UN Doom & Gloom on the Planet's Environment

    The environmental doom and gloom mongers are still at work in the United Nations.
    Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Little Progress in Saving the Planet", in the June 11 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
    In the article, Cheryl discusses a United Nations report which mentions a number of items related to the ecology. I actually find this UN report and Cheryl's review pleasantly interesting and challenging, because I can respond with a simple application of common sense and experience rather than having to investigate the scientific data and technical details, as is necessary in most of my writing. Here we can take one item at a time.
    The article contains a picture of a pile of junk with a beautiful mountain in the background. The pile of junk bothers my sensibilities. I like things neat and consistent. I appreciate pictures of nature, and I don't like nature adulterated with contaminants which I feel are intrusive. Solution to the situation in this picture: Bury the junk.
    The UN says freshwater lakes and estuary ecosystems could collapse because of contamination by fertilizer runoff. The possibility of this happening is extremely remote. First of all, farmers do not want fertilizers disappearing from the areas that they intend to fertilize. It would be wasteful. Secondly, contamination would be very variable depending upon the size of the water reservoir. For example, a small pond on a farm may achieve heavy contamination from fertilizer runoff. The likelihood of the Great Lakes being contaminated by fertilizer runoff is remote.
    The UN says that rapid melting of the Arctic ice sheet, caused by accelerated global warming, presents a problem. What problem? Higher levels of ocean water? Baloney! Shell is postponed oil drilling off Barrow in northern Alaska because the ice is thicker now than it has been in the past 10 years. But, even if there is Arctic ice sheet melting, this could be an advantage to opening the Northwest Passage to more regular maritime shipping. The stated "accelerated global warming" implies man-made activity of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. We have already debunked this theory. Any global warming which occurs will be the result of natural forces, over which we have no control.
    The UN abhors plastic entering the ocean. I do too. It's a waste of good plastic and poor housekeeping. Other than that, there are no significant disadvantages. The occasional report of fish being caught in discarded fishing nets is anecdotal and not significant. Much plastic is already recycled and the remainder, which is not economically recyclable, should be buried in a landfill, where it may be mined at some future date. We should stop ocean dumping of plastic, because it is poor housekeeping and a long-term uneconomical practice.
    The UN report also uses a broad brush in stating that [somebody] should be improving the ability of developing countries to manage industrial chemicals. What developing countries are producing industrial chemicals? Congo, Nigeria, Chad, Egypt? Let's be specific. Let's also be specific about what the problem is with industrial chemicals? Chances are these chemicals are being produced because somebody wants them to do a job. Are the developing countries not handling the chemicals properly, so that they are contaminating the environment? Which environment; local or global? What is the nature of the contamination? If local health hazard, that is the responsibility of local government. The bottom line is that the UN should not be involved in anything less than global problems involving health hazards caused by activities in one country carrying to victims in another country.
    The UN reports that governments can change "troubling trends" by strengthening environmental-related policies, restriction of subsidies for fossil fuels, and international cooperation to disseminate energy-saving technologies. I agree completely, and I have no doubt that every significant government on Earth already knows this.
    The UN reports that for sound management of chemicals and wastes more attention needs to be paid to chemical hazards. I agree completely, but again, that is the responsibility of individual governments, where chemical producers are located. Realistic controls on emissions and potentials for explosion, which could adversely affect public health, are the responsibility of local government.