Mount St. Helens is WA state's No. 1 air polluter

John Patrick Luethe writes "The Seattle Times has run an article on Mount St. Helens' recent massive pollution. The article claims that since the start of the recent volcanic activity starting in early October the volcano has pumped out between 50 and 250 tons of sulfur dioxide each day and has become the states largest polluter."

Comments

Gaia Watch Out!

[Anonymous Coward]

The eco-terrorists are gonna be coming after you!

Re:Gaia Watch Out!

[Anonymous Coward]

rofflez

Re:Gaia Watch Out!

[StalinJoe]

Now, I'm no tree-hugger. I am not an eco-terrorist. I drive an SUV.

But isn't it a little disconcerting that it took an active spewing volcano over two months to get pingged for excessive emissions?

Day after day of spewing tons of pollutants, and it takes OVER TWO MONTHS to pass up the status-quo industrial polluters?

Hmmmmmm...

Re:Gaia Watch Out!

[gadget junkie]

Let's sue it for damages!

Wow, that's interesting

[MrRobahtsu]

I've heard of web sites where they actually include links to the articles and you can go read them for yourself.

Re:Wow, that's interesting

[jazman_777]

I've heard of web sites where they actually include links to the articles and you can go read them for yourself.

The act of looking at the link then not reading the article was left as a mental exercise this time. This is /.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Obviously the solution is to cut taxes for companies that engage in volcanic activity.

And throw in some more tax cuts for plate tectonic activity too.

Re:zerg

[Scott7477]

Yeah, I was wondering how the lefties were going to blame this on President Bush. How about this: Halliburton drilled a well in Wyoming that fouled up the plate tectonics and caused the mountain to start spewing again.

Yep, sounds like something straight out of Howard Dean's moutn....

Re:zerg

[Lord Omlette]

It's been an hour since this story was posted, and I've yet to hear a denunciation from Pres. Bush, therefore he must support this volcanic activity!

*foams*

Re:zerg

[BLAG-blast]

Yeah, I was wondering how the lefties were going to blame this on President Bush. How about this: Halliburton drilled a well in Wyoming that fouled up the plate tectonics and caused the mountain to start spewing again.

Er, Scott, I don't think you are correct about tectonics and Halliburton. The real reason is little more straight forward than that. The Fire Mountain God is angry because Bush has been elected president.

And no air permit, too!

[mschaffer]

This is way over the 250 ton/year limit for SO2 for it to be considered a major source, and I cannot find any record of the EPA region 10 approving an air permit for the National Park Service at that site.

Shame, shame on the NPS to operate an attraction that is so polluting. It should be shut down.

Re:And no air permit, too!

[MemoryAid]

The National Park Service is now stuck with a $50,000 per day fine until they comply with the regulation.

Everyone always talks about volcanic CO2 pollution

[WolfWithoutAClause]

But nobody ever does anything about it.

I think the federal government should step in with a grant or something.

Ban it

[Anonymous Coward]

We should outlaw it.

Kyoto Accord?

[TFGeditor]

I wonder if the Kyoto Accord takes into account things like this.

Re:Kyoto Accord?

[TFGeditor]

"The US (not a Kyoto signee) has stricter environmental controls these days than almost all of the Kyoto nations." Interesting. I wonder, too, how many Kyoto signee country perform annual emissions tests on individual automobiles. The U.S. does in some areas.

Re:Kyoto Accord?

[Ahruman]

The US (not a Kyoto signee) has stricter environmental controls these days than almost all of the Kyoto nations.

...and yet it manages to grant so many exceptions that it's the world's biggest polluter.

Besides, it's not really fair to compare the US to most Kyoto signatories, since they don't claim to be first-world nations. If your economy is based on subsitance farming, pollution controls are a secondary concern.

Re:Kyoto Accord?

[Martin Blank]

I suspect that has more to do with the fact that the US has more power plants and vehicles than any other nation. The grid could use an overhaul, though. I wonder how much of the loss could be remediated with new infrastructure. It might be worth it to make such upgrades tax-free. Emissions from inidividual vehicles are generally down -- in California, the state government is struggling with lower gasoline tax revenues than expected because of the expanding use of fuel-efficient cars.

It would be most interesting to see comparisons of various pollutants (COx, NOx, SO2, O3, etc) in cities around the world. I see them here and there (Los Angeles or Houston in the US, Shanghai or Beijing in China, sometimes Tokyo or London), but I've not seen a large-scale, top 100-population city pollution list.

Re:Everyone always talks about volcanic CO2 pollut

[NonSequor]

I think we should follow Iceland's model. We need to find a way to control the weather with the power of the fiery magma beneath the earth's crust.

This also has a secondary effect. Our use of geothermal power will bring all of the world's greatest mad scientists to the US. Mad scientists are naturally drawn to geothermal power like moths to flame. Sure, mad scientists may be unpredictable, but at least some of them will do spectacular things to benefit humanity and I think it's worth the risk of a cataclysm or two.

Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[FleaPlus]

Does anybody know overall how global volcanic emissions compare to human output?

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Anonymous Coward]

A major event outside of rare caldera forming eruptions absolutely dwarfs human activity. The earth is big, and has a lot of heat capacity, mechanical energy and internal energy in the form compressed gases. We are very very small and tinker around insignificantly on the very outer layers of its skin. Ants are far bigger actors on a forest than we are on the earth. We're just better at measuring things.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would depend on which human to whom you are referring and also depend on what the human ate that particular day.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Bigger. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, for instance, launched more stuff into the atmosphere than all human activity during the 19th and 20th centuries combined. It had the effect of reducing ozone levels in the tropics significantly, even creating a 20% reduction in the temperate region of the northern hemisphere.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA! It's in there, you fuckwit.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Yokaze]

CO2: Neglectable

B.4 Don't volcanoes naturally release far more CO2 into the atmosphere each year than humans?

Response: No. On a global scale, volcanoes release less than 1% of human emissions of carbon dioxide and hence are a minor contributor to changes in its atmospheric concentrations. Furthermore, emissions from volcanoes have always been part of the natural cycle, [...].

Or other concrete numbers e.g. SO2 : 79 Tg/a human-caused, 24 Tg/a due to natural processes, including volcanoes.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[FleaPlus]

But between the article, what I've seen elsewhere online, and the replies I've gotten, there's a whole bunch of conflicting answers.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[fluffy666]

Do you have any numbers to back that up? (Answer: No, but that's not going to stop you posting, of course)

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Dachannien]

I took the liberty of creating a link for a Google search for you, since you're too busy trolling to do it yourself.

Anyway, the impact of Pinatubo was to cool the earth by about 0.5 deg C, an effect which lasted a few years. The effect is theorized to be due to the reflection of solar energy by the volcanic aerosol released into the stratosphere. However, warming of the stratosphere occurs in the tropics due to absorption of ground radiation. It's certainly not a simple phenomenon, but the scope of it was in fact greater than any man-made climate change over the same period.

There doesn't seem to be any easily-available info on whether there is a longer-term effect of cooling/warming resulting from pollution released by volcanic eruptions.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[fluffy666]

I took the liberty of creating a link for a Google search for you, since you're too busy trolling to do it yourself.

Your claim was that 'The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, for instance, launched more stuff into the atmosphere than all human activity during the 19th and 20th centuries combined.' . Even at a subset, that means you are claiming that the eruption put more CO2, SO2, Nitrogen oxides and particulates into the atmosphere than all human activities for the past 200 years. You've made an absurd claim that you can't back up in a couple of sentances, which looks a lot more like trolling than my post.

A good starting point..

Mt. Pinatubo put around 17 Million tonnes of Sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere (17Tg). Humans emit 66Tg PER YEAR. However, volcanic emissions are injected higher than human ones, making the contribution for a single year approxamately equal.

Mt Pinatubo put around 44 Million tonnes CO2 into the atmosphere. That's around half a day's worth of human emissions. 3 Million tonnes HCl, the vast majority of which rained straight out.

And the effect was a short lived pulse of cooling; the particulates come out in a few months. This is why you don't see anything about longer term effects. There are none.

So, contrary to what is endlessly repeated and recycled, volcanoes do not have anything near the impact of humans and the figures - could you be bothered to research them - support this entirely.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[WaterBreath]

RTA:

"On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.

'I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again.' "

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Anonymous Coward]

Genius is 1% respiration and 99% precipitation.

Did you mean in your sig that being really smart comes 99% from the rain/snow/sleet, etc. or did you mean to use a different word (one that means sweat)? This is where an asshat would say "Good work genius."

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[WaterBreath]

It's supposed to be funny. Maybe I should be saying "good work genius", to you.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[caffeine_monkey]

When talking about pollution, what is important is the amount above baseline -- that is, the amount present due to natural processes. Clearly, volcanoes have been spewing CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere throughout Earth's history, and so volcanic "pollution" is part of this baseline.

It's important to consider the baseline because this is what our ecosystem evolved in, and what is it in equilibrium with. Carbon dioxide, for instance, is required by plants. Animals expel CO2 when they exhale, but this can't be considered pollution because it's part of the equilibrium equation. Internal combustion engines are clearly not part of the natural equation, however, and so the CO2 they put out IS pollution. See the difference?

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, guess what, butt whipper, it aint funny.

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Dachannien]

Your claim was that

Sorry. Wasn't me. Read before you flame :)

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[fluffy666]

Given that you called me a troll , it's fair enough for me to assume that you agreed with the original poster...

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[Anonymous Coward]

Animals and Humans expel CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

Internal Cumbustion Engines expel CO (Carbon Monoxide).

Re:Volcanic emissions compared to human output

[the_mad_poster]

He's not trolling. The offhanded comment at the end was curt, but not unjustified. If a poster is going to make a claim, s/he should cite a source. If I had to waste my time verifying every non-obvious statement - such as data regarding volcanic eruptions - made by non-experts, I'd never get anything done.

Is Twirlip an expert on volcanic eruptions? I have no idea, so the answer for me is 'no'. I think that's the common answer for the Slashdot readership as well, as I doubt most of them know the guy.

Did Twirlip cite a source for his claim, since his word can't be taken as expert testimony? No.

Therefore, was it jutsified for my g-parent poster to demand proof? Absolutely.

Too much of this "oh, if someone said it it must be true" on Slashdot. Nothing wrong with demanding that people back up their non-obvious claims, because it's not the reader's responsibility to automatically assume everything stated on Slashdot is gospel truth.

Carbon Dioxide emissions

[caseih]

While the SO2 emissions are considered pollution, I was shocked at how high the daily man-made CO2 emissions were. The CO2 emissions wouldn't be such a big deal if they were coming from some organic source, but since they are being added to the carbon cycle, that's a lot of CO2 to absorb. And there's no end in sight. It is high time we started replacing our fossil fuels with organic fuels. At that point CO2 emissions become non-issues since there would be no net increase in the carbon levels of the enviroment. It's not the burning that is the problem (outside of NO2 and SO2 creation); it's the buring of fossil fuels that add CO2 that is the problem.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the Gulf of Mexico called to say that agricultural runoff from the Missippi delta is sterilizing huge areas of the sea by promoting spectacular alge blooms.

I hate arabs too. You know what the answer to that is? Big government with big taxes to build the modern infrastructure we need but everyone thinks someone else should pay for. Anything else and it's just shuffling the evil around.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[fm6]

By "organic" I assume you mean "crop-based". Except that it takes energy to grow crops. By some calculations, it takes more than you produce.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[whovian]

It is high time we started replacing our fossil fuels with organic fuels. At that point CO2 emissions become non-issues since there would be no net increase in the carbon levels of the enviroment.

Props to you, but a small nit. Since fossil fuels are organic compounds, the term I think you meant is renewable organic fuels (like corn alcohol). Fixating the carbon we cause to be released is the responsible thing to do IMO.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[mbourgon]

And that's why Kyoto should include population densities. How many tons of CO2 are nations like India or China putting out? Isn't that harming the fragil ecosystem as well?

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[therealmoose]

While the SO2 emissions are considered pollution, I was shocked at how high the daily man-made CO2 emissions were. The CO2 emissions wouldn't be such a big deal if they were coming from some organic source, but since they are being added to the carbon cycle, that's a lot of CO2 to absorb. And there's no end in sight. It is high time we started replacing our fossil fuels with organic fuels. At that point CO2 emissions become non-issues since there would be no net increase in the carbon levels of the enviroment. It's not the burning that is the problem (outside of NO2 and SO2 creation); it's the buring of fossil fuels that add CO2 that is the problem.

Why exactly? C02 is C02, radiation from the sun doesn't care where it came from. Coal is organic, oil is organic, it's all carbon and oxygen.

Problems arise when the rates are screwed up, not because of some 'organic' voodoo. The world would be a better place if people working to protect it would argue rationally instead of throwing around crab about organics.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[gotih]

i'm told (yes, be skeptical) that the energy produced by ethanol does not equal the energy used to produce it. i'd imagine that's because we use a ton of petroleum fertilizer for corn production.

that doesn't mean a closed carbon cycle fuel is DOA, it just means we chose the wrong crop. why did we choose corn when there are hundreds of other options? see: pork barrel and ADM

did you know an automobile can run on wood? you won't drive terribly fast (yay, says the cyclist!) but it works (link and link). using crops such as willow trees (for gassification) or alge to make biodiesel is totally feasable and results in a very positive net energy gain.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[bcattwoo]

I think what he was saying was that if we used fuels made from plants grown in the present it would not have a net effect on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. That is, the carbon dioxide released on combustion would be equal to that taken up by the plants when they grew. On the other hand, when we burn fossil fuels we are releasing carbon that had been previously sequestered.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[j-turkey]

It's not the burning that is the problem (outside of NO2 and SO2 creation); it's the buring of fossil fuels that add CO2 that is the problem.

I'm no scientician, but if you burn organic fuels, they release CO2 the same way fossil fuels do...the same way that burning wood or anything else releases CO2. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding...are you suggesting that the crops grown for fuel will pull in enough atmospheric carbon to offset the cost of burning it? I'm not sure that I'm inclined to believe that based solely on antecdotal evidence. Can you post any links?

Also, remember that fossil fuels are part of the carbon cycle...all on a moderate geological delay of course, but it is all part of the bigger picture.

Anyway, I'm pretty curious about where you're coming from on this.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[jonabbey]

I'm no scientician, but if you burn organic fuels, they release CO2 the same way fossil fuels do...the same way that burning wood or anything else releases CO2. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding...are you suggesting that the crops grown for fuel will pull in enough atmospheric carbon to offset the cost of burning it? I'm not sure that I'm inclined to believe that based solely on antecdotal evidence. Can you post any links?

Growing plants take their carbon from the air. If you burn one year's crops, you've returned much of their carbon to the air. Next year's crop, if similarly sized, will pull it back out of the air.

We're just running a rather large current carbon sequestration deficit, as we're burning the sequestered carbon from hundreds of thousands of years, far faster than it can be absorbed by the biosphere.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[Hatta]

are you suggesting that the crops grown for fuel will pull in enough atmospheric carbon to offset the cost of burning it?

They give off exactly as much CO2 as they absorb from the atmosphere. Where else is all that carbon going to come from?

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

It is high time we started replacing our fossil fuels with organic fuels

Huh, you don't believe that fossil fuels are organic? They are organic, but solar energy is not organic, interestingly enough. I suggest you rethink you position on "organic fuels".

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[fm6]

Well yeah, artificially fertilized corn is not the best choice for growing fuel. I'm not sure what the alternatives are, but let's just assume for the moment that there exists a crop that doesn't need fertilizer and that consumes as much CO2 when you grow it as it produces when you burn it. You still have to plant, cultivate, harvest, process, and distribute it. Which takes energy. So a lot of the fuel you produce has to go right back into the system.

I'm not an expert, but I find it hard to believe that you can find enough cropland in the world to produce enough crop fuel to completely replace fossil fuel. You can maybe make a dent in fossil fuel consumption, but only at an enormous environmental cost -- turning huge plots of land into sugar cane (or whatever) monoculture. If your goal is to pull CO2 out of the air, you'd be better off putting your resources into reforestation. Which doesn't really solve the problem either, but is preferrable to turning the planet into a canefield.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[gotih]

why did you bother to write two paragraphs which say "yeah, uh, corn is not a good fuel source. there's gotta be something better. dunno what it is. humm, maybe there's nothing better." next time hows about doing some reading before hitting 'submit'. i guess i wasn't blunt enough with my links, here's a good place to start: energy sufficient to fuel the entire US is available from the sun and it doesn't take radical technology and it doesn't take crazy amounts of cropland. all it takes is waste water in oversized kiddie pools, oily alge and the replacement of gasoline engines with diesel engines. (this link was in the grandparent too).

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[DoubleTallLatte]

It's true, when you burn anything ORGANIC (the definition of organic is for the substance to contain Carbon) It will release CO2, including wood, corn alcohol, and etc. One of the biggest problem with coal is actually not CO2 but Sufur Dioxide SO4- another greenhouse and ozone gas (please correct me if I am wrong, it's been a while since my last chem course) Personally, I don't believe in any clean way of creating power. Hydropower energies damages wild life, solar energy sounds great but imagine the pollution cause my making the solar cells and wind power kills migration birds. Using crop sugar as mentioned in previous posts, is inefficient and creates other problems, ie chemical fertilizers and GM plants. The fact that we are so dependent on electicity is our fault, so if we are going to leave the lights on when no one is in the house, then you have to live with the consequence of Global warming. When a volcano erupts, it is a natural process that is needed for mother earths survival and you it shouldn't be compared to our industrial "pollution"

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[Stephan Schulz]

let's just assume for the moment that there exists a crop that doesn't need fertilizer and that consumes as much CO2 when you grow it as it produces when you burn it.

Any plant consumes as much CO2 when it grows as it releases when you burn it (completely). All (except for possible traces) of the Carbon in the plant comes from atmospheric CO2. If you burn the plant matter, it is converted back to CO2 (with the help of athmospheric Oxygen). Life is a chemical process, the Carbon just passes through.

The problem with plants grown in intensive agriculture is that you need a lot of additional energy (i.e. to make fertilizer from atmospheric nitrogen, to run tractors, ...) that your energy balance might be negative.

Re:Carbon Dioxide emissions

[fm6]

Oops, you're quite correct. I should have stuck with the extra energy issue.

Re:Everyone always talks about volcanic CO2 pollut

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Mad scientists are naturally drawn to geothermal power like moths to flame.

Yeah, bring em on, with lots of those cool Tesla coil thingeys, stickey out hair, and lab coats! That's the ticket! You know where you are with people like that!

I think it's worth the risk of a cataclysm or two.

I'm sure that the very tiny/big risk of a cataclysm is better than global warming.

What about MS

[eamonman]

Don't they pollute with a lot of buggy crap software? The cumlative explatives incurred by their software has polluted much of the free world.
Ok fine, I guess I'll give a VOLCANO the benefit of the doubt. MS is in second.

So Bulldoze It

[Huitzlopochtli]

I have a simple solution...simly bulldoze Mt. St. Helens and put a giant mall in its place...surely this will produce less pollution.

This is a DIGEST web site!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

As I'm sure you very well know, everything posted at Slashdot is at least the second time around. Why? Slashdot is formulated around an amazing concept: It's a news digest. In other words, Slashdot itself never actually writes anything (with the exception of book reports and Ask Slashdot, maybe a few others). And as we all know, this is a good thing since it is fairly obvious that Slashdot "editors" are illiterate. So, "what's your bitch"? Don't like Slashdot? There is always K5.

Mount St. Helens is WA state's No. 1 air polluter

[macdaddy357]

And global warming is caused by cows farting.

The Conservatives Position

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no hard evidence that 250 tons of sulphur dioxide per day contribute to pollution. Rather than burden volcanoes with unnecessary restrictions, we should lower taxes on them to stimulate growth and create new jobs.

Who cares?

[JhAgA]

Dealing with it would surely cut out jobs, wouldn't it? Leave it be.

This is giving bush's admin fits

[WindBourne]

Thye are still trying to figure out how to give MSH a tax break.

So, build a filter above/around it...

[ivi]

After due safety considerations, let there be a
world-class engineering / contruction project
to put an effective filter into place here. ;-)

Pollution?

[glapalom]

How can anyone say that Mt. St. Helens actually pollutes? I mean, isn't this just a natural volcanic reaction, and if so, how can a planet pollute itself with it's own elements? Isn't this just part of being on this planet?

Re:Pollution?

[Anonymous Coward]

When a single act of mother nature on one point of the earth causes more environmental shock than a year of regular activities by humans in an entire state, it makes people stop and wonder how anyone can say that people pollute.

I think pollution is bad, don't get me wrong. I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's hard to convince lots of people to clean up their act when some shit just blows up at random, causing more environmental impact than some 5+ million people in a year.

Mother nature doesn't give a shit if humanity up and dies or if water levels raise 50 feet. Humanity does. So ideally, humans SHOULD care about the PREVENTABLE pollution, even if unpreventable pollution happens.

Re:Pollution?

[iggymanz]

I would say anything man does also is a part of earth, even if we scour the biosphere right off this old ball.

Re:Pollution?

[TheNarrator]

You forget that humans did not land here from outer space. We are a product of the earth too. So how can naked apes like us burning fossil fuels, given that we are part of the earth just like the volcano, be any worse than what the volcano does? In the 19th century there were theories called "vitalism" that said that there was something about human life that was so fantastic that it was not understandable to science. The modern environmentalist movement has this same idea, that somehow humans are different from the rest of nature.

Re:Pollution?

[mailman-zero]

Modern Environmentalism as it has come to be known regards man as a thing of naught. They seek to punish and torture humans in the name of "saving the Earth."

I don't know if it's still like this, but I remember being indoctrinated in such things while going to Elementary School. I even once had a "Save the Planet" poster hanging in my room. Now I'm convinced that the planet doesn't need saving, it does a pretty good job of doing that itself.

I'm not saying we should just trash the place up, but at the same time we should realize that the Earth has been going through all sorts of fluctuations and cycles of change for a very long time. It will continue to do so as a result of the way it is, or rather, the way it has developed. (Remember the Ice Age? How about all those dinosaurs that mysteriously just died out? Nature does that.)

Re:Pollution?

[WaterBreath]

I think you might be missing the point of the article. I read it as being an interesting little ironic factoid, not something everyone needs to worry about. And as far as the term "pollution", I think they mean it to be something that is diffused (or dumped) into the environment that damages the ecosystem in the area. There's no inherent problem with that. The earth's ecosystem has evolved to recover from these events. The problem is that human pollution doesn't stop. It just keeps pumping away, day after day, year after year. And it's been doing so at a higher rate than the rest of nature (for C02 at least) since the mid-18th century.

As another poster pointed out, the fringe eco-groups seem to view man as some type of plague or virus whose only purpose is destruction (always makes me think of Agent Smith). But it's clear we arose out of natural processes, and are a part of nature. But I think we definitely need the watchdog groups, and we need people who don't let us forget that we do have an effect. I don't think that corporations, left to themselves, would spend their money to try and preserve the earth unless we were in dire danger due to our own actions. I'm convinced that the watchdogs will help us, over time, decrease our polluting output and eventually reach a state where us and our technology co-exist safely with the environment. But I also don't think we could get there without going through such environmentally destructive eras as the industrial and post-industrial.

Re:Pollution?

[Namarrgon]

In the 19th century there were theories called "vitalism" that said that there was something about human life that was so fantastic that it was not understandable to science. The modern environmentalist movement has this same idea, that somehow humans are different from the rest of nature.

Actually, most religions believe that too. Souls are the ineffable quality that sets humans apart from the rest of creation.

You can certainly take the view that anything humans do is as natural as anything else. We're not going to screw up the planet any worse than a ELE-asteroid slamming into the crust, and that's happened more than once already.

But it's going to cause some inconvenience for us (drastic climate change, flooding etc), and for the species that go extinct as a result. It makes sense to minimise the effect we're having on the environment simply to give us (and the rest of nature) more time to adapt to the changes. The cost of dealing with global climate shifts will be an awful lot higher than losing a few jobs.

What I never understood was...

[T-Ranger]

When environmentalists are rambling on about how man is destroying nature, how that compares to what nature does itself. Like, we may be causing global warming, and that might be causing extinctions, isn't there a semi-regular ice age cycle? Isn't nature taking out the week links all on its own? The ozone layer just didn't spontaneously form, wont the processes that put it there in the first place repair it? Im not advocating that we don't try to reduce what we do, but nature seems to be able to fuck itself up all on its own.. Could we get some perspective here?

Re:What I never understood was...

[Uri_bending_spoons]

Well, when you're talking about nature repairing itself, you're talking about a very delicate balance. And we're altering the balance on both ends.

We are not only adding tremendous amounts of man-made greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, we're also attacking the processes that soak up those gasses. Namely, we're cultivating large amounts of soil (greatly reducing its ability to soak up carbon) and chopping large swathes of forest (which are a huge "sink" and drain tons of carbon from the atmosphere).

So, while the earth may be able to adjust, we have been tampering with a delicate balance in a very serious way. This is why I'm not a big fan of all the solutions to global warming that involve adding more carbon "sinks" instead of pushing for higher emissions efficiency and actually asking people to lessen their glut of consumption.

Re:What I never understood was...

[bcattwoo]

Like, we may be causing global warming, and that might be causing extinctions, isn't there a semi-regular ice age cycle?

Yes, it is true that there is a natural ocurring cycle of global warming and cooling, but it appears that it as accelerated in the last 100 years. Do we really want to hasten it without fully understanding the consequences and allowing time to prepare for them?

The ozone layer just didn't spontaneously form, wont the processes that put it there in the first place repair it?

Again, that is true, but no one is proposing to "repair" the ozone layer. Rather the environmentalists want to reduce the rate of destruction so that the restorative processes can catch up. Saving the ozone layer is not just for sentimental reasons either, it serves a vital function.

A lot of the work done here at the EPA is about saving and improving the quality of life of one species: humans. Ground level ozone, fine particulate matter emissions, contaminated drinking water, mercury from coal plants, etc. are all things that affect people. And yes, we are just a part of the planet, so if we f*** it up we are f***ing ourselves.

ADM link...

[gotih]

d'oh! i forgot to add this link: http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm1296.04.ht ml#corp1 it's a reference to Archer Daniels Midland who are pretty fucking evil. i learned about them because they always sponsored PBS shows like nova. but then i learned more about them. they do some insane amounts of lobbying and fixed a bunch of prices on things that they produced. some call it smart business, i call it mother fucking.

Volenteers?

[NarcolepticTerrorPoo]

Any Volenteers to give the angry volcano a ticket?

OK, didn't think so.

How about we sweeten the deal, we'll throw in cremation at no extra cost!

Anyone?

Bueller?

Perspective

[TheLink]

Sure. The way I see it is: we have brains, the power to change things AND are already changing things whether voluntarily or not. There are 6 billion of us. The animals and plants directly under our control and responsibility number even more.

So, we should be careful to pick the changes we want so that we have a decent time on this world (and possibly other worlds).

Trying to minimize the number of species from going extinct just for the sake of that is silly. Trying to prevent any change to the environment is silly too. But changing or allowing change to the environment without long-term consideration is irresponsible.

If whales etc have to go extinct then it better be a well thought out choice, rather than "oops".

But I sure think we'd be better off if all the bloodsucking mosquitoes go extinct and stay extinct. Sure some animals will suffer and might even go extinct if they (or their prey) don't have enough mosquitoes to eat, but NOT all will. Some will adapt and many wouldn't even notice the difference - after all there ARE other mosquitoes and insects that don't suck blood. Adapt to a human-friendly lifestyle or die (same goes for humans ;) ).

Just like we'd be better off without HIV and Polio, and various _nasty_ parasites. We can live with some of the other parasites or pests (I don't like roaches, but they don't seem as harmful as the bloodsucking types of mosquitoes).

What we need is clear thinking and not irrational screaming of "Murder" etc. Sure, I'm cold and heartless, but if a species has to go extinct or suffer for the greater good of humankind, so be it.

But it better be for the greater good!

Hopefully most people don't believe "As long as things don't get totally messed up in my lifetime it's OK".

Re:Perspective

[RobertB-DC]

If whales etc have to go extinct then it better be a well thought out choice, rather than "oops". [...] Sure, I'm cold and heartless, but if a species has to go extinct or suffer for the greater good of humankind, so be it.

But it better be for the greater good!

Whales are very large. Why, they're heavy enough to crush a child! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

Ok, that takes care of the whale problem... next species?

Re:Perspective

[TheLink]

"Whales are very large. Why, they're heavy enough to crush a child! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"

Yah, Michael Jackson will...

In related news...

[Alsee]

A Mr. Zeke Wilson of 221b Poplar lane is the #2 polluter in Washington.

-

Corn Ethanol??

[hummassa]

You are really on the wrong track. Try sugar cane. Do the math again. No petroleum fertilizer.

Re:Corn Ethanol??

[gotih]

uh, how did you draw the conclusion that i was endorsing corn as a fuel source? i'm saying that in america, we use corn as a source of ethanol. it's not efficient but the corn agribusiness gets propped up and ethanol users can think they are being conservationists.

what i said was gassify wood.

Re:Everyone always talks about volcanic CO2 pollut

[jonabbey]

The article actually focuses on Sulfur Dioxide production, not Carbon Dioxide. Volcanos do produce CO2, but the article states that one coal plant in Washington State produces 28 times more CO2 than does Mt. St. Helens.

Mod Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

thankyoupleasedrivethrough.

Re:Everyone always talks about volcanic CO2 pollut

[Ayaress]

Grants are well and good with industrial polution, because you can stop it. You can't throw money into a volcano and stop is from erupting (and if you could, should you? It's also producing some of the most fertile soil in the world at the same time). You can try to clean it up, but again, it's not that big of a polluter. I didn't RTFA this time, but on CNN last week, they were saying that Mt. St. Helens was producing twice the pollution of the rest of the state. However, in the history of industry (or for that matter settlement) in the area, it's erupted twice for a total of, what, less than two months combined? 2x for 60 days is a lot less than 1x for a year, let alone decades. It's producing more *right now*, but industry has a very wide lead, and it doesn't stop after a few weeks and wait twenty years to start up again.

Not representative

[hak hak]

The tone of most reactions to this article (and to all other recent topics on climate change) seems to be, "Well, apparently natural effects are much more important than human effects, so why bother about the human impact on climate change?"

We should realize that this particular case of natural greenhouse gas emission is not at all representative for the relative importance of human and natural effects. If you restrict to a small enough area and timespan, any effect becomes important. Why say that Mt. St. Helens is WA state's biggest pollutor, and not that volcanic effects dwarf human contributions in the whole US (or the whole world)? Because if you look on a bigger scale than just the area around the volcano, volcanic effects are just not that important. I'm not saying they are unimportant, only that industrial effects are at least as important.

And then I'm not even talking about the extremely short timescale this volcano is active (only for a couple of months, while industrial activity continues 24/7).

By the way, I absolutely do not regard myself as overly green or left-wing. I would like to believe that everything's going to be alright, but the facts are unfortunately too obvious to ignore.

Now this is amusing.

[kjones692]

On the sidebar where it says "related links", the first two are "John Patrick Luethe" and "has become the state's largest polluter."

Congratulations, Mr. Luethe!

[/joke]

agree

[fadshop]

/agree.

"how did you draw the conclusion...?"

[hummassa]

I didn't. When I said "you", I meant "the US of A" (is on the wrong track by using corn ethanol). I'm writing from a country where 30-50% of all (street) vehicles are sugar-cane-ethanol powered. It's globally energy efficient (ie "green") but it's not really socially great (sugar cane takes a lot of unqualified workers, sugar/alcohol production facilities are in the hands of a very corrupt oligarchy)