I know i never make threads and am thus likely to be ignored, but i need to get this out of my system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4077073.stm
and a more amusing version
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4077137.stm
As it happens i was reading in EOS a couple of days ago (EOS is a rather respectable science magazine here). A faction of scientists believe the hole in the ozone-layer over the South Pole will have fixed itself by 2050. Basically it's all in the exchange of harmfull gasses like CFK's between the layers of the atmosphere, and thus when the concentration of these gasses falls in one layer, more ozone would be produced to fill up the existing holes. The sattelite which will monitor this line of thought is called OMI (dutch-finnish device) and was launched by NASA. The basic idea being that there will be no augmentation of these harmfull substances in the meanwhile, negating the wash out.
Now i work in an industry where environmental care and sound business-politics often collide. (Yes even 70kms from Brussels we sometimes hate the petty EU laws)
Basically we work in construction, and get threatened with closure non stop over silly things like too high particle emmissions (in our case the particles consist of... *shock* sand or better the filler that makes up a 30% faction of sand). We don't leak petrol into the soil, we don't flush industrial waste straight into the rivers, we even have millions worth of installations to prevent any bitumen (oil derivate) from the asphalt to end up in our water. (even though it has never been proven that bitumen can actually corrode in such a matter, but it's better to be safe than sorry)
Now i know we're not a multinational who burns the equivalent of a medium oil-state's daily petrol-production into the air daily, but we do our thing for the environment.
But where is the line between sound economics and care for a global issue like environment?
I'm not claiming i know beyond a shred of a doubt that the Kyoto treaty is spot on with its scientific background behind their advice. Hell, even all us 6 billion people breathing all the time is bad for the environment in se. But i can't see how economical growth is a counter-indication for trying to limit certain harmfull practices.
Ofcourse i don't want to see any more unemployed people in the US, or nextdoor for that matter, but environmental care has created it's own fullblown work-sector in our industrialised world surely. So how harmfull would it be to focus even some more on the care for our biosphere, compared to investing in the insignificant short sprees of economical growth when put against centuries of a further decaying environment.
I'm not saying the US does nothing, far from, but this Dr. Watson sounds to me as if he is more worried by the state of his portfolio on the stockmarkets.
So what am i?
A Bush-hating greenpeace activist for the sake of it - or - am i not the only one who worries about stuff like this, my wallet vs some cleanish air for a next generation.
Linear Mode
