Posts
I read with interest the article entitled "點先算環保" written by Humptidumpti and would like to stimulate discussions by sharing with you my comments posted there:
I am taking the liberty to submit my view points:
(1) There is a difference btwn methane CH4 and nitrogen oxides NOx. Grass-eating cattle/sheep and bean-eating human may produce methane, but not NOx.
(2) During economic downturn, Canadian forest companies cannot decide unilaterally to use the land for say mixing cement or other industrial purposes. Land-use is stipulated by land permits issued by local regulators. As well, if there is a major change in land use, the Environmental Assessment (EA) regulations may apply.
(3) The threat to the world’s rain forests comes not just from the forest sector. Some mining operators will build roads deep into the forests, cut down trees, and pollute the land and water to mine gold and other metals and minerals when the price is right e.g. mining of gold in Brazil and blood diamond in Africa.
(4) I agree with you that the homo sapiens species has been destructive. But population control is not the main solution to environmental protection, changing people’s thinking and behaviour is. For example: Even with a population decline in the western world, our consumption-based economy will continue to have significant negative impact on the environment and health of people around the world. And, China being the factory of the world, is currently pumping out both pollution and products to satisfy demands.
(5) The mercury problem with the energy-saving lamps is a technological one and can be solved technologically. But that single problem should not create a knee-jerk reaction and change our underlying principle/belief of not wasting energy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Reference:
Please go visit "點先算環保" at: http://ideacapsule.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/%e9%bb%9e%e5%85%88%e7%ae%97%e7%92%b0%e4%bf%9d/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
thanks haricot again, i've replied a little note on my blog, but since i was publishing this for my man, he has made a much more 'complete' note as below 8)
i just wonder.... r u guys both old boys from the same U?
====== [comment from SeeWhy]
Thank you very much for you comments. Your views are very true indeed.
1) Yes, methane is not the same as nitrite. My mistake. I was actually think about to write something about the NOs in fertilizers which, much of those will turn into NOs gas. But I was too lazy to write a paragraph and tried to demo the effect in one sentence and got the facts wrong. However, the effect of methane as “greenhouse” gas is still 20 times of CO2.
2)That is true too. But without the financial incentives, the forest companies will certainly not as eager to grow back the trees after cutting. Besides, many other paper pulp exporting countries do not have such strict rules on land uses.
3) The ways people destroying the environment are just beyond our imaginations. However, I was trying to show that what common understanding in protecting rain-forest, like using less paper, are actually not as effective as commonly thought. In fact, as you have pointed out, mining and burning down trees for farms are much greater threats to the rain-forests.
4) If you think about it, even if people in the whole world have a very good sense in environmental protection, the last issue still comes to population control because there are only so many people the Earth can sustain. People can live without electricity but we all have to eat, right?
5) We should not waste energy either because we want to save the world and/or our pocket. I was trying to demonstrate that what most “environmental friendly” solution may actually not as “environmental friendly” as advertised. Just like those hybrid-energy car. As far as I know, they are still not sure how to handle/recycle the gigantic used batteries except to bury them in the land-fills. Of course, they will figure that out someday. But, until then, the “environmental friendly” solutions will have their not so “environmental friendly” sides. Again, if you think about, the nuclear energy that most people hated may be the most environment friendly source of energy as long as people are able to keep it from melting down. But, until then….
What I was trying to convey was common understanding in how the planet can be saved, how poor people can be help may not be as straight forward as we thought. We have to look at the fine prints, even for good causes.
Thank you Humptidumpti and SeeWhy for your responses.
Seewhy, your points are well taken. There are no simple solutions to the problems we are confronting. As you said quite appropriately: Until then !!
Post a Comment