Did you know that the humanity has two overlapping ideas of what should be done in the environment and what should not?
The first idea is something we call economics - everything has to be the same in terms of price or economic feasibility, so that things work the same way, whether we like it or not.
This also means that pollution has to be regulated by money, so that we can meet our emissions targets. This is the theory of emission. In practice though, it has not been worked out, and so the mission goal is not met.
The second idea that the Earth should not be treated as just a location for life but also as an ecosystem that must be managed and preserved for the benefit of future generations is called sustainability.
This can include both direct and indirect effects of pollution. A big concern is the human's impact on earth global warming.
The ecological footprint is a term used to describe the amount of pollution a person or society emit. It is a measure of the impact that a human being or group of humans had on the Earth, if all humans on Earth were to take a single action. The Earth would look a lot different.
The pollution theory of emission also states that human impacts are not evenly distributed and that there are certain activities that are more damaging than others. These include nuclear power, the use of harmful chemicals, and the production of goods that cause more pollution than they reduce. Pollution from the use of nuclear power is not the only effect that nuclear power has. It also emits significant amounts of radioactivity.
The use of harmful chemicals is not an unusual thing for the people that live in the United States and Europe, but what about the use of natural products?
Surely natural products can be good for the environment. But a natural does not mean natural. Our food is grown mostly unnatural. The fields get sprayed with pesticides and get chemically fertilized. What does that mean? It means the production of the grown food is stable and the farmers have a stable income because the crops turn out large. It does also mean that the soil gets completely destroyed within its microbiol, worms, water and all other sort of things, that life in the ground. This is a huge problem. Farming this way means a couple of years of income, yet a decade of unusable land.
Combine this with a long drought and you will produce a desert. We do not want another desert. Thing about the Sahara. Scientists come to agreement that it used to be flora and fauna. Most likely destroyed by the Egyptians back in the days.
What can be done?
Did you know that the top soil, the humus binds massive amounts of CO2?
Creating humus, by farming organically with animals, and grow crops in cycles, we could actually reverse the global warming. Yet we are destroying it furthermore. Animals must not be held in cages, standing in their own feces. They must be in herds outside, eating the plant-matter we cannot digest, and turn land into beautiful, fertilized green landscape. Then it will be also great to grow crops on it yet again.
Many people are more aware of the ecological footprint because of the global increase in pollution. The Earth is not a resource that has to be managed in order to survive. When you dump waste in the ocean, you are destroying the natural ecosystems of the ocean for future generations. Whilst micro-plastic and chemicals in ground water destroy fish population, an imbalance might occur. Thinking while writing I start to understand that everyone has to spread some kind of awareness and find themselves a niche on how to be a part of reducing or even reversing global warming/pollution.
