Global Pollution

Women wear masks to protect themselves from Chinese pollution spies...

 

Granny says, "Dat's right - purt soon ain't gonna be air to breathe, den we all gonna die...

Report Ties Air Pollution to 6.5 Million Deaths Globally
June 27, 2016 — The International Energy Agency says each year about 6.5 million deaths worldwide are linked to air pollution and warns that the number will grow unless the energy sector steps up its efforts to slash emissions.

See also:

Air pollution to kill millions more without energy policy change: IEA
June 27, 2016 - Premature deaths from air pollution will continue to rise to 2040 unless changes are made to the way the world uses and produces energy, the International Energy Agency said on Monday.

 

Back in the 40's and 50's I remember knowing only one person who had cancer and I think he had black lung from working in a coal mine...yet today nearly everyone knows someone who has cancer or has died of cancer?!

So what has changed over the decades? Humans ingest stuff through breathing and eating. So apparently over the decades, as we pollute our atmosphere and foods with stuff harmful to humans, the result is higher cancer and death rates. And those who develop cancer might also live a horrible life during their later years which is a heck of a way to sign off...

 

Pollution is everywhere, including the deepest parts of the oceans...

Toxic, Man-made Pollutants Found in Deepest Oceans
February 13, 2017 - No place is safe from pollution, including the deepest parts of the oceans.

 

I always wondered why after a dinner of sautéed amphipods and some wine I felt a little queasy...

 

Granny says it's from all dem sacred cows fartin' whilst dey walkin' `round...

Report says air pollution in India surpassing China
Wed, Feb 15, 2017 - India’s rapidly worsening air pollution is causing about 1.1 million people to die prematurely each year and is now surpassing China’s as the deadliest in the world, a new study of global air pollution showed.

 

Animals and humans across the world are cutting the cheese, floating air biscuits, barn burners, sphincter whistling, and butt yodeling 24/7...

 

VW could reprogram our pollution calculation devices to show less

That public transportation concept should happen, but some re thinking of how we travel needs to happen.

Then, systems, methods and behaviors are really the root of the problem.

Corporatism does two things. Centralizes industry and commodity distribution which makes travel necessary. Zoning was invented because heavy industry was so noxious no one could live by it. As heavy industry is cleaned up, workers might be able to live well enough close by.

Zoning restrictions for retail outlets make travel necessary. Retail outlets that are shipping points can remove a great deal of need to travel. Amazon is working on delivery drones, that will help.

But these kinds of changes take generations to implement and accept unless a population is highly motivated. Justification is there for the motivation, but because the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged people do not know of the facts in this thread so are not motivated.

A good solution is to decentralize a lot of production, but corporations are well fixed in their operation models. The abridging of the PURPOSEof free speech makes public pressure impossible to develop for these matters. Corporations do not want the public decentralizing production so resist education of the public in methods the public could implement.

The more I look at the problem the more I realize we need to use our lawful and peaceful revolution.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

 

I'm quite sure it is intentional that global warming was centralized as the issue by media to prevent organization against toxification. And have been saying that toxification is the real problem for years.

 

There is a hidden problem here.

WTO GATT articles control business in that situation. Such agreements have elements of treason so governments never mention them when disasters occur. The treason is that the nations courts have no authority and no one but the government or state has standing in the tribunal court of the WTO.

The WTO assigns damage control figures to the corporation doing business that are a fraction of what reparations really require, and that's the end of it. Back to business.

The BP gulf oil spill is an example. All entities kept quite about it and federal courts pretended to have jurisdiction so no one would know. But the amounts of reparations were already decided, and that was the end of it.

Meanwhile the gulf is hammered with the corexit that the EPA meekly said "don't spray". They had no authority but played along with the theatre so no one would know.

 

In bold above;

How we travel is primarily determined by technology and cost...plus as you say our rooted behaviors. I think today we have the technology for reasonable public transit so this brings us to the primary issue of cost. When we're placing light rail for example through fallow rural land it's fairly easy and affordable, however, when we require right-aways through populated areas, just acquiring the land today is unaffordable as well as much higher construction costs. I live north of SF and how great and beneficial it would be to have a parallel Golden Gate bridge with railroad tracks but it will never happen because of costs. Even to place rail service across that same area is unaffordable. So in my area from wine country to San Jose, it is impossible to greatly expand the roadways! This fact requires us to consider some forms of public transit. Bedroom communities spread out 50/60 miles from SF so how would we ever get millions of people out of their cars? Or we just continue the gridlock, 1-2 hour commutes, and all the pollution generated from this mess? IMO this is a problem that won't be changed much over the next 100 years.

Business facilities for myriad reasons will continue to be centralized in their current areas. A manufacturing company must locate in areas that provide labor and logistics and is affordable so this won't be in rural areas or downtown SF. A shopping mall and it's myriad stores some of which will fail if you break them up. Most people do not wish to live next to industry. I enjoy those live-work retail centers but the housing part is so small it's not truly helpful and usually they are too expensive for the average person. And today we have scales-of-economy in which mega-stores seem to be more advantageous.

Lastly, I'm 100% for paradigm shifts regarding these topics, but trying to be a realist, it could take a century or two to see any appreciable change. Meanwhile pollution abounds! Some things could accelerate but only when our asses are on fire...

 

Agreed, but then change and its rate is related to behavior. But appraisal of the the root. Reasons for behavior is a slippery slope WITH current info.

We do not know everything about behaviors, or how people to choose to alter them
more radically than ever before.

The ability for the PURPOSE of free speech to manifest is really in control.

 

IMO it's not so much about free speech as it is about two or more sides being able to constructively discuss the issue du jour. In this case, we either have pollution or we do not. We either have potential problems in the future or we do not. There are only so many courses of action to take and yes one of them is doing nothing...

 

I consider this to be a feature of the PURPOSE of free speech.

"two or more sides being able to constructively discuss the issue du jour."

The usenet WAS the place where that could happen. With new innovations, if the usenet were returned, the discussion can take place with great efficiency.

 

Just as we see here on PF, and the same applies to every public forum, there are some who can have constructive dialogue but there seems to be many more who are incapable of on-message public dialogue. What's interesting to me is a difference I see between business and government/society...in business if there is a problem or a goal the appropriate people are assigned to tackle the issue and it is guaranteed a solution is found that satisfies the company no matter the team's personal preferences in life. In government, with any issue, if 15 people are assigned to research and solve something, first there will be 16 varying answers to the same problem, and, either something half-assed will be done or nothing. In government it seems it's okay to kick the can down the road forever while in business those who kick the can are kicked out. IMO the problem with government is zero accountability at all levels...

 

Those incapable would be either cognitive infiltrators, astroturfers or individuals conditioned by the mentality behind those positions.

Well you've divided up the matter that should not be divided into "business or government" when relating to our futures, but your analysis is correct and valid.

If we remove the infiltrators from the discussion and the those conditioned by them operating under an agenda outside of law, rejecting law, working to defeat law, then the solid front we present to government narrows the 16 answers to a few potential realities.

Governmental entities do far better when there is a substantial public comment upon and issue. Otherwise you have a few guessing about the public's needs and others working for special interests generating a plethora of possibilities.

This is why Americans need to see the END of the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech.

Firstly access to national television prime time on commercial channels to set forth facts on perhaps a dozen different issues that are overarching. Then a return of the usenet where discussion upon them proceeds. Add to that special software that helps masses of people refine informed opinion efficiently and the functionality increases multifold.

 

I'm guessing some believe it's not in the best interest of the USA to provide too much information.

Also, information, no matter fictional or factual, is relative to those interpreting the information.

IMO a major reason for a representative government is to have highly qualified and consensus building representatives, and no matter political party, they focus on doing what's in the best interest of the USA. We try to accomplish this with 565 representatives because it's impossible with 320 million citizens. However, our citizenry today has proven themselves incapable of placing qualified and consensus builders in office...

 

Okay, that all sounds about right.

The inability to place qualified consensus builders into office is dysfunction created with the abridging of the purpose of free speech.

The problems with citizens united exemplifies it. Politics is hijacked by money in every way.

 

I have mixed feelings about campaign and special interest contributions. Even if a person contributes $1 million to a PAC, that person still only has one vote. Therefore, another person with little wealth has an EQUAL single vote. The problem here is not the money but how gullible and stupid many of the voters are who will believe anything their party tells them.

 

True enough. However the PURPOSE of free speech affords the people the creation of an informed opinion between them. The current mass media manages opinions, which is always dynamically encouraging the public to believe what special interests want them to believe.

Do remember the usenet?

 

The purpose of free speech is to allow free speech...it is not required for free speech to be 'informed' or factual or even kind.

If you're talking about the media 'managing opinions' then people need to be smart enough to understand the difference between an opinion and facts or legitimate news. IMO the special interest group has the right to say whatever they wish, including outright lies, but when idiots believe lies to be news or facts, this is not a problem with the media but a problem with idiot people...