6 ms·

If you're asking, then either: * you've never heard of air pollution and global warming, * you don't experience air pollution every day for it to register in

by vorg 12y ago

If you're asking, then either: * you've never heard of air pollution and global warming, * you don't experience air pollution every day for it to register in your thinking, or * you disagree that polluted air will within decades encompass the globe. Far more people live in places like Beijing China and Delhi India than Adelaide Australia or Anchorage Alaska, and the only trend they see wrt air pollution is an ongoing increase. A decrease is only talk by people whose other hand is milking the machine.

ptaipale 12y ago
Most of the pollution comes from inside the city, so encasing the city would be rather disastrous. And you can't really protect against the global warming, aka greenhouse effect, by building a greenhouse - because that's effecticely what encasing a city is. A very large greenhouse which gets very hot inside. (The impact of encasements to pollution is observable e.g. at public transit: subway/metro stations have significant concentrations of small particles in the air. You know, the kind that people complain automobiles create. The fact is, also trains create them, and in closed spaces, like underground stations, the concentrations of particles grow big.)
- vorg 12y ago
  Perhaps "connected enclosures" would be a better term. The enclosures would be built gradually, incorporating present air-conditioned buildings but with air filtration systems added, and slowly extended to more and more areas. Many subway stations in Asia have a transparent seal between the tracks and waiting area which would be part of the enclosed zone boundary. You probably imagined a dome over a city when you read "encasing".
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    I still don't quite get why cities should be any kind of enclosures. The world as we know it has these huge air filtration and CO₂-to-O₂ conversion systems called "forests", and I do not understand why cities should be disconnected from them (apart from perhaps protecting the forests).
rprospero 12y ago
Actually, I agree with you on those points. What I don't see is how your proposed solution solves the problem. The sources of pollution are usually inside the cities. Los Angeles doesn't have a smog problem because of all the ozone blowing in from the Pacific ocean - it's because of all the cars in Los Angeles. Putting up an encasement around the city would actually make the air cleaner everywhere else on Earth, but would slowly suffocate the citizens. Given a choice, I'd want to be on the side of the encasement that does NOT have all of the cars and factories. Are you planning on moving the factories outside the encasement?
- vorg 12y ago
  I'm thinking of dense Asian-style cities run on subways and enclosed walkways, not Los Angeles, and the encasings built gradually, where every air-conditioned/central-heated apartment/shopping building is part of the enclosed area. The current factories wouldn't even be included in the area that gets enclosed in the first place. It seems more likely that various cities and countries around the world will act in self-interest by gradually enclosing more and more of their own living spaces inside air-filtered zones (including areas currently outdoors) than that governments around the world will mutually agree on and execute solutions to growing air pollution.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    Sorry, this makes no sense. It would be far, far cheaper to decrease pollution than to build airtight seals around every living space. Just think about how impractical and expensive that would be. Space stations and submarines are airtight, and they are extremely expensive. Now imagine making every building to similar standards, and connections between them to the same standards. Then think about how space stations and submarines must be maintained in order to remain in working condition, and how expensive that is. It would be absurdly impractical. In fact, reality bears this out. Pollution in the U.S. is down over the past several decades, compared to its previously increasing. Pollution controls work and are economically viable. Yes, developing (and far more corrupt) nations like China are increasingly choking themselves with air pollution. That's because of their social problems (i.e. not putting enough value on human life and quality of life). Their governments are willing to let their citizens suffer, and their citizens are powerless to effect change within their social and governmental structures. Eventually the costs will become too great and even the corrupt governments will have to do something. (Or the rich/powerful will live in expensive, isolated structures while everyone else suffers.) But one thing that certainly won't happen is to encase everything in airtight seals. Not unless Free Energy happens, in which case pollution would no longer be an issue anyway.
alphapapa 11y ago
> you disagree that polluted air will within decades encompass the globe. I'll go with point 3. In some places it will continue to get worse, until either governments change and people can enact change, or the workers suffer so much that the economics make it cheaper to reduce pollution than to let it increase. But no, it will not "encompass the globe." That's an extreme exaggeration, and your mentioning Australia and Alaska as counter-examples proves it. Are you letting your agenda trample upon your truthfulness? :)

by vorg 12y ago

ptaipale 12y ago

Most of the pollution comes from inside the city, so encasing the city would be rather disastrous. And you can't really protect against the global warming, aka greenhouse effect, by building a greenhouse - because that's effecticely what encasing a city is. A very large greenhouse which gets very hot inside. (The impact of encasements to pollution is observable e.g. at public transit: subway/metro stations have significant concentrations of small particles in the air. You know, the kind that people complain automobiles create. The fact is, also trains create them, and in closed spaces, like underground stations, the concentrations of particles grow big.)

vorg 12y ago
Perhaps "connected enclosures" would be a better term. The enclosures would be built gradually, incorporating present air-conditioned buildings but with air filtration systems added, and slowly extended to more and more areas. Many subway stations in Asia have a transparent seal between the tracks and waiting area which would be part of the enclosed zone boundary. You probably imagined a dome over a city when you read "encasing".
- ptaipale 12y ago
  I still don't quite get why cities should be any kind of enclosures. The world as we know it has these huge air filtration and CO₂-to-O₂ conversion systems called "forests", and I do not understand why cities should be disconnected from them (apart from perhaps protecting the forests).

rprospero 12y ago

Actually, I agree with you on those points. What I don't see is how your proposed solution solves the problem. The sources of pollution are usually inside the cities. Los Angeles doesn't have a smog problem because of all the ozone blowing in from the Pacific ocean - it's because of all the cars in Los Angeles. Putting up an encasement around the city would actually make the air cleaner everywhere else on Earth, but would slowly suffocate the citizens. Given a choice, I'd want to be on the side of the encasement that does NOT have all of the cars and factories. Are you planning on moving the factories outside the encasement?

vorg 12y ago
I'm thinking of dense Asian-style cities run on subways and enclosed walkways, not Los Angeles, and the encasings built gradually, where every air-conditioned/central-heated apartment/shopping building is part of the enclosed area. The current factories wouldn't even be included in the area that gets enclosed in the first place. It seems more likely that various cities and countries around the world will act in self-interest by gradually enclosing more and more of their own living spaces inside air-filtered zones (including areas currently outdoors) than that governments around the world will mutually agree on and execute solutions to growing air pollution.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  Sorry, this makes no sense. It would be far, far cheaper to decrease pollution than to build airtight seals around every living space. Just think about how impractical and expensive that would be. Space stations and submarines are airtight, and they are extremely expensive. Now imagine making every building to similar standards, and connections between them to the same standards. Then think about how space stations and submarines must be maintained in order to remain in working condition, and how expensive that is. It would be absurdly impractical. In fact, reality bears this out. Pollution in the U.S. is down over the past several decades, compared to its previously increasing. Pollution controls work and are economically viable. Yes, developing (and far more corrupt) nations like China are increasingly choking themselves with air pollution. That's because of their social problems (i.e. not putting enough value on human life and quality of life). Their governments are willing to let their citizens suffer, and their citizens are powerless to effect change within their social and governmental structures. Eventually the costs will become too great and even the corrupt governments will have to do something. (Or the rich/powerful will live in expensive, isolated structures while everyone else suffers.) But one thing that certainly won't happen is to encase everything in airtight seals. Not unless Free Energy happens, in which case pollution would no longer be an issue anyway.

alphapapa 11y ago

> you disagree that polluted air will within decades encompass the globe. I'll go with point 3. In some places it will continue to get worse, until either governments change and people can enact change, or the workers suffer so much that the economics make it cheaper to reduce pollution than to let it increase. But no, it will not "encompass the globe." That's an extreme exaggeration, and your mentioning Australia and Alaska as counter-examples proves it. Are you letting your agenda trample upon your truthfulness? :)