Surely, the Lowest Point in Human History Was....

[The new erato]

The US has, and will continue to have, a more carbon intensive economy, which includes all aspects of activity.  It should also be pointed out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries, especially the larger European countries (eg, Luxembourg and Norway don't really matter when it comes to big issues), so one can see a correlation between a measure of comparative income and carbon emissions.  It should also be pointed out, that per the US CDIAC and UN, the top three producers greenhouse gases are China, the US, and the EU as a whole, in that order.  And buried in this reality is the fact that the global emissions figures are skewed to reflect the massive shift of more emissions-intensive activities like manufacturing from the rich world (ie, the US and EU) to the middle income world (mainly China).  Going for finer details sees that some countries have adopted different policies for energy production, like France, which derives most electricity from nuclear power, driving down both aggregate and per capita emissions.  That is not an option for the entire world based solely on available fuel.  Transportation plays a big role, too, of course, but not the defining one, and it masks other issues.

The lowest point in human history is you saying Norway doesn't matter!

[Ken B]

+1

Horseshit. I mean that literally. Do a little research on horse shit in cities and towns about a century ago and then we can talk about smog and pollution. 

[Ken B]

The 1950s - the golden "brain washing" era of consumer products!!!!!

You see a vacuum cleaner as a useless product one only wants if brain-washed?

[The new erato]

You see a vacuum cleaner as a useless product one only wants if brain-washed?

But as a Christmas gift to the wife it definitely is a dealbreaker!

[North Star]

Horseshit. I mean that literally. Do a little research on horse shit in cities and towns about a century ago and then we can talk about smog and pollution. 

Yeah, there was plenty of smog and pollution back then. Emissions from citizens' firewood still kill around two people every year in my home city with a population of just under 200,000. And stoves have gotten a fair bit more environmentally friendly in the last 100 years.

[Moonfish]

Horseshit. I mean that literally. Do a little research on horse shit in cities and towns about a century ago and then we can talk about smog and pollution. 

Poop? What about doing a little research on the amount of human waste generated by a modern metropolis? Is the human population of 7.2 billion (predicted to rise to about 9-10 billion by 2050) level an issue? China is planning to expand Beijing to a 130 million metropolis. Just think about the amount of feces generated by such a city...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/world/asia/in-china-a-supercity-rises-around-beijing.html?_r=0



https://www.youtube.com/v/Y0UarU0h_VA

[Ken B]

Yeah, there was plenty of smog and pollution back then. Emissions from citizens' firewood still kill around two people every year in my home city with a population of just under 200,000. And stoves have gotten a fair bit more environmentally friendly in the last 100 years.

And the famous London fog, that is no more. It was caused by all the particulates from those green days before the car and petroleum smutzed everything up.

[Moonfish]

Yeah, there was plenty of smog and pollution back then. Emissions from citizens' firewood still kill around two people every year in my home city with a population of just under 200,000. And stoves have gotten a fair bit more environmentally friendly in the last 100 years.

Hmm, what about alcohol related deaths relative to firewood related ones?



http://www.stat.fi/til/ksyyt/2011/ksyyt_2011_2012-12-21_kat_001_en.html

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Yeah, there was plenty of smog and pollution back then. Emissions from citizens' firewood still kill around two people every year in my home city with a population of just under 200,000. And stoves have gotten a fair bit more environmentally friendly in the last 100 years.

My neighbors (inveterate winter woodburners, annoyingly) wished they died several years ago.  They didn't think to question the ivy winding about some of their firewood and - you guessed it - inhaled the poison ivy smoke and their trachea, lungs, and points in-between suffered the consequences.  Didn't teach them anything, however.   

[Moonfish]

And the famous London fog, that is no more. It was caused by all the particulates from those green days before the car and petroleum smutzed everything up.

True. Air pollution in London was worse in the past than today. However, that is not an argument for ignoring aspects of air pollution causing harm to the environment or human health. It simply indicates that our society overall has become more efficient at handling air pollution issues (e.g. catalytic converters in cars, scrubbers in smokestacks etc). Air pollution is still a severe issue across the world and will of course take on different aspects depending on the geographic location and different nations' infrastructure.  Many megacities (e.g. Beijing, Mexico City, Los Angeles) struggle with air pollution.

[North Star]

Poop? What about doing a little research on the amount of human waste generated by a modern metropolis? Is the human population of 7.2 billion (predicted to rise to about 9-10 billion by 2050) level an issue? China is planning to expand Beijing to a 130 million metropolis. Just think about the amount of feces generated by such a city...

But the waste management in modern, developed countries is rather more, well, developed than it was a few hundred years ago.

And the famous London fog, that is no more. It was caused by all the particulates from those green days before the car and petroleum smutzed everything up.

Yes indeed. Not that there isn't plenty of e.g. photochemical smog these days.

[Ken B]

But as a Christmas gift to the wife it definitely is a dealbreaker!

I bet that's wrong. In say 1953 people were a lot poorer. Especially young couples. A vacuum cleaner would be a big chunk of the budget, and so that big a chunk dedicated to making the wife's life easier would be appreciated.

[Moonfish]

But the waste management in modern, developed countries is rather more, well, developed than it was a few hundred years ago.
Yes indeed. Not that there isn't plenty of e.g. photochemical smog these days.

It is indeed, but the amount of human waste is considerable. The issue is more problematic in developing nations (e.g. India).

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/asia/poor-sanitation-in-india-may-afflict-well-fed-children-with-malnutrition.html

[Moonfish]

You see a vacuum cleaner as a useless product one only wants if brain-washed?

Ahh, do you want one, Ken?     

[Moonfish]

Air pollution in the US 2013: California has issues with a number of cities relative to federal guidelines.

http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html

[Moonfish]

.

[North Star]

[Figure 1. Leading causes of death among men aged 15 to 64 in 2011 (54-group classification)]
Hmm, what about alcohol related deaths relative to firewood related ones?

There now, it's a bit misleading to copy that graph without naming it, as people might think it's the causes of death of the whole population, and not of working age men. And do note that I didn't mean that firewood burning is a serious threat to the population nowadays, but if it was the only means of heating, it would cause a lot more health issues and deaths.

My neighbors (inveterate winter woodburners, annoyingly) wished they died several years ago.  They didn't think to question the ivy winding about some of their firewood and - you guessed it - inhaled the poison ivy smoke and their trachea, lungs, and points in-between suffered the consequences.  Didn't teach them anything, however.   

The people living next door to my parents' neighbours are also inveterate woodburners. There's nothing wrong with it in parts of world that aren't as crammed up as the largest cities, as long as you burn the wood properly, generating more heat and practically no harmful emissions (apart from the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water - but then, trees cause more CO₂ emissions alive than when burned).

[North Star]

.

Well, this is a good nomination. 
I first saw this in an environmental chemistry class. Still cracks me up, and certainly helps to understand all the paranoia towards food and medical industries in the US.

[Moonfish]

There now, it's a bit misleading to copy that graph without naming it, as people might think it's the causes of death of the whole population, and not of working age men. And do note that I didn't mean that firewood burning is a serious threat to the population nowadays, but if it was the only means of heating, it would cause a lot more health issues and deaths.
The people living next door to my parents' neighbours are also inveterate woodburners. There's nothing wrong with it in parts of world that aren't as crammed up as the largest cities, as long as you burn the wood properly, generating more heat and practically no harmful emissions (apart from the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water - but then, trees cause more CO₂ emissions alive than when burned).

I do notice a severe change in air pollution around Thanksgiving and Christmas when everybody decides to haul home a box of firewood to provide the annual ambience of a hot sparkling fireplace.  The air literally gets thick with smoke depending on the weather.  Have you seen the "fake" fireplaces on DVDs?   

https://www.youtube.com/v/5Wb58oSSXUY

[Moonfish]

Well, this is a good nomination. 
I first saw this in an environmental chemistry class. Still cracks me up, and certainly helps to understand all the paranoia towards food and medical industries in the US.

It scares me that it was completely embraced by society at the time and marketed in this fashion. Granted that protection against malaria was an important aspects in parts of the world, but it makes me wonder what inventions/gadgets/chemicals/techniques we embrace today that will be looked at by future generations as a menace to mankind and the environment?