Air quality

As they say - every little helps. As they continue to burn out the world's rainforests we can accomplish drawing out the inevitable by not swaling our moors. If that is going to be our contribution to staving off global warming then no doubt we can pat ourselves on the back at a job well done.
Meanwhile - the rest of the worlds poor go on trying to feed themselves and also draw out the inevitable. Billions are being spent on combating the threat of global warming. Millions of humans are getting paid for talking and doing what little they can about it. Might i just suggest we spend the money on looking after the poor FIRST which in itself will remove half the problem at a stroke. It's fiddling whilst Rome burns and giving ourselves a pat on the back in the process - - -as we continue, like so many other problems, on losing the battle.

As 'they' continue to destroy the rainforests, does the UK have any say in preventing it?

If we are 'bovvered' we could first try to repair what's left of our own country and landscape.

We could pay them not to. In other words set up local enterprises that would be less harmful to the environment by using the fat-cat cheques that are swimming around the world from taxpayers to pay for huge conferences and side-show talking shops which would as said before remove half the pollution problem by NOT cutting down and burning the forests. We don't need the wood. There's plenty of timber in coniferous forests to suit the world's needs. It's all crap and does nothing but bad all round.

It's puzzling why we should try to one way or another to help and persuaude faraway countries to look after their ecology and environments, while we fail to do the same for ourselves in territories we are directly responsible for. They both need doing, but surely the priority should be 'local', our own back yard.

No sense doing our back yard if the rest of the developing world doesn't do theirs. To play catch-up in the Third World will take 30 years or more during which time their emissions will have been sufficient to destroy the atmosphere three times over (considering where we are at the present time). We need to wage war on Third World poverty and Third World production methods if we are to stand a chance at making the necessary reductions in time to stop global warming passing the 2.5% mark known as the tipping point. Cleaning up here and doing nothing elsewhere or spending billions on talking about it at the same time is the rational of the mad house. Will that happen - no of course not - why - because those receiving a good loving from conferencing and pouncing about wouldn't want their fat pay cheques to stop and the world governments haven't the will to take on the task in their lifetimes.

When will it happen : when disaster has already overtaken the planet and there's no going back. Maybe then, when the fat and comfortable cats are being truly endangered will they get off their cosy fat backsides which by then will be too late.

Today's huge toxic fire is: More than a thousand tons of 'waste' pvc plastic in Wales, the firemen have put it out, three cheers for firemen, what a job, dealing with toxic fires.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live-updates-more-30-firefighters-12220702

Plastic is relatively easy to extinguish - it's tyres and pulps that are the problem. We had 7,000 grassland fires in Wales last year - mostly arson. Less emissions from all those than the tyre dump alongside the M4 last year. My advice is - if it's not a danger let it burn out. The costs don't warrant the efforts. - And when extinguished, the residue left in a semi-charred condition, is still a problem. There are plenty of useful things for fire-fighters to do than piss around on the moors.

Sorry - but it's yet another case of 'proper utilisation of meagre resources'.

Have you seen the recent fires in Indonesia etc etc etc - . And you want to ponce around with piddling grass fires -! It's not logical.

The forests of Indonesia have been burning for years, as seen from the international space station etc. If something can be done to stop it, the residents of Singapore who live downwind and breathe the smoke would be interested to know.  Destruction of forests and cumulative pollution of the atmosphere is part of a world wide problem.

Grass fires might be 'piddling', but peat fires destroy the land. A moorland fire now and then would be within what can be coped with, but so many, so big and every year, it's destructive.

I agree, atmospheric pollution and destruction of the natural world is a global problem, is accelerating, and needs global solutions. However, it's no use saying "it's worse there, so never mind we have huge toxic fires here", tyres, plastics, chemicals etc., pouring deadly particles up into the sky, are regular in the UK, avoidable, and serve no purpouse whatsoever.

The solution might start with everyone caring about the bit of the planet they live on. If everyone does that it could add up to a lot.

You want the vast majority of the planets human population to care about 'pollution' when the vast majority are living barely a subsistence level. All the majority care about is where to get the next meal. And 'how' to cook it! Er - perhaps over some flames -!!!! As for the rich, the well-off, the comfortable they will only pay lip-service to it as they are all going to die within a short period of time. ONLY when the rich begin to really suffer will anything be done. By which time the rest of us will have suffocated and died. That's the reality --. All the rest is rhetoric --.

So, your logic says air pollution will get worse until a lot of humanity suffocates and dies. Going by world news on air pollution, thought that might be the outlook, but, was hoping it could be avoided. Ah well, thanks for explaining that.

Looking at the air pollution maps for the various chemicals, it seems we are quite well placed in the UK, as winds from the atlantic blow a lot of away it to the east, to be other peoples problem. Western Scotland looks the cleanest air, bits of Wales not too bad. OK for those able to choose where they live.

Why do you think I chose the west coast of Wales to live? The Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream both touch my place, the Gulf Stream continuously the Jet Stream - as it wants. On average it is 5% warmer here than in Rochdale and has less rainfall. But it is very Welsh, my children being bi-lingual as the Welsh language in schools is obligatory here, and one has to live with the 'outsider' label if one is to retain any sense of balance. However - we don't suffer from the levels of pollution to which you refer. I did however suffer the Rochdale industrial crap from the war onwards which after 37 years was quite enough for me thank you and I do therefore sympathise with your plight. But that's life - Jim.

A good choice, best not tell anyone about it.

Merseyside and it's hinterland was designated in ww2 for strategic petro-chemical industries, so they established there.

People have different priorities, but it's annoying when they say that because pollution is "traditional", it's a good thing.

We in the UK are well placed to get away with polluting the atmosphere, and living upwind of the worst of it is sensible. We have a sort of tradition of doing the right thing though, so 'getting away' with doing the wrong thing doesn't seem quite good enough.

A tradition of doing the 'right' thing was only ever a hollow sham and for the media networks. British diplomacy has always been one of the most disingenuous facets of British government policy and one shouldn't be fooled by the propaganda. We are past masters at swinging things around to our way by being polite and in-effacing. It's a con but pays handsomely.

Producing airborne industrial pollution and pretending not to notice as it goes on prevailing winds in the general direction of Germany may have some appeal as a great British tradition, but the tradition of breathing it in ourselves is definitely past it's sell-by date.

When I chuck a plastic bottle in the recycling bin, that's the last I want to see of it, not to breathe it in a few months later.

What we want and what we get are two different things. Remember that?

It's no use wishing the world was different simply because we wish it to be. In the face of reality lies the beauty of truth.

What the world wants now it will destroy itself striving for. Meanwhile Happy December on Thursday.

After someone puts a new tyre on their car, they don't want to be breathing in the fumes of the old one burning. Not a reality with beauty written across it's face though, more smudgy black marks.

It is useful to wish the world to be different, because the world we live in is increasingly a human construction.

What you are saying to me is - I dream of a better world for it is the only way I can accept the realities of this one. If I didn't I might just as well go out and top myself because to accept that 'this' is 'all' we will ever have doesn't give me peace of mind. It's the same argument as 'religions' and other beliefs who believe they have no real control as the 'Gods' will inevitably define everything and thus no real blame lies with the individual. It is of course all bollocks and to understand what we already know is to accept our lot at this point in the planets evolution.

We could all reduce the pollution and recapture the carbons and feed and clothe everyone and provide good medical care and everything else that is required - but not yet. We aren't intelligent enough at this precise time and thus will have to just put up with the down-sides - even if they kill us off in the process. Happy Thursday -

The bollocks you are talking about is not the twaddle I was thinking of. The realities of this world are enough reason to stay alive, most people do try to.

With pollution, swings and roundabouts are involved. Some things, use of pesticides, have improved, rivers are cleaner, smogs less frequent, attempts made to heal the moorland,

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/106544/reintroduction-of-sphagnum-moss-vital-to-restoration-of-upland-peatbogs

This makes life more possible and pleasant for all, so, more of the same and fewer of the toxic fires would be good.

Manchester Fire
@manchesterfire
Just a reminder if you're in the #rochdale area particularly #castleton near the #carcraftfire please close windows and doors
10:00 PM - 30 Nov 2016

Laudable - but in essence - we fiddle whilst Rome burns. There's an old adage I aspire towards. Never fight a battle you cannot win. The merits of the fight pale to insignificance as the failure looms ever larger. And only the winners get to set the rules. Sad isn't it. Regardless of that mantra - there will be survivors. There always are. The survivors will move on, as they do, and the world will keep on turning. To pleasure all 7.5 billion is impossible. Only the strongest and the luckiest will survive (only lucky is a debatable point) but would I want to be one of them? It's an academic point at my age. I've had the larger extent of my time and will most likely not be around to take part in any Armageddon that may befall the planet's future. All of our plaintiff cries in the wilderness have had no effect but we have done that which we can positively do given our status. One can do no more.

Fair enough.

Hazardous materials huge fire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-38233493
And yet another one similar on merseyside, again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38200232
Too many huge toxic fires.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-38023387
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-38233493

Could jet engines be used to blast polluted air up into the stratosphere?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38285567
Or, will the pollution just rain down again?

And here we go again. As I understand it the more carbon emission into the stratosphere the colder the planet becomes as the sunlight cannot penetrate through to create the warmth the planet needs for the present species on-board? It's the same (but considerably less) as 100 nuclear bombs all going off over the space of a couple of days and blasting enough crap into the stratosphere which brings what is know as the Nuclear Winter. SO - are they saying the amount blasted up will not make a difference OR are they saying it will help keep global warming under control (that's carbon in our atmosphere) OR don't they care one way or the other and SHOULD they be screwing around with the natural planet as if they were Intergalactic Gods? Stop polluting in the first place - cretins.

It looks as though 'they', TATA, are going to try out this jet engine smog clearing idea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38285567
Some sort of solution is a matter of life and death for many of the population of cities like Delhi.

Not polluting the atmosphere in the first place is a common sense idea. Common sense of course is rare. The huge toxic fires we have so many of in the north of England are
(1) Extremely toxic, being of plastics, tyres, electronics, chemicals, paint, oil etc.
and
(2) Avoidable. Simple (common sense) procedures and precautions could cut the number and scale of them.
(3) Expensive. We effectively burn our wealth, breathe in the fumes and cost the health service with our cancers. Why do we carry on doing it? Because we don't know how to stop.

How do you stop?!?!?   We don't know!

Atlas wrote:And here we go again.   As I understand it the more carbon emission into the stratosphere the colder the planet becomes as the sunlight cannot penetrate through to create the warmth the planet needs for the present species on-board? It's the same (but considerably less) as 100 nuclear bombs all going off over the space of a couple of days and blasting enough crap into the stratosphere which brings what is know as the Nuclear Winter. SO - are they saying the amount blasted up will not make a difference OR are they saying it will help keep global warming under control (that's carbon in our atmosphere) OR don't they care one way or the other and SHOULD they be screwing around with the natural planet as if they were Intergalactic Gods?  Stop polluting in the first place - cretins.

The idea is not to punch the pollution into the stratosphere, rather above the inversion layer (5000 feet) so that it will disperse more widely.