Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Hopefully you're kidding there.

This is farmland that's been farmed for thousands of years and the plants are renewed every year. It's carbon-neutral year to year, since the CO2 was by definition sucked into the plants from the atmosphere in the previous year's crop.

[Trolldefender99]

Let's go back to the point. You said "That is more pollution than Europe and US combined"

Then Il Palazzo merely pointed out, you've apparently just made that fact up yourself, since the article doesn't contain that specific claim whatsoever. This particular claim and any link to global warming isn't contained in the article whatsoever.

Also a key point in the article is that the smog is due to farmers burning stubble from their fields. The CO2 from the stubble comes from plants pulling in atmospheric CO2, so this activity cannot by itself increase atmospheric CO2 above baseline. It's like saying that if you drink river water then piss in the river you're going to raise the water level of the river.

Ah I see. Well I know china supposedly is getting better, and india is trying to improve. And while US contributes according to USA today 200+ tons (which is a massive amount), other nations are producing more

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/09/07/great-pacific-garbage-patch-where-did-all-trash-come/1133838002/

I find USA today pretty reliable, but opinions may vary I guess. I like them since they are heavily anti-republican, makes them believable for me. It doesn't say how much china or the top 6 polluted nations produce in ocean trash (which ocean trash effects the environment, maybe not the air itself, but it has an effect on earth), so if USA isn't in the top 6 that must be a lot of trash going into the ocean. But at least china is trying to change its ways according to the article. Though apparently india's problem is actually using too much water (some areas used up all their ground water) and other types of pollutants going into rivers, not so much trash like I thought so I was mistaken there sorry.

But some examples of India's rivers that I had in mind

https://abcnews.go.com/International/toxic-foam-pollutes-indias-sacred-yamuna-river/story?id=57995346

Thats pretty toxic looking.

And this article talks about ganges river

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-aad46fca-734a-45f9-8721-61404cc12a39

All that combined effects the environment. But going back to the US. While its in the top 10 most polluted nations for oceans trash, that is still not even in the top 3 or even 6 most polluted nations which is insane amount of trash if they are beating out US 200+ tons of trash a year. Wish the article had numbers for the top 6 nations.

And US doesn't have toxic smog problems as far as I know, I've never heard masks being needed because of smog. Fires yes, but not toxic/dangerous smog. the only places I've heard getting that is Beijing and now Delhi too which is even worse.

To me all those facts that all adds up that other nations contribute more than just europe and US. For me, it isn't just CO2 or whatever that effects earth but everything from even a single plastic straw. But still, never hear in europe about smog problems, and europe and lesser so US are both already a lot better than china as far as trash goes. But US is a ton worse than europe for that part, US trash is everywhere so I can definitely see why its in the top 10.

[Trolldefender99]

Hopefully you're kidding there.

This is farmland that's been farmed for thousands of years and the plants are renewed every year. It's carbon-neutral year to year, since the CO2 was by definition sucked into the plants from the atmosphere in the previous year's crop.

Then why has it suddenly become a massive health issue and government emergency if its been done for thousands of years?

[Reelya]

They've increase yield because of increased population.

However the burn-offs categorically do not cause global warming, due to it being stubble from the previous years harvest. i.e. it's by definition new growth only. The article itself says this keeps happening at this time of year:

A major factor behind the high pollution levels at this time of year is farmers in neighbouring states burning crop stubble to clear their fields.

Also

This creates a lethal cocktail of particulate matter, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide - all worsened by fireworks set off during the Hindu festival Diwali a week ago.

Clearly letting off a lot of fireworks at the same time that the nearby farmers are burning off stubble are bad for local air quality, but they categorically aren't necessarily linked to global warming.

Note that it specifically mentions sulfur dioxide, and fireworks also contain sulfur. Sulfur emissions reduce global warming. So these sorts of particulate emissions, while bad for humans near them don't necessarily have a net global warming effect.

[Trolldefender99]

They've increase yield because of increased population.

However the burn-offs categorically do not cause global warming, due to it being stubble from the previous years harvest. i.e. it's by definition new growth only. The article itself says this keeps happening at this time of year.

Exactly. As you said, the amount of farming increases due to increased population. While if it is just new growth only and mostly previous year's harvest, it still effects the climate because they keep increasing farms. And its not all just farms for wheat or other plants, but a lot of it are animal farms and they want green pastures. Which as Alexandria Ocasio pointed out pretty much with her getting rid of cows campaign. The farm animals in general greatly increases methane in the atmosphere.

Not just that, but to make room for farms often means tearing down trees and destroying the land to pave way for new farms. That is why so much destruction in the amazon rainforest, to make room for grazing and other types of farms. That contributes to climate change as well.

[Reelya]

Almost all of which has nothing to do with the article you cited. Which is the main point. You're just moving the goalposts constantly here.

now you want to talk about Amazonian rainforest clearing, as if that's somehow relevant to an article about yearly crop stubble burn-offs in India. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Back to the point, you made a specific claim that the thing in India is "more than Europe and US combined". People only pointed out that you have no evidence for that. Rather than admit you have no evidence, you're now spewing random factoids as if that's evidence for the original, unrelated, argument you made that people have questioned.

EDIT ... as for the Europe/US point the key point there is that Europe and the US have used their wealth to off-shore their pollution, by effectively moving their polluting industries to poorer nations, often by greasing the palms of politician there, then blaming the poor nations for the pollution, most of which is caused by producing things needed by Europe and the US.

[Trolldefender99]

Almost all of which has nothing to do with the article you cited. Which is the main point. You're just moving the goalposts constantly here.

now you want to talk about Amazonian rainforest clearing, as if that's somehow relevant to an article about yearly crop stubble burn-offs in India. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Okay I was thinking maybe I jumped to the conclussion about trump supporters here pretending to be left leaning, but now I know you are actually a trump supporter. Anyone who believes in climate change knows what happens in one area, effects the whole climate on earth. And the amazon rainforest was just an example of that. You said farming had nothing to do with it, so I pointed out did and now I outed you as a trump supporter. I will no longer argue with you, because trump supporters are trolls who are like arguing with a brick wall.

[Reelya]

What the hell man, you're nuts.

[Il Palazzo]

Jesus, dude.

[smjjames]

Almost all of which has nothing to do with the article you cited. Which is the main point. You're just moving the goalposts constantly here.

now you want to talk about Amazonian rainforest clearing, as if that's somehow relevant to an article about yearly crop stubble burn-offs in India. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Okay I was thinking maybe I jumped to the conclussion about trump supporters here pretending to be left leaning, but now I know you are actually a trump supporter. Anyone who believes in climate change knows what happens in one area, effects the whole climate on earth. And the amazon rainforest was just an example of that. You said farming had nothing to do with it, so I pointed out did and now I outed you as a trump supporter. I will no longer argue with you, because trump supporters are trolls who are like arguing with a brick wall.

Um, I think theres a severe misunderstanding here somewhere. Reelya only said that as events, they are independent of each other. Yes, they are part of a whole, but what's happening in the Amazon doesn't cause what's happening in India or vice versa.

I haven't read any data on whether the burnoffs in India farms are a net contributor to global warming, so, I can't respond to that, but they DO cause air pollution which is still a good incentive to do something about it.

[smjjames]

I didn't think anti-climaters/trump supporters were allowed on the forum.

I don't think you've seen past climate discussions, there are plenty of skeptics around here. As for Trump supporters, they're allowed as long as they don't make a-holes of themselves. Not sure I can name one who has said that they are a trump supporter off the top of my head.

Theres plenty of conservatives around here, but if they support Trump, they don't make a scene about it.

[Trolldefender99]

Almost all of which has nothing to do with the article you cited. Which is the main point. You're just moving the goalposts constantly here.

now you want to talk about Amazonian rainforest clearing, as if that's somehow relevant to an article about yearly crop stubble burn-offs in India. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Okay I was thinking maybe I jumped to the conclussion about trump supporters here pretending to be left leaning, but now I know you are actually a trump supporter. Anyone who believes in climate change knows what happens in one area, effects the whole climate on earth. And the amazon rainforest was just an example of that. You said farming had nothing to do with it, so I pointed out did and now I outed you as a trump supporter. I will no longer argue with you, because trump supporters are trolls who are like arguing with a brick wall.

Um, I think theres a severe misunderstanding here somewhere. Reelya only said that as events, they are independent of each other. Yes, they are part of a whole, but what's happening in the Amazon doesn't cause what's happening in India or vice versa.

I haven't read any data on whether the burnoffs in India farms are a net contributor to global warming, so, I can't respond to that, but they DO cause air pollution which is still a good incentive to do something about it.

Maybe I misunderstood. And already pissed about what my grandma ranted me at didn't help, and she has tried calling me 8 times now to rant how I lie to her about climate change. So maybe I just need to get off after this post and cool down in the pool and relax.

But maybe my point wasn't really coming across. I do know the amazon rainforest doesn't directly effect somewhere in india. But the point of the example was, destroying land and increasing farming and increasing animal farms (which increases methane) DOES have an effect. Even if it doesn't, I do agree with the last point that it does cause obvious air pollution which is that bad it does need to do something about it. I think that is what annoys me the most in that people don't really care to focus on china or india too much, allowing air pollution to get that bad. Everyone just focuses on europe and united states, but there is never air pollution so bad it becomes beyond toxic levels (if its past 999, that is just insane).

I still fail to see how that doesn't effect the climate but maybe that is where I'm misunderstanding the most.

Sorry everyone for my anger, I shouldn't be posting stuff especially in topics I'm really passionate about when someone in real life has already pissed me off. I'm gonna get off and go swim in the pool.

[Reelya]

Land clearance has a one-off effect only, when the land is cleared. Increasing yields on existing farms (with i.e. fertilizers) would tend to have the opposite effect, since you're increasing the amount of CO2 those crops suck down. The point is, the yearly burn-off of stubble is of stubble that is only made of atmospheric carbon sequestered in the previous year. The next year, the same stubble grows back, pulling back in that amount of CO2. Hence, it's more of a local problem that the air is smoggy nearby, as a result, since there's no net emission of carbon past 1 year.

[smjjames]

@Trolldefender: Fair enough then.

[Trolldefender99]

Before I leave, I want to apologize for my behavior. Really uncalled for, and I am incredibly sorry. I need to learn to be more calm and avoid forums in general when in a bad mood, but I am actually getting help for my anger but thats a whole nother thing and private. I am so sorry though, since one of the reasons I like this forum is how friendly it is and me coming along posting like that isn't very friendly.

Also, thanks Reelya for explaining. That makes sense actually, I misunderstood that part. But I understand what you mean now, so it isn't actually a global problem as much as a local problem.