Importance of Advertising
I feel so much better after watching this.
How will 5G affect our health and atmosphere, in regard to pollution ? Can we research this before exposing our children to it? 🤔
The Great recession reduced consumption of everything for a decade !?
Carbon taxing, trading… doesn't work; it is green wash to allow big polluters to carry on business as usual. The claim that a bunch of economics Profs singing a letter in support, scares rather than re-assures me. Get as many environmental science Profs and CEOs of major environment-NGOs to sign it too, and we can have a basis for conversation.
Have you've watched the news about the latest UN report? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB419Lt8qqk .
France is also building off shore wind farms; why don't you promote that instead of its nuclear activities? visit: https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/industrial-provider/renewable-energies/wind-energy/offshore-wind-power Nuclear should remain off the table and we need to 'de-nuclearize' the planet, see the examples of New Zealand and the UK (esp. the Orkney islands' inroads to Hydrogen) http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190327-the-tiny-islands-leading-the-way-in-hydrogen-power?ocid=twfut&utm_campaign=IEA%20newsletters&utm_source=SendGrid&utm_medium=Email).
It is crazy for the crazies to call those that oppose GMCs and nuclear crazies 🙂
In all your graphs you report Indices taking 1970 as a base=1. Pls give real numbers then let's see if you can tell the same story. Also descriptive statistics of just 2 variables at a time are pretty weak premise to imply causal links of what is happening or not happening. E.g. How much water in total did the US have in 1970 l how much water it has today? Maybe the quantity used in 1970 represented a small % of the total amount of water. I'm sure we are all have some ideas of when water shortages started becoming an issue for the US.Check out something called Groundwater decline and depletion: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/groundwater-decline-and-depletion?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
It is true that mob replaced a dozen or so devices but it is also true that people buy a mobile every year or two and this wasn't the case with the equipment that the mobile phone replaced. Plus not everybody owned and bought such equipment. Today mobile penetrations is 90% of the US and several Americans have more than one mobile phone. Rear earths have also to be transported from China; whereas there were no rare earths in the old tech the mobile replaced.
It is true that the 'cost' of any 'technology' is going down over time (and so will do with renewables); part of the reason is that diffusion/adoption and thus the amortisation of the R&D involved int the said technology by more people/units of sale and another part is due to tech advancement which makes dematerialisation possible (e.g. we no longer need film to take photos and cause most people share them on line we don't even need paper to print them; whereas before that was compulsory for the given tech). However, these two stories/aspects shouldn't be mixed up with economic growth not placing additional demands on the environment, or with effective regulation or lack thereof.
The main reason for example for the SO2 emissions dropped so much; i.e. one of your success story examples, in the US has been the introduction of regulation / legislation (clean air act of 1963 and there after) that brought them down from 31 million tonnes in 1970 to 3 million in 2017. To accomplish that there was a combination of additional factors; cf. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29812.
@21:51: "POVERTY IS THE GREATEST POLLUTER" – Ghandi
"THE LACK OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL" – Mark Twain
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.