Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 March 18

= March 18 =

the 2000 United States presidential election
i read here on wikipedia that al gore won the popular vote by 504,000 votes over george w. bush. someone i know that's a republican said that was wrong and that george bush won the popular vote. i was reading on a website called www.mapsofworld.com/elections/usa/historical-election/2000.html and it said that george bush won the popular vote by 537 votes and 5 electoral votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.183.41.32 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How easy it is to mis-read something. The 537 appears to be Bush's official winning margin in Florida. Gore clearly won the national popular vote. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the Wikipedia article: United States presidential election, 2000. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Pollution and Crime
Is pollution a crime? Bonupton (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be, depending on what local and federal laws say. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but polluting usually is. No article on that apparently, though the pollution one links to Regulation and monitoring of pollution. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Pollution" is considered a "noun of action", hence can be taken as doing something, i.e. polluting. You may find its etymology amusing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It depends on which jurisdiction you're in - and on what specific kind of materials are being introduced into the environment - and in what quantities - and where - and for what purpose.  The very meaning of the word may be a loaded one in such situations - it might, for example, be possible for some jurisdiction to say that "All pollution is illegal" - and "Pollution is defined as..." - thereby restricting the meaning of the word to "That which is illegal".


 * To take an example: In Europe, the law requires that cars built in 2015 or later do not emit more than 130g of CO2 per km.  So CO2 pollution is illegal, but:
 * only in Europe
 * only for cars
 * only if they were built after 2015
 * only if you produce more than 130 grams of it per kilometer driven


 * In the USA, CO2 pollution from cars is only indirectly regulated by mandating fuel consumption rates - so CO2 isn't regulated as a pollutant from cars at all.


 * Since humans breathe out CO2, it cannot be the case that all CO2 production is even considered to be pollution - and certainl not as "illegal pollution". CO2 breathed out by humans is every bit as bad for the environment as the stuff pushed out by cars - so if all CO2 was "pollution" - we'd all be breaking the law all the time!


 * The difficulty here is that your question comes down to the exact definition of a very fuzzy English language word rather than some fact about the nature of the legal system.


 * This isn't just a theoretical problem.  Those US politicians that are global-warming denialists have argued that CO2 cannot be legally regulated by the EPA because it's produced by humans as a natural product of life - and cannot be counted as a "pollutant".  They go from there, in one gigantic and mindlessly stupid leap to argue that the EPA can't pass regulations to prevent coal-powered power plants from belching out megatonnes of the stuff.
 * I think the most appropriate response to someone claiming a natural product of life cannot be counted as a "pollutant" would be: "bullshit". Iapetus (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Be assured that this fuzzy definition mess is a large part of what's screwing up our planet!
 * SteveBaker (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I seem to recall Ronald Reagan pointing out that trees pollute. So, does that mean we need to cut down all the trees and build more factories to save the planet ? StuRat (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, trees do produce CO2 at night...so I suppose that his premise wasn't entirely wrong! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Steve - I'm pretty certain the 130 g/km figure is an average for the manufacturer, not a per car limit. See here for example - a Bentley that produces 342 g/km.--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right - but it doesn't alter my point, which is that "pollution" isn't clearly defined and that even specifying specific quantities of specific substances doesn't necessarily result in a clear definition. SteveBaker (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)