So what, if anything, can we do about it?

I’ve often wondered if the answer is loading a rocket with these containers full of poison, and shooting them into the sun so they’d burn up. Would that even make any sense? Is it even remotely doable?

Launching matter into space is environmentally odious owing to the energy requirements.

My preferred option for dealing with halogenated organic species, of which DDT is member of a subset, relatively minor now in comparison to fluorinated species, far more troubling that DDT at this point, is radiolysis, given my appreciation of the value of radioactive things, a subset of free radical decomposition. Since gamma and x-ray radiation are highly energetic, they can break the problematic carbon-fluorine bond which has energy roughly comparable to the far UV range, to which x-rays and gamma rays can easily be down-converted, although down conversion is not necessary. (This would be an excellent way to utilize so called "nuclear waste." ) Other free radical generation approaches are well known, and often industrially applied, in particular ozonolysis, and chlorination, although the later often generates chlorinated by products which are themselves problematic.

Interestingly, the current issue of Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 57, Issue 47, which I am currently exploring, is all about the issue of purifying water of contaminants, and there is much discussion of free radical reactions therein.

impacts is nothing new and one can go all the way back to "Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered" by E.F. Schumacher from 1973 for example and the discussion of appropriate technologies, unbridled consumerism and environmental impacts. The crux of the matter can be demonstrated to be a conflict that persists regardless of the source of energy for a nation.

Over consumption will exhaust the planet's resources no matter what the energy source we use. It is a sad but true fact that the easier availability of energy has become the greater the appetite has grown for creature comforts, possessions, more "food" selections etc. One can make the argument that a cheap, virtually perpetual and unlimited supply of energy would in fact hasten the demise of the resources on the planet.

Our current system rewards the producer of any product or service no matter how truly useless as long as Madison Avenue and a willing stock market are able to manufacture a "want". No matter how useless or illusory any gain might be to the general consumer/investor. The system is not set for change any time soon either with money being the controlling factor in all of government.

The idea of environmental salvation or destruction based on our energy sources will be illusory as well without concurrent major shifts away from overpopulation, unbridled capitalism and rampant consumerism. There is little hope that is going to happen given the nature of governments currently becoming more nationalistic and more bought and paid for by the very forces who benefit from the unbridled capitalism and consumerism.

I am not suggesting that moving towards renewables is a bad thing. I am only saying it is neither salvation or total destruction by itself. We are very much in a scenario where the underdeveloped countries in the world are rightly looking at the person in California who has 6 cars in the driveway for a 2 person house and says, rightly so, that it is not right for them to go without while the person in California goes to excess. But who wants to tell America that having China produce millions of little plastic pinwheels to stick out on the lawns of America must end? Everybody in the chain is happy. The big retailer, the Chinese factory, the Chinese worker and the end user who sits on their porch swing watching the pinwheels spin merrily in the late afternoon sun while sipping a cool drink and breathing a sigh of contentment because everything is alright.

Certainly without major social upheaval/industrial change on a never before seen scale we have little chance. The fact that despite decades of major emissions improvements in transportation and other areas our CO2 levels keep increasing. Many of us said 20 years ago and longer that if we did not make huge changes and do so rapidly we were going past the tipping point. But even if we had made the energy supply changes we cannot get away from the other deeply entrenched factors in this multi-faceted problem we face. Schumacher and others tried to get us to see the urgency and dire situation we face. So now we face the situation of the very real scenario of desperately digging in the ground for lithium because we're convinced it will save us from the effects of what we dug out of the ground before. I know some people will say I'm pessimistic but why would I think that America will somehow reign ourselves in when all I have to do is look at the last 20+ years of conduct with automotive emissions. As we reduced the emissions and improved efficiency we simultaneously jacked up speed limits all over the country. So higher speeds equals increased consumption and more emissions than if we had left speed limits alone. But here in America it is like an insult to Motherhood and Apple Pie to suggest that we buy less, drive less, use less or limit ourselves much in any way at all. If the speed limit is 70 then they drive 80 and if it's 80 they drive 90.

It is irrefutable, absent a miracle, that we can continue on for hundreds of years more without reduction of consumption, conservation and population control. The hundreds may be far shorter given accelerating climate change, famine, disease, conflict etc. So que on up everybody and make our grand environmental and social choices of shot or hung. Now the usual disclaimer for legal purposes: This is not intended to treat or cure any disease or condition. If you should develop a rash or experience bleeding discontinue use and seek medical treatment. Any alterations may void your warranty. Your mileage may vary.