Anthropocene: The Time of Humans. The U.N. in a report has stated the unbelievable: Humans have inhabited the Earth for 200,000 years. Two hundred years ago the Earth’s population was 1 billion people: Today that population is (approximately) 7.3 billion, over seven times more. Further in the report they fault human production and automobile for air pollution.

In that report there is a lot to agree with. Back in the 1960s or so there was an effort to reduce the population with TV campaigns to limit the numbers of children, even China limited families to one child. Now this report wants an effort of that nature to reduce the total population to sustainable numbers. To me, who lived in a much less populated U.S., the number of people is evident. The population is doubling every 30 years.

Again, the report blames humans and pollution for demise of species and global warming. Please good people, stay with the provable. Automobiles, factories, coal-burning plants, plastic industries pollute — that pollution is seen on our streets, in our air and in our waste disposal sites and mostly in our oceans.

The “Sixth Mass Extinction” (Dinosaurs were the fifth) species are becoming extinct 100 times faster than they would without human impacts. Populations of wild animals have more than halved since 1970, while the human population has doubled. Only five times before in our planet’s history have so many species and so much biodiversity been lost so quickly. The fifth was when the dinosaurs were wiped out. That is why scientists and conservationists call what is happening now the sixth mass extinction. Some have even described the loss of biodiversity today as “biological annihilation.”

Those that read the DN-R know that I’m not on board with those that believe global warming is anything other than nature doing what nature does. I.E. it is part of the cycles of the Earth. However, I can see the pollution. We need the ocean and the creatures that live there in. Let us fix the air pollution, as air pollution, if I’m right or you are right has no meaning. If the air quality is corrected we all win. If by some magic we can clean up the plastic in the ocean again we all win. Stop the anti- anything; join hands where we all have a common starting point: Air quality.

As a youth, one that loved the outdoors, the forests, I daily wandered the “woods”, drank from the streams, enjoyed the birds and animals. Along the roads I traveled with my bicycle. The trees were not turning brown or terrible shades of green, my nature was real nature. Now my grandkids, except in upper areas of Canada, can’t see the wonders I saw outside my front door.

As a youth, there were no plastic containers of any kind. Glass bottles of milk were delivered to my door. Soda too was in glass bottles returnable of course we recycled without even knowing we were recycling.

James Kerwin lives in Rockingham.

(5) comments

LVW

Yes indeed. Since heat-trapping gasses are not emitted alone, but rather with pollutants nobody wants in the air, cutting back on the latter decreases the former. Everybody wins, and we can stop the weekly, 100-post arguments about climate change.

hbdansby

But inevitably when trying to appease the unreasonable, there are drawbacks. For example, natural gas is very clean to burn—very little traditional pollutants, such that Kerwin would be satisfied. And even those concerned about climate change could take satisfaction in natural gas having 1/2 the CO2 compared to coal. But what is the rest of the story?

mattnamyj

Nicely written Mr. Kerwin. I agree that man made global climate change is a terrible hoax kept alive by those on the far left with an agenda for control over people above anything else. I also agree that cleaning up the air and water benefits us all and that plastics seem to be a large portion of the problem. I'm not sure how to convince these third world countries that are the major offenders when it comes to ocean polluting. They just don't seem to care. The air contamination is a major issue with so many other countries as well. China is probably the major offender but doesn't seem all that interested in improving the situation. They are solely focused on production and the all mighty dollar.

hbdansby

83 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://rollbacks.htmlwww.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-

hbdansby

There is, of course, no reason for Kerwin to make a distinction between global warming and other types of environmental dangers. He chooses to make this distinction because he can personally observe traditional environmental degradation, while he cannot personally observe global warming.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.