2007-08-06 14:33:13.390672+00 by radix 14 comments
It's looking like all sorts of environmental assumptions don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. This is from/about the UK, not sure if all of these assumptions apply to the US. (this reminds me of the debate we had about hybrids and diesels awhile back)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...ws/uk/science/article2195538.ece
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 14:55:13.937636+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger
Is there a link here somewhere?
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 15:26:33.749459+00 by: Dan Lyke
I just edited it in. I need to remove that field that was put in for older RSS stuff...
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 16:23:58.798486+00 by: radix
sorry 'bout that. I'll put all links in the body from here on out.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 16:35:30.212964+00 by: meuon
I just read "A State of Fear" by Michael Chichton. which was a bad story (to be made into a TV movie kind of script) with some interesting factoids and references ab0ut global warning and other issues. It's also berated on wunderground. Still, I enjoyed it, and found his point of view similiar to my own, and had some good laughs with his comments in the back of the book.
The truth that seems self evident is that politically funded pseudo-science supports the politics, not science.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 16:53:15.510687+00 by: Dan Lyke
And that environmental concerns are a combination of personal impact and population size, and right now the latter grossly overpowers any notion of the former.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 20:13:49.842109+00 by: ebradway [edit history]
Ok... It's an interesting read but take it all with a big geographic grain of salt. All of the estimates are for people living in England. For instance:
And if you read further, the article isn't a condemnation of walking as it is a condemnation of the media for harping on the environmental impact of transportation systems, like air flight, while ignoring the environmental impact of food production.
Of course, I just had a lengthy discussion with a PETA member about their ignoring the environmental impacts of reproduction!
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 20:54:20.471795+00 by: Larry Burton
Grains are low impact foods? Certainly they are lower impact that grain-fed beef but most of the grains people consume are highly processed. Are these diets low impact diets?
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 21:03:09.79953+00 by: Dan Lyke
Given that the beef involved are probably entirely grain fed, the beef is going to be at least double the impact of eating the grain directly (I think the ratio for chicken is about 2-1, but the ratio for beef is much higher).
If the beef were grass fed, that'd probably be closer to inline, because in many of those cases the grass can be on land that won't support grain anyway.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 22:37:29.005691+00 by: ebradway
Hmmm...
Population -> Bad for the Environment
Raising Cattle to Eat -> Bad for the Environment
Growing grains to Eat -> Bad for the Environment
Maybe the solution is to eat people!
The real green answer is Soylent Green!
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-06 22:52:00.936686+00 by: Dan Lyke
Vegetarians are alleged to taste better. Never eaten one, myself.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-07 05:47:02.226689+00 by: topspin [edit history]
=========NON PC COMMENT WARNING================
You know the worst part about eating vegetables?
Getting 'em back in the wheelchair.
===============================================
While I'm a long way from vegetarian, I've been almost force-fed fruit by a friend.
Seriously, discussing our environmental footprint while we cruise the net at high speed makes me giggle. Would one care to speculate on the environmental impact of the net backbone and associated arteries?
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-09 00:48:31.786302+00 by: ebradway
The impact of the energy and materials in the equipment is pretty high but I think that's offset by decreased need to travel and decreased need for print. Unfortunately, I'd bet that both travel and printed material has increased since the advent of the 'net... So reality blows that argument.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-10 16:45:56.007954+00 by: meuon [edit history]
"NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events. The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge."
#Comment Re: made: 2007-08-10 21:34:35.840192+00 by: markd
decreased travel and need for print, yes, but also increased shipping and materials for boxes. The number of amazon boxes around the houses of people I know is astounding.