Kyoto: clash between politics and science and a lot of disinformation
We are often bombarded by television and newspapers by the refusal of some states to ratify the Kyoto agreements, which envisage reducing the input of carbon dioxide and other products by industry to lower the pollution of the atmosphere. to avoid overheating!
Very few talk about the need to reduce the release of harmful gases into the airto safeguard the health of the inhabitants.
Why is the overheating of the atmosphere and not men's health the most debated topic? To answer this question we would like to make some considerations.
The press openly speaks of the opposition on the part of the industry to intervene on the plants, given the high costs necessary to reduce pollution, a thesis supported by some governments, in exchange for more or less officially lavished support in recent electoral campaigns by organizations industrial.
But will there really be this overheating of the atmosphere? The truth is, nobody knows!
Always, when it comes to phenomena concerning terrestrial physics, from meteorology to the ionization of the stratosphere, scientists have always divided on many hypotheses, because the available data are insufficient to enunciate an incontrovertible thesis. Just think that after more than a century of measurements of various meteorological parameters, you are still not in a position to forecast the weather beyond 3-4 days, so imagine if you are in a position to forecast changes in the climate between a few decade. It is enough to keep in mind that in the history of the earth, that is, for billions of years, there has always been an alternation of cold periods with hot periods, without being able to invoke pollution linked to human activities (see: "Floods, tornadoes, storms , waves of heat or cold ... why call natural events calamities?).
The duration of the various cycles varies from millions of years to a decade and there is no plausible explanation for the reasons that lead to a rise or fall in temperature: there are various factors that should intervene in the phenomenon, including astronomical ones.
The dominant topic in the discussions is the greenhouse effect, characterized by an increase in temperature linked to the increase in carbon dioxide caused by human settlements. The man in the street is convinced that the greenhouse effect is exclusively linked to pollution, without reflecting that the Earth is a large greenhouse that allows the development of life as we know it. Undoubtedly, the increase in carbon dioxide has its effect on the rise in temperature (by the way, the most disparate data on its variation circulate), but the increase in it is of particular consistency in correspondence with human and industrial settlements and, taboo subject, a not insignificant contribution is that due to airplanes for a whole series of polluting gases, in particular ozone.
As we can see, the controversies almost always take place on possible long-term climate changes, attributing to pollution the totality of the variations of the parameters that determine it, not being able to distinguish the contribution linked to human activities from what could be natural evolution climate, as has always been the case in the past.
So why are we only talking about dangers linked to climate variations and not being alarmed for the health of populations?
Given the interests linked to the fight against pollution, it is preferable to address the climatic aspect, because it allows the discussion to drag on for decades and justify not taking drastic measures in the short term, also given the uncertainty of the theories underlying the theories on climatic variations.
Addressing the consequences of the release of gases harmful to the health of populations, especially in high-density settlements, would involve the intervention of governments in a drastic form and not propose ridiculous reductions of 5-10% of gases, but their almost elimination within a few years.
But imagine an immediate and drastic elimination of polluting industrial plants and the reduction of means of transport from the motorcycle to the plane?
Maybe it's too late to back down. It was necessary to reflect on the problem from the very beginning of industrialization and motorization, without considering the few visionaries who at first put humanity on notice.
But how can we forget the profit?
Dr. Pio Petrocchi