C19 and the impact on the environment

[Jersey mike]

So I’ve always been a proponent of a clean and healthy environment (clean fresh waters, oceans, land, air and so on) but not to a level of an activist. During this C19 shut down of nations I’ve seen photos of how the waterways in Venice have cleared and how air quality has changed or cleared up in places like China, California, New York, Italy and I believe India while people have been in “quarantine” and under shutdown. Tonight I even read an article on how seismologists have noticed a decrease in the Earth’s noise and can get better and more minute readings.

Tonight the Mrs. and I went for a stroll around the neighborhood and I looked up and noticed a group of grey herons (7-8) flying together, something I have seldom seen around here (coastal Jersey Shore) and I’ve lived here my whole life for the most part. Well anyway, that got me thinking about how staunch environmentalists will approach the air quality changes which have been noticed and how much pressure will be put on governments down the road.

Will these noticeable changes be used as new talking points and proof we can clean the Earth’s pollution problem with potential world wide changes and guidelines implemented. For instance (years into the future) I could see governments world wide coming to an agreement on what I would call rolling shutdowns for a period of say 2 weeks every X number of years. Example being the USA, using our 3 time zone structure of Eastern, Central and Pacific. Since our air pretty much flows West to East it would begin in that time zone for 2 weeks, then to Central for 2 weeks and finishing on the East coast.

I could see some of the same guidelines being implemented here then that are being used now and would be a small solution to those who call for the elimination of all fossil fuels, which I can’t ever see being realistic in the immediate future of even 50 years.

Short term, world wide rolling shutdowns may be the answer to the expense of switching out fossil fuels for green fuels and overall cheaper in the long run. If countries world wide could come to an agreement and recognize this as a new norm, the socioeconomic impact would not be unexpected and managed, there would be no surprise. This could be a a new cost of doing business, it would be timed, regulated and understood in the business world and socially.

So any way, I’m not a world economist or anything of that nature, just throwing out some random thoughts on what’s happening and what’s on my mind during this stuff.

If anyone wants to reply, feel free to use the flamethrower or respond however you may want.

Be well and stay safe all.

[John Schmidt]

I have no problem with the thoughts put forward except....we actually have six times zones. Starts in Hawaii, Alaska, Pacific, Mountain, Central, and Eastern. The lower 48 are under four zones; Pacific, Mountain, Central, & Eastern. 

[Beardo]

We’ve seen the massive toll on people’s lives and the economy just a few weeks has had, with trillions of dollars of debt being accumulated to pay for it. It’s not sustainable. If anything, this shows how far we are away from this kind of living being possible.

I do see your point though. Maybe, if nothing else,  it’ll dampen our materialistic ways and make us appreciate the simpler things. This might only happen every century, but maybe people will learn not to borrow so much and have their entire pay checks going to payments.  We really shouldn’t be needing to pay everyone’s rent and mortgages because they had to stay home for a few weeks.

[Jersey mike]

I have no problem with the thoughts put forward except....we actually have six times zones. Starts in Hawaii, Alaska, Pacific, Mountain, Central, and Eastern. The lower 48 are under four zones; Pacific, Mountain, Central, & Eastern. 

Hey John, how are ya? Thanks for the response, I was using our (or those) 3 time zones to “shorten” the time the country would be impacted. I was originally going to Include Mountain and Central together but I thought Central was a larger area than Mountain or maybe it’s the opposite. Again all this is just hypothetical and just random thoughts.

Be well, stay safe.

[Jersey mike]

We’ve seen the massive toll on people’s lives and the economy just a few weeks has had, with trillions of dollars of debt being accumulated to pay for it. It’s not sustainable. If anything, this shows how far we are away from this kind of living being possible.

I do see your point though. Maybe, if nothing else,  it’ll dampen our materialistic ways and make us appreciate the simpler things. This might only happen every century, but maybe people will learn not to borrow so much and have their entire pay checks going to payments.  We really shouldn’t be needing to pay everyone’s rent and mortgages because they had to stay home for a few weeks.

Hello Beardo, hope your family is well. As I said if this was to become a potential platform to care for Mother Earth it would be a worldwide event every X number of years...say 5 years. I’m not here to lobby for it, I was just taking notice to how thingS have changed environmentally around the world and how it’s not gone unnoticed which I believe will ramp up a platform for heavy duty environmental groups to keep environmental issues in the forefront globally.

If something like thins was to be implemented it would have to be agreed upon at so many levels regarding the economics and social implications, as I said it could become the new cost of doing business every X number of years for a 2 rolling week period. I’m not sure how it works but I do know parts of the UK (I believe) shuts down some business during the summer for a vacation period.

As for personal financial status of people, that’s personal stuff...to each their own, personal accountability.

Be well stay safe.

[Daniel Meyer]

The problem I see is that this shutdown is going to have a severe economic impact that's going to take years to overcome.

I grew up in poverty. Bootstraps. Up. All that. Once "up" I've worked volunteering and such for years (as I've become busier, I've substituted "volunteer" with donating to charities I believe actually help).

The point of all that is to say, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, pollutes more than poverty.

I have no science/studies to quantify it, but I know from personal experience, and from later years of trying to help, based on how you have to live, eat, heat, travel, conditions of vehicles etc, I'd bet a conservative estimate is that the environmental impact of a single person in poverty is easily 10 times that of person in the middle-class.

This environmental benefits we are seeing are short term and if the economy crashes (it has, we just don't know how dead it is yet) and stays crashed, will be shortly reversed and pollution surpassed as folks slip into poverty.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The problem I see is that this shutdown is going to have a severe economic impact that's going to take years to overcome.

I grew up in poverty. Bootstraps. Up. All that. Once "up" I've worked volunteering and such for years (as I've become busier, I've substituted "volunteer" with donating to charities I believe actually help).

The point of all that is to say, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, pollutes more than poverty.

I have no science/studies to quantify it, but I know from personal experience, and from later years of trying to help, based on how you have to live, eat, heat, travel, conditions of vehicles etc, I'd bet a conservative estimate is that the environmental impact of a single person in poverty is easily 10 times that of person in the middle-class.

This environmental benefits we are seeing are short term and if the economy crashes (it has, we just don't know how dead it is yet) and stays crashed, will be shortly reversed and pollution surpassed as folks slip into poverty.

Agreed. It’s just likely to be different forms of pollution than we think of now. People don’t worry much about dumping oil, chemicals, etc. when they are just trying to survive.

[hubcapsc]

The problem I see is that this shutdown is going to have a severe economic impact that's going to take years to overcome.

I grew up in poverty. Bootstraps. Up. All that. Once "up" I've worked volunteering and such for years (as I've become busier, I've substituted "volunteer" with donating to charities I believe actually help).

The point of all that is to say, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, pollutes more than poverty.

I have no science/studies to quantify it, but I know from personal experience, and from later years of trying to help, based on how you have to live, eat, heat, travel, conditions of vehicles etc, I'd bet a conservative estimate is that the environmental impact of a single person in poverty is easily 10 times that of person in the middle-class.

This environmental benefits we are seeing are short term and if the economy crashes (it has, we just don't know how dead it is yet) and stays crashed, will be shortly reversed and pollution surpassed as folks slip into poverty.

Agreed. It’s just likely to be different forms of pollution than we think of now. People don’t worry much about dumping oil, chemicals, etc. when they are just trying to survive.

I remember in the early to mid 70s... an article in Dirt Bike magazine (from freaking California )
outlining a french drain setup for pouring your old oil down a hole in your back yard  ...

-Mike "it could have been Motocross Action..."

[0leman]

If you look at places like LA and other cites, they have reduce the air pollution a lot in the last 20-30  years.   Our pollution from fossil fuel energy production has greatly been reduced.   Using cheap natural gas (from fracking) has reduce pollution a lot.  Not talking about CO2 which is a plant food not a pollutant. 

One day in the future we will come up with some sort of energy producing system other than using fossil fuel, but it won't be solar nor wind in its present form.   It is not working.  Maybe some form of nuclear.  I doubt most of us here will see that day that this happens.

What we are seeing now is just a pause,  not a change coming.  it will be back to our previous normal after the Virus runs its course.

[9Ball]

I have no problem with the thoughts put forward except....we actually have six times zones. Starts in Hawaii, Alaska, Pacific, Mountain, Central, and Eastern. The lower 48 are under four zones; Pacific, Mountain, Central, & Eastern.  

Don’t forget parts of Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands in the Atlantic time zone...

[Willow]

LOL!  It's an interesting observation.  Measurements of conditions specifically resulting from certain activity verify that when that activity is reduced the resulting conditions are reduced.  Yep.  That's consistent.

Yes were we to reduce the use of automobiles and large manufacturing facilities our air borne pollution would be reduced.  If we could somehow return to the world of 1875 most of our pollution issues would go away.  I don't think we are willing to pay the price.

[98valk]

Dave Foreman from the Sierra Club (another US conservation organization) and co-founder of Earth First! once confessed: “I see no solution to our ruination of Earth except for a drastic reduction of the human population”. Another time he said: “We humans have become a disease—the human pox!” The militant whale protector Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd Conservation Society) is also one of those who demand a world population of under a billion people, because “We are killing planet Earth”.

Gorbatchev himself does not mince matters: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90 percent and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

Jacques Cousteau, the internationally respected oceanographer, explained to the UNESCO Courier in an interview in November 1991: “The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics—it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer.” He then added: “This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”

Paul Ehrlich, a professor at the renowned Stanford University, wrote in his book The Population Bomb: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. (…) We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”

These men are neither fantasists nor ignorant; they are pragmatists like former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, still a leading member of the Bilderberg Group and one of the eminences grise in American politics, who simply said: “The world population must be reduced by 50 percent.”

Convenient, then, that the UN Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population should state, “All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as biological resources”. In other words: human right to life is no longer inviolable, because one should cultivate mankind just like any other commodity. The document goes on to say that, “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American standard of living would be one billion people. This must be implemented within 30 to 50 years.”

When this was presented to the US Senate on 9 September 1994, it caused such a furore that it had to be withdrawn. Yet the ideas contained within it managed to escape the shredder.

https://www.facts-are-facts.com/article/illuminati-one-billion-is-enough

[98valk]

United Nations plot to depopulate 95% of the world by 2030

Agenda 21 was United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development and was apparently developed as a means of restructuring the world population to lessen environmental impact and achieve an improved quality of life. One of the main ways of achieving this, however, is through encouraged and direct depopulation.

As the UN put it:

    "comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, government, and major groups, in every area in which humans have impact on the environment."

Although the language used in the original 70-page report that the UN published on Agenda 21 is vague and open to interpretation, as well as plausible deniability, the intentions in certain sections are clear. Depopulation to lessen environmental impact and stop overpopulation leading to instability.

While this sounds like a positive thing in some aspects, mere policy changes at governmental level alone cannot create an environment where big enough changes can come about in a short space of time.
Global epidemic: Huge scale depopulation in short time

To achieve such huge scale depopulation with a relatively short deadline the actions were taken would have to be drastic. Either a world war, global epidemic or some kind of widespread starvation caused by massive crop failures would be the only likely ways of achieving this.

https://www.disclose.tv/agenda-21-the-plan-to-depopulate-95-of-the-world-by-2030-313560

[Jersey mike]

The problem I see is that this shutdown is going to have a severe economic impact that's going to take years to overcome.

I grew up in poverty. Bootstraps. Up. All that. Once "up" I've worked volunteering and such for years (as I've become busier, I've substituted "volunteer" with donating to charities I believe actually help).

The point of all that is to say, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, pollutes more than poverty.

I have no science/studies to quantify it, but I know from personal experience, and from later years of trying to help, based on how you have to live, eat, heat, travel, conditions of vehicles etc, I'd bet a conservative estimate is that the environmental impact of a single person in poverty is easily 10 times that of person in the middle-class.

This environmental benefits we are seeing are short term and if the economy crashes (it has, we just don't know how dead it is yet) and stays crashed, will be shortly reversed and pollution surpassed as folks slip into poverty.

Hey Dan, thanks for that perspective on this topic, a different point of view always helps.

IMO, while the hurt of this shut down is something we’ve never expected or experienced before I don’t see a huge lag in the return once we’re cleared to get back to our lives. I’d like to say a specific time/date where we’d be back where we were before the shutdown but I’m not an economist. My best guess would be mid-June people returning to work on a normal basis and by October we will see larger numbers return into the workforce as the country falls into a new norm. By then the virology people will have this thing figured out and people will be more relaxed.

Stay well and be safe

[Jersey mike]

LOL!  It's an interesting observation.  Measurements of conditions specifically resulting from certain activity verify that when that activity is reduced the resulting conditions are reduced.  Yep.  That's consistent.

Yes were we to reduce the use of automobiles and large manufacturing facilities our air borne pollution would be reduced.  If we could somehow return to the world of 1875 most of our pollution issues would go away.  I don't think we are willing to pay the price.

Hey Willow, I know it sounds a bit obvious, the cause and effect but it has not gone unnoticed already in some places. Articles have already been written regarding the changes especially with the air quality which in my opinion will become a rallying cry of environmentalists. There has been no mention of what I wrote about, that was just my opinion on how I can see things possibly going in years to come.

The voice of the environmentalists is getting louder and larger. As more of the “old guard” falls by the wayside and more and more people like this Greta girl can rally people around the world I believe changes will happen but slowly, and this may be one way it begins.

[Jersey mike]

If you look at places like LA and other cites, they have reduce the air pollution a lot in the last 20-30  years.   Our pollution from fossil fuel energy production has greatly been reduced.   Using cheap natural gas (from fracking) has reduce pollution a lot.  Not talking about CO2 which is a plant food not a pollutant. 

One day in the future we will come up with some sort of energy producing system other than using fossil fuel, but it won't be solar nor wind in its present form.   It is not working.  Maybe some form of nuclear.  I doubt most of us here will see that day that this happens.

What we are seeing now is just a pause,  not a change coming.  it will be back to our previous normal after the Virus runs its course.

How ya doing Oleman, yes you are correct this is just a pause, but it is a pause that I believe will not go unnoticed and will be made an example of of how things can be by the environmental community and their voices are getting louder with more attention by the media and citizens around the world.

[0leman]

If you look at places like LA and other cites, they have reduce the air pollution a lot in the last 20-30  years.   Our pollution from fossil fuel energy production has greatly been reduced.   Using cheap natural gas (from fracking) has reduce pollution a lot.  Not talking about CO2 which is a plant food not a pollutant. 

One day in the future we will come up with some sort of energy producing system other than using fossil fuel, but it won't be solar nor wind in its present form.   It is not working.  Maybe some form of nuclear.  I doubt most of us here will see that day that this happens.

What we are seeing now is just a pause,  not a change coming.  it will be back to our previous normal after the Virus runs its course.

How ya doing Oleman, yes you are correct this is just a pause, but it is a pause that I believe will not go unnoticed and will be made an example of of how things can be by the environmental community and their voices are getting louder with more attention by the media and citizens around the world.

But if you look at poles (for what they are worth), Climate problems are at the bottom of a long list.  Believe the average Joe/Jane out there is getting tired of failed projections on the ending of the world by use of fossil fuels.   Most see climate crises for what it is.

The reduce pollution will be short lived as Virus runs it course and folks go back to work.  Their workplace requires energy that is being used with jobs shutdown.   It will take a bit but it will happen.   I don't see many changing the way they go to work or live.   Maybe if the Climate Alarmist would quit flying all over the world to talk about climate change, it might help.  they never heard of telecommuting.  But then couldn't have party time while attending meetings.   

[98valk]

If you look at places like LA and other cites, they have reduce the air pollution a lot in the last 20-30  years.   Our pollution from fossil fuel energy production has greatly been reduced.   Using cheap natural gas (from fracking) has reduce pollution a lot.  Not talking about CO2 which is a plant food not a pollutant. 

One day in the future we will come up with some sort of energy producing system other than using fossil fuel, but it won't be solar nor wind in its present form.   It is not working.  Maybe some form of nuclear.  I doubt most of us here will see that day that this happens.

What we are seeing now is just a pause,  not a change coming.  it will be back to our previous normal after the Virus runs its course.

How ya doing Oleman, yes you are correct this is just a pause, but it is a pause that I believe will not go unnoticed and will be made an example of of how things can be by the environmental community and their voices are getting louder with more attention by the media and citizens around the world.

But if you look at poles (for what they are worth), Climate problems are at the bottom of a long list.  Believe the average Joe/Jane out there is getting tired of failed projections on the ending of the world by use of fossil fuels.   Most see climate crises for what it is.

The reduce pollution will be short lived as Virus runs it course and folks go back to work.  Their workplace requires energy that is being used with jobs shutdown.   It will take a bit but it will happen.   I don't see many changing the way they go to work or live.   Maybe if the Climate Alarmist would quit flying all over the world to talk about climate change, it might help.  they never heard of telecommuting.  But then couldn't have party time while attending meetings.   

there are studies that show the planet puts out more so-called pollution in a single day, than man puts out in one year.
American Indians called the Los Angles are the valley of smoke.  smog is natural in that area, same event on east coast and why they are called the Smokey Mountains.

[F6Dave]

This thread seemed to begin with the flawed assumption that we're suffering with a serious pollution problem.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  By any measure we have cleaner air and water today than we've enjoyed in generations.  Once dead lakes and rivers support life again, and motor vehicles and factories emit a tiny fraction of the pollution they did when I was growing up.  For those who succumb to climate alarmism, CO2 emissions in the US are at levels not seen since the early 1990s.  We're living in a much cleaner environment than our ancestors.

Even before the industrial revolution the picture wasn't very rosy.  Diseases flourished from streets littered with animal waste and little or no sewage treatment.  Indoor cooking with wood and even animal dung caused lung ailments.  Clean drinking water was often a luxury.  The good old days?  They  weren't!

Productive people don't hunker down, they work and create things to make our lives better.  Thanks to our drive and ingenuity, along with cheap abundant energy, we live in an environment that was never this good, even for the wealthy and royalty.  We're protected from extreme climate by energy and modern HVAC systems.  Pollution control technology keeps the air clean.  Water and sewage treatment has virtually eliminated water-borne illnesses.  And, can you imagine the healthcare industry without disposable plastics?

Be careful what you wish for!

[Valkorado]

This thread seemed to begin with the flawed assumption that we're suffering with a serious pollution problem.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  By any measure we have cleaner air and water today than we've enjoyed in generations.  Once dead lakes and rivers support life again, and motor vehicles and factories emit a tiny fraction of the pollution they did when I was growing up.  For those who succumb to climate alarmism, CO2 emissions in the US are at levels not seen since the early 1990s.  We're living in a much cleaner environment than our ancestors.

Even before the industrial revolution the picture wasn't very rosy.  Diseases flourished from streets littered with animal waste and little or no sewage treatment.  Indoor cooking with wood and even animal dung caused lung ailments.  Clean drinking water was often a luxury.  The good old days?  They  weren't!

Productive people don't hunker down, they work and create things to make our lives better.  Thanks to our drive and ingenuity, along with cheap abundant energy, we live in an environment that was never this good, even for the wealthy and royalty.  We're protected from extreme climate by energy and modern HVAC systems.  Pollution control technology keeps the air clean.  Water and sewage treatment has virtually eliminated water-borne illnesses.  And, can you imagine the healthcare industry without disposable plastics?

Be careful what you wish for!

Great post Dave!  I won't be surprised if you get some, "How dare you!" responses tho. 

I will agree that America has done a great job pollution wise.  China, India and the like not so much.

[98valk]

This thread seemed to begin with the flawed assumption that we're suffering with a serious pollution problem.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  By any measure we have cleaner air and water today than we've enjoyed in generations.  Once dead lakes and rivers support life again, and motor vehicles and factories emit a tiny fraction of the pollution they did when I was growing up.  For those who succumb to climate alarmism, CO2 emissions in the US are at levels not seen since the early 1990s.  We're living in a much cleaner environment than our ancestors.

Even before the industrial revolution the picture wasn't very rosy.  Diseases flourished from streets littered with animal waste and little or no sewage treatment.  Indoor cooking with wood and even animal dung caused lung ailments.  Clean drinking water was often a luxury.  The good old days?  They  weren't!

Productive people don't hunker down, they work and create things to make our lives better.  Thanks to our drive and ingenuity, along with cheap abundant energy, we live in an environment that was never this good, even for the wealthy and royalty.  We're protected from extreme climate by energy and modern HVAC systems.  Pollution control technology keeps the air clean.  Water and sewage treatment has virtually eliminated water-borne illnesses.  And, can you imagine the healthcare industry without disposable plastics?

Be careful what you wish for!

for the last 20 yrs automobile engines have been basically filtering the atmosphere.  the PPMs coming out of the exhaust pipe are less than going into the air intake. This started with OBD II. A volvo executive I met of a flight in '98 gave me many details.

[3fan4life]

If you look at places like LA and other cites, they have reduce the air pollution a lot in the last 20-30  years.   Our pollution from fossil fuel energy production has greatly been reduced.   Using cheap natural gas (from fracking) has reduce pollution a lot.  Not talking about CO2 which is a plant food not a pollutant. 

One day in the future we will come up with some sort of energy producing system other than using fossil fuel, but it won't be solar nor wind in its present form.   It is not working.  Maybe some form of nuclear.  I doubt most of us here will see that day that this happens.

What we are seeing now is just a pause,  not a change coming.  it will be back to our previous normal after the Virus runs its course.

I've always thought that Hydrogen is the best alternative fuel.

The primary byproduct of hydrogen combustion is H2O.

Plus a hydrogen powered motorcycle would be really cool.

[Valkorado]

[98valk]

If you look at places like LA and other cites, they have reduce the air pollution a lot in the last 20-30  years.   Our pollution from fossil fuel energy production has greatly been reduced.   Using cheap natural gas (from fracking) has reduce pollution a lot.  Not talking about CO2 which is a plant food not a pollutant. 

One day in the future we will come up with some sort of energy producing system other than using fossil fuel, but it won't be solar nor wind in its present form.   It is not working.  Maybe some form of nuclear.  I doubt most of us here will see that day that this happens.

What we are seeing now is just a pause,  not a change coming.  it will be back to our previous normal after the Virus runs its course.

I've always thought that Hydrogen is the best alternative fuel.

The primary byproduct of hydrogen combustion is H2O.

Plus a hydrogen powered motorcycle would be really cool.

have to use fossil fuels to make the hydrogen.   Let the engineers design the gasoline engine without the idiot epa nuts with their 14.7:1 fuel ratio which makes an engine run rich going down the hwy so the catalytic convertor will work (think about that) and every car/truck would be getting 10-20 mpg more on the hwy.
Look at the new diesel trucks and all of the dumb emission crap, they all get a minimum of 10 mpg less than before.  for businesses this translates into higher cost which includes today's oil is more expensive to handle the extra byproducts getting into the oil, all translates into higher costs to consumers aka inflation.

[Jersey mike]

This thread seemed to begin with the flawed assumption that we're suffering with a serious pollution problem.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  By any measure we have cleaner air and water today than we've enjoyed in generations.  Once dead lakes and rivers support life again, and motor vehicles and factories emit a tiny fraction of the pollution they did when I was growing up.  For those who succumb to climate alarmism, CO2 emissions in the US are at levels not seen since the early 1990s.  We're living in a much cleaner environment than our ancestors.

Even before the industrial revolution the picture wasn't very rosy.  Diseases flourished from streets littered with animal waste and little or no sewage treatment.  Indoor cooking with wood and even animal dung caused lung ailments.  Clean drinking water was often a luxury.  The good old days?  They  weren't!

Productive people don't hunker down, they work and create things to make our lives better.  Thanks to our drive and ingenuity, along with cheap abundant energy, we live in an environment that was never this good, even for the wealthy and royalty.  We're protected from extreme climate by energy and modern HVAC systems.  Pollution control technology keeps the air clean.  Water and sewage treatment has virtually eliminated water-borne illnesses.  And, can you imagine the healthcare industry without disposable plastics?

Be careful what you wish for!

Great post Dave!  I won't be surprised if you get some, "How dare you!" responses tho. 

I will agree that America has done a great job pollution wise.  China, India and the like not so much.

Valkarado you are correct it was a very good perspective on what I had originally posted, I liked reading it.

Let me say though just so it’s clear, I’m not a proponent of this idea that I proposed as a alternative to pacify the environmental agenda it was something that caught my attention and made me think of what may come from this.

What will interest me is just how fast the air quality returns to what it was before the shutdowns. From the first photos I saw after 3 weeks I believe, there was a big decrease in the visible smog from the surface as well as from space. How long will it take to get back to those original before levels?

[Jersey mike]

This thread seemed to begin with the flawed assumption that we're suffering with a serious pollution problem.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  By any measure we have cleaner air and water today than we've enjoyed in generations.  Once dead lakes and rivers support life again, and motor vehicles and factories emit a tiny fraction of the pollution they did when I was growing up.  For those who succumb to climate alarmism, CO2 emissions in the US are at levels not seen since the early 1990s.  We're living in a much cleaner environment than our ancestors.

Even before the industrial revolution the picture wasn't very rosy.  Diseases flourished from streets littered with animal waste and little or no sewage treatment.  Indoor cooking with wood and even animal dung caused lung ailments.  Clean drinking water was often a luxury.  The good old days?  They  weren't!

Productive people don't hunker down, they work and create things to make our lives better.  Thanks to our drive and ingenuity, along with cheap abundant energy, we live in an environment that was never this good, even for the wealthy and royalty.  We're protected from extreme climate by energy and modern HVAC systems.  Pollution control technology keeps the air clean.  Water and sewage treatment has virtually eliminated water-borne illnesses.  And, can you imagine the healthcare industry without disposable plastics?

Be careful what you wish for!

for the last 20 yrs automobile engines have been basically filtering the atmosphere.  the PPMs coming out of the exhaust pipe are less than going into the air intake. This started with OBD II. A volvo executive I met of a flight in '98 gave me many details.

Believe it or not I’ve read that somewhere, sometime. When and where escapes me.

Hope things are ok down there in South Jersey.

[F6Dave]

If you look at places like LA and other cites, they have reduce the air pollution a lot in the last 20-30  years.   Our pollution from fossil fuel energy production has greatly been reduced.   Using cheap natural gas (from fracking) has reduce pollution a lot.  Not talking about CO2 which is a plant food not a pollutant. 

One day in the future we will come up with some sort of energy producing system other than using fossil fuel, but it won't be solar nor wind in its present form.   It is not working.  Maybe some form of nuclear.  I doubt most of us here will see that day that this happens.

What we are seeing now is just a pause,  not a change coming.  it will be back to our previous normal after the Virus runs its course.

I've always thought that Hydrogen is the best alternative fuel.

The primary byproduct of hydrogen combustion is H2O.

Plus a hydrogen powered motorcycle would be really cool.

If hydrogen ever becomes commercially feasible the radical environmentalists will oppose it. The movement hates emission free nuclear power, with the exception of a very few members with open minds. They hate hydroelectric power too. They used to like natural gas, but as soon as it became abundant they began to demonize hydraulic fracturing, a process that's been around for over 70 years.

What they really hate is our freedom to move freely when and where we choose. That's because the extreme wing of the movement is really socialist. Just read the green new deal.

[scooperhsd]

Well - The diesel emissions picture isn't entirely bleak. Those 18 wheeler's have DOUBLED their MPG with the later generations of turbo diesel engines. - what used to get 3-4MPG is now getting 7-8 MPG - still not great compared to smaller vehicles, but still better than before.

What DOES suck for them and all other diesel users is that all this pollution gear designed to cleanup the air was put into place too quickly so the manufacturers were really pressed to do both meet the emissions goals AND meet the reliability / durability standards that an over the road driver needs. As a consequence, what was done for several years is that trucking companies would buy latest model year chassis /cabs (called gliders), and they would look for older motors without the pollution gear. A 3rd party shop would then mate them together (for trucks, the emissions requirements were for the year the ENGINE was built, not the chassis). I believe that loophole is in the process of being closed.

This also in part drove VW to do their cheating scandal on their 2009 and later model year TDI's (of which I own one). We could have turbodiesel powered cars that could get 60+ MPG - if you would let the pollution standards down a bit. COnsidering how few (comparitively) diesel cars are registered in the US, it would seem to be a good tradeoff to me. It would surprise me greatly to ever see any new ones introduced here again.

Regarding hydraulic fracking (for oil / gas production) - things aren't as rosey as the industry wants you to believe. Anybody do some checking on just how many more earthquakes Kansas and Oklahoma have started having since this was started ? My home town (Hutchinson KS) has been having them fairly regularly - I'll see a note from my sister that they just had another 3-4.5 quake on the Richter scale, within a couple miles of her house on the west end of town. We NEVER got them while I was growing up out there - it all started shortly after the fracking started. I'll grant that quakes that low on the scale have almost zero damage (compared to the 6,7,8 and 9+ quakes on the Pacific Rim) - but they are an indication that things aren't perfect either.

[3fan4life]

If you look at places like LA and other cites, they have reduce the air pollution a lot in the last 20-30  years.   Our pollution from fossil fuel energy production has greatly been reduced.   Using cheap natural gas (from fracking) has reduce pollution a lot.  Not talking about CO2 which is a plant food not a pollutant. 

One day in the future we will come up with some sort of energy producing system other than using fossil fuel, but it won't be solar nor wind in its present form.   It is not working.  Maybe some form of nuclear.  I doubt most of us here will see that day that this happens.

What we are seeing now is just a pause,  not a change coming.  it will be back to our previous normal after the Virus runs its course.

I've always thought that Hydrogen is the best alternative fuel.

The primary byproduct of hydrogen combustion is H2O.

Plus a hydrogen powered motorcycle would be really cool.

have to use fossil fuels to make the hydrogen.   Let the engineers design the gasoline engine without the idiot epa nuts with their 14.7:1 fuel ratio which makes an engine run rich going down the hwy so the catalytic convertor will work (think about that) and every car/truck would be getting 10-20 mpg more on the hwy.
Look at the new diesel trucks and all of the dumb emission crap, they all get a minimum of 10 mpg less than before.  for businesses this translates into higher cost which includes today's oil is more expensive to handle the extra byproducts getting into the oil, all translates into higher costs to consumers aka inflation.

In 8th Grade Science Class we made Hydrogen by simply passing electricity through water and collecting the Hydrogen gas that was emitted.

[F6Dave]

Regarding hydraulic fracking (for oil / gas production) - things aren't as rosey as the industry wants you to believe. Anybody do some checking on just how many more earthquakes Kansas and Oklahoma have started having since this was started ? My home town (Hutchinson KS) has been having them fairly regularly - I'll see a note from my sister that they just had another 3-4.5 quake on the Richter scale, within a couple miles of her house on the west end of town. We NEVER got them while I was growing up out there - it all started shortly after the fracking started. I'll grant that quakes that low on the scale have almost zero damage (compared to the 6,7,8 and 9+ quakes on the Pacific Rim) - but they are an indication that things aren't perfect either.

Actually that's not true.  According to the USGS nearly all of Oklahoma's recent increase in earthquakes is caused by wastewater disposal.  The water is produced along with oil and gas and needs to be disposed after separation.  The typical process is to inject it into deep disposal wells, many of which are abandoned producing wells.  In some cases this has resulted in 'injection induced earthquakes'.  These happen all over the world, but Oklahoma has seen the largest increase.

While this is still energy industry related, hydraulic fracturing is hardly ever the cause.  'Fracking' is widely misunderstood yet gets blamed for all kinds of stuff.  I'm sure some out there are claiming it caused the corona virus!