I did have a problem with the explanation that was given because although it does mention pollution, it trivializes the problem of a coal-fired plant as follows:<br />
<br />
"The actual exhaust emissions come from the smokestack, which is the tall skinny tower. Because modern technology makes it possible to remove much of the fly ash and sulfur before releasing smokestack gases to the air, smokestack emissons today are often almost invisible."<br />
<br />
I highly doubt that anyone who lives near the fallout of a smokestack will agree with the above assessment. The smokestacks are made very tall for a good reason, and it's done because the smoke is unhealthy to breath otherwise the smokestacks would not be as tall as they are. The height is used to dilute the filth as much as possible before it falls back to earth, it also is done to direct it away from the local area otherwise no one would be able to even work in the plant, let alone live in the general area. True, the filters or "scrubbers" may be highly efficient in theory, but in practice they don't operate at peak efficiency, and they regularly break down.<br />
<br />
One more thing, it is a little known fact that coal-fired plants emit significant levels of radioactive materials. Also the act of supplying a coal-fired plant through mining activities causes all kinds of environmental damage. <br />
<br />
See: Coal Combustion<br />
<a href="http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html">http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html</a><br />