Although we still have much progress to make on reducing emissions, new research suggests the situation could be worse. According to a study by the Desert Research Institute, pollutant levels at the beginning of the 20th century were two to five times higher than current levels of pollution. Researchers attribute the decrease in pollution levels to the advent of more efficient coal-burning technologies, as well as legislation aimed at reducing emissions.
It seems counterintuitive, with so much coal being burned today, that the pollution could be less. But keep in mind two points. First, power plants -- even in places like China -- are much more efficient at nearly complete coal combustion than are industrial uses of coal. That would explain why there isn't as much carbonaceous haze today as expected. Secondly, the great majority of coal used today in the Western world, e.g. at power plants, is required by law to have particulate controls, which would explain why the levels of heavy metals has decreased. There is an article by Tammi Bond and co-authors (2004) which categorizes the sources, worldwide, of both elemental (black) carbon emissions, and organic carbon emissions -- a little googling should find the reference. Power plants emit less than one part per thousand of each, but coal burned in other used emits large quantities of each, as does biomass burning of various sorts.
In middle school classrooms, the gist of the Ice Age is often explained as, "It got really cold and all the animals became extinct.” Recently, however, scientists have been taking a closer look at where and when human behavior affected the extinction of species, instead of climate change. Recent findings in Tasmania prove that certain ancient species, like the giant kangaroo and marsupial rhino and leopard, were still inhabiting the island when humans first arrived, leading the research team to conclude that the animals' extinction was due to human hunting, not the Ice Age.
Is this really news? So many megafauna went extinct in North America at the time that humans became widespread, just after the end of the last Ice Age. Those megafauna -- giant bison twice as large as today's bison, mastadons, mammoths, giant sloths, dire wolves, sabre tooth cats, various camelids and horses, for starters -- survived previous ice ages, and survived this last one, but then disappeared pretty quickly after the ice age was over. There were ice age drawings of rhinos and lions in Europe. If these and other large animals could survive the ice ages, why couldn't they survive warmer climates with more prey? For a while there were theories trying to show how diseases or changing climate or other things might have done the trick, but it really only takes steady hunting pressure over the centuries. And now we're at it again. This time it is the commercial and perhaps the complete extinction of so many ocean species, as well as the threats to the more well known land species. Tigers and orangutans and rhinos in the not too distant future may survive only in zoos, if they don't go the way of some of the tiger species that have already become extinct. It isn't just hunting, but habitat destruction. Most creatures can handle changes in weather and climate, it seems to me. Handling humans is a much more difficult proposition, even when they aren't hunting, but "only" destroying the forests and other habitats that creatures need to live.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.