Miscellaneous desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 18[edit]

the 2000 United States presidential election[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Pollution and Crime[edit]

Is pollution a crime? Bonupton (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, depending on what local and federal laws say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Pollution" is considered a "noun of action", hence can be taken as doing something, i.e. polluting. You may find its etymology amusing.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]