The world's worst environmental disasters

[Brian Ellis]

I wonder what you think are the worst environmental disasters wrought by man. I propose three:
[list=1][*]the Aral Sea[*]the Three Gorges Dam (as the latest one)[*]anthropogenic climate change (affecting the most people)[/list=1]

I also propose what will probably be a near miss: ozone layer depletion, but I can't be categorical on this until after it peakse in about 2050.

[GNEP]

"When I fart" commonly becomes known as a devastating environmental castastrophe by anyone near me...

[dbdg]

lol

Always liked the thought of being a naturel disaster, just to see what one is like, earthquake etc but I really wouldn't want to be anywhere near the rear of GNEP.

[Greebe]

But Brian, just last night on CNN they were exclaiming that the EPA mandated reduction of CFC gases has reduced the ozone hole and that by the time you claim it's gone they claim it'll be back fully restored.

[Dr Mordrid]

I remember reading her work in the late 60's, doing a few hours of library work and passing it off as total BS because of the inconsistancies and the obvious problems with her conclusions.

Unfortunately the enviro-wackos, their scientific shills & some politicians have this herd mentality and.....

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

I'm sorry, Greebe, do you really believe everything CNN throws at you? It's a load of codswallop.

I quote verbatim two sentences from the 2002 Science Assessment Panel (SAP) Report. The SAP is the official authority on the matter, mandated by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and UNEP, and comprises many tens of the world's leading atmospheric scientists. With all due respect to CNN, I find their credibility much higher. Furthermore, a book written by an EPA director, responsible for this issue, echos identical sentiments to those of SAP, so this misinformation did not originate there.

"For example,based on assumed compliance with the amended and adjusted Protocol by all nations,the Antarctic ozone “hole,” which was first discerned in the early 1980s, is predicted to disappear by the middle of this century —again with all other influences assumed constant."

"Failure to comply with the Montreal Protocol would delay or could even prevent recovery of the ozone layer. For example,continued constant production of ozone-depleting substances at the 1999 amount would likely extend the recovery of the ozone layer well past the year 2100.The total atmospheric abundance of ozone-depleting gases will decline to pre-Antarctic-ozone-hole amounts only with adherence to the Montreal Protocol ’s full provisions on production of ozone-depleting substances."

C.K.

This is an interesting problem. It may be true that not using DDT may have massively increased malaria in some countries. But it is equally true that it has caused untold harm to many species (animal and vegetable) and has upset the natural balance of many forms of life. I know, I live on an island which had malaria eradicated 50 years ago by massive spraying of DDT. There are hundreds of species that have disappeared from this island, as a result. In the early 1950s, I was living here (away from a malarial area) and the insect life was quasi-harmless. Unfortunately, other species have taken over the econiches left by the insects that succumbed to DDT and these are much more obnoxious, if not disease-carrying. Many higher species have disappeared, including two species of vultures, which were both extremely common up to 1955, as a direct result, causing egg malformation. Even endemic plants relying on specific insects for pollination have disappeared. It is estimated that, altogether, DDT has been responsible for the extinction of at least 20 endemic species of flora and fauna and the disappearance of over 100 non-endemic species (including marine fauna).

That having been said, the problem was compounded by systematically spraying the whole island, indoors and outdoors, and not just the infested areas, which were comparatively small.

My personal view is that this was a pity that it happened like this, out of ignorance and lack of foresight and much of the harm could have been prevented - and the malaria eradicated.

Today, the real problem is that many bugs have evolved DDT-resistant strains, because of poor eradication-programme management. Even so, we know now how to use DDT and other insecticides effectively and much DDT is still used in developing nations, but still haphazardly. The WHO does have programmes using DDT, but these have often failed because the local people have siphoned off the good DDT and then made themselves rich by selling the stuff to whoever wants to buy it. This is doubly catastrophic: it renders the WHO programmes ineffective AND it increases the chances of developing DDT-resistant strains.

This is not an easy problem with a cut-and-dried answer. However, the lack of disease prevention is hardly a man-made environmental disaster. Man did not create either the mosquitos nor the parasites they carry, did he? Au contraire, the fact that he has eradicated malaria from many spots, has had serious negative environmental side-effects, but hardly at a disater level.

[Greebe]

I'm sorry, Greebe, do you really believe everything CNN throws at you? It's a load of codswallop.

I was being facetious, Brian

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry, I thought you were being serious

[Greebe]

What about the global decline of Frogs? There isn't too many species on earth that are as sensitive to enviromental conditions. Humans being what they are will kill off any species to ensure their dominance/health. Yeah GM banned will lead to increase cases of Malaria. Shoot we have two cases of it here in Florida atm, along with West Nile, and menegitus as of late. All spread by mosquitos.

Acid rain... Ragan claimed that was in part due to Moose piss

What's next?

[Greebe]

You have that part right, but only that part correct. He did in fact include Moose piss as part of the acid rain problem

[Tjalfe]

don't forget all the pollution we get from forrest fires every year.. all sorts of CO2 being emitted there

[Brian Ellis]

Yes, trees produce vast quantities of terpenes and terpenoids, which are VOCs and can contribute to tropospheric ozone, in conjunction with NOxs (a proportion of which is produced by lightning and natural forest fires) as well as man-made sources.

Is this at disaster level, though?

[Brian Ellis]

tjalfe

Forest fires produce CO2, but an equal quantity is sequestered again as the forest regrows. Wood is considered as a renewable fuel. However, planting extra trees to sequester fossil fuel CO2 does not work: sooner or later, the CO2 is released again.

[Dr Mordrid]

Widlfires are a big problem in the US, mainly because the enviro-wackos go to court every time the Forest Service tries to clear out overgrown underbrush...even in drought areas.

As a result tens of millions of acres burn in the US each year; taking towns, residences and about a year ago nearly taking out the Los Alamos nuclear labs

So what happens when Bush tries to change things so the undergrowth can be removed when necessary? The enviro-wackos and their political shills raise holy hell, of course

This is the kind of thing that causes enviromentalists to lose credibility and support here. That and some of PETA's morons shooting hunters and burning research labs, SUV's and new home construction.

It also doesn't help when a lot of their gloom-and-doom predictions get self-reversed or are proven to be pure unadulterated junk science.

Dr. Mordrid