What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
94 Comments
- CaptainPlanet, on 10/13/2008, -4/+21green jobs and innovation can be used to reboot our economy as well as save the planet. the economic woes shouldn't hinder sustainable progress but be an additional urgency that moves us towards it.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -9/+17Preserving the environment is *****?
No, you are. - Mnementh2230, on 10/13/2008, -1/+9Why would it only be a problem in "fantasy land"? Melting ice-caps, anyone?
And no, it's not just like an icecube melting in your glass of water. Ice cubes float. The polar ice-caps, however, are resting on the ground, and therefore have more of their volume above water level than below. - alappat1, on 10/13/2008, -3/+10by your logic it should be cooler today than the recorded average, whereas its the warmest its ever been since recording began.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -2/+9Actually, maybe not in Washington, but I would expect throughout the country, as money becomes tighter, we'll be seeing more efforts to reduce energy usage. We already saw that with gas prices - as gas prices went up, people were given an incentive to try to conserve gasoline and not drive so much. Obviously, going green is important for the environment, but this may actually be a catalyst, because the financial effects of not going green will be made more apparent.
- aptanalogy, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7The warmest soil temperatures recorded by the Viking spacecraft on Mars were about 27° C. I wouldn't call that cold. Granted, it can get up to -143° C in regions with the coldest soil (obviously the icecaps).
- theblacknight, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6Why is this comment being dugg down? No one seems to disagree with it enough to reply so what gives? Regardless of whether you agree with it, he's making some good points that are relevant and worth talking about.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -6/+12Yes. Global Warming
- alappat1, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8EDIT: this is a bit of a long winded answer, but includes details that come from my developmental economics classes and from Scientific American articles I have read over the years. I will look for more articles and post them as i find them
While its true that the use of ethanol is causing a food shortage in general. It is not the sole cause, infact it is perhaps a small contributing factor (like 10-20% of the main problem). And it has nothing to do with prices in the long run. When you study trade economics and the economics of developing nations you realize that there are a couple of main causes.
The first (short term main cause) being the lack of modern farming in the third world; they still (to a large extent) use subsistance farming methods which are highly inefficient (produce a small fraction of nominal yield using modern methods) .
This in turn is caused by 2 major factors; the lack of formal land rights which results in lack of accessability to credit (because they have no major collateral to back up any loans), AND the subsidies that economies like the US give to their farmers, which drive down food costs and prevent any modern method of farming from being financially viable (cannot pay back any loans due to lack of income). Unfortunately this seems like a catch 22 situation.
The second main cause is due to the fact that there are too many people on this planet; in order to feed everyone the way a developed nation eats, you would need about about 3 times the landmass area being farmed efficiently. There are simply too many people to feed; thus a few will go hungry regardless of economic situations. This too seems like a depressing situation. you can see several scientific articles on www.sciam.com including http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-malthus-pr ...
The sad reality is that ethanol does infact prevent food from reaching some people, but in the end it doesn't matter as human population growth grows to the point where Malthusian economics start to re-emerge. - ButterLoyalist, on 10/13/2008, -5/+10Global warming is a lie.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7You do realize that is has been conclusively determined that global warming is not merely the result of solar activity, right? We see solar activity go down, and yet temperatures continue to go up. Now, either the laws of physics have taken a holiday, or there's some other variable affecting temperature - and we know for a fact that atmospheric composition can affect temperatures.
- Mahoney07, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6The US DID NOT HAVE A SURPLUS in 2001
- epilogue, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7I completely agree, our economic woes today won't even touch the kind of devastation that lies ahead of us if we ignore the problem.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -8/+12Good. Maybe they'll give up on ethanol so that the third world can eat. Nothing makes me more sick than these people growing wealthy on their crusade against global warming, while people are suffering today from hunger. Especially since their strategy makes it harder to feed these people by making everything more expensive to produce. How do they sleep at night? Oh, I know - in their mansions.
- SuperVepr308, on 10/13/2008, -3/+7And a very profitable one at that...
- piratearggghhh, on 10/13/2008, -4/+8Once again people are thinking short term. Lower gas prices and more drilling ... until the next crisis. If we miss out on this, we will continue our energy dependence and miss the boat on the green economy, which Japan and parts of Europe are pioneering. Now is not the time to be short-sighted. This is an investment that will pay off. Plus, pollution is bad for us - ***** that gets into our air and water causes health problems, cancer etc. Seriously, do we all need to go back to grade school and relearn this stuff?
- regeya, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6Sssssh! Everybody knows that sorting out who owes what to whom is way more important than a livable planet.
- regeya, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Maybe they'll also give up booze and drugs.
I've noticed that most folks have a double standard on that. When it's ethanol, oh, well, that's keeping food away from poor folks! But try to take away someone's wheat whiskey and their weed, well, um, did you know that 50% of the world's food goes to waste, so there's not really a crisis?
Priorities, people. Transportation is way more important than your ability to toke up and tune out. - saurabharya, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3i wish global warming gets chilled by anything......
- angryfirelord, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3I agree in that environmental protection is important and if we are to co-exist on this planet, focusing entirely on profits may not be the answer. However, in times of an economic crisis when people are trying to hold on to their job, punishing companies is not the solution. Putting in a cap-and-trade system is only going to destroy the small businesses who can't afford the high fuel prices as is, let alone actually trying to buy even more expensive "clean" energy. We should look to solutions which reward companies who pollute less (perhaps some sort of a regressive carbon tax) instead of punishing them.
- angryredplanet, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3As a counter argument, if there is no environment, or one that is pushed so far out of its normal cycles by rampant economic and human population growth, there will soon be no economy. Flora and fauna biodiversity will die off as a result of rapid climate change and "desperate humans" doing what they must to survive. As a result, so too does our food-bowl and source of medicines. Disease and famine will become rampant, the human cost of which will be off the chart. We have the choice to act now but that choice will soon no longer be.
Think I'm wrong? It's happened multiple times over during the last 5k years to small disparate populations across the planet. Now that our population has exploded and we demand more resources from a planet that simply cannot deliver them at rate we require, I only wonder where the tipping point lies for our global community.
An environmental collapse will be far, far more devastating than an economic one. In fact, an environmental collapse will trigger an economic collapse the likes of which humans have never witnessed. This is exactly what we're heading towards unless people start dramatically changing the way they consider the environment, start protecting and nurturing it, like it does for us. The planet will recover the damage we have caused over many more years but the writing, for us, is on the wall. - sk33lz, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Money doesn't create oxygen. The trees that money is made from do. Ok, smart asses, money can make oxygen, but only if someone is willing to donate it or willing to create it for free. I would rather have seen $700 Billion spent on developing a feasible renewable fuel than bail out some dumb financial institutions.
- angryredplanet, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Can you invalidate the science? No?
Goodbye! - lisaawesome, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2RAmen man. We have got to get our ***** together. Even if global warming is a total hoax we can't deny we are ***** the land and water resources we NEED to survive. No amount of technology is going to replace arable land and potable water.
- jackkerouac, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Nope.
- wunksta, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3the greenland ice sheet is typically regarded as part of the northern ice cap i believe, and its grounded.
- ColorBlind, on 10/13/2008, -4/+6Global Confusion
- nmessick, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4Amen. Follow the money. The people pushing this sure are profiting from it.
- pintomp3, on 10/13/2008, -5/+7stories like these always bring out the anti-science global warming and evolution deniers.
- ButterLoyalist, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Yes. Please watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-330991046 ... - angryredplanet, on 10/14/2008, -1/+3Can any of you deniers invalidate the science? I didn't think so.
Can you prove that climate scientists are making stacks of cash? I didn't think so.
I'd suggest taking your crack-pot, paranoid conspiracy theories to a private corner where you can all float each others' boats. Don't forget your trench coats and spy hats. - jerryudigg, on 10/13/2008, -3/+5I would think Efforts on Global Warming would be Chilled by Global Cooling Woes.
I you use facts to prove global warming, you can't now throw the facts out if they don't agree. - FasterGun, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4The reason there is still hunger in the world is not a lack of food, but the lack of reliable transportation to the hungry along with third world infrastructure.
- Mockylock, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Regardless of the "global warming" theories, cleaning the environment should be the top priority.
- TheInformer, on 10/13/2008, -6/+8The Global Warming Alarmists must be thrilled at the news of the economic downturn. Their data no longer supports their "cause", and they've been trying to rebrand themselves as worrying about "Climate Change" so as to be able to continue getting grants and funds. Look at the past few years of their propaganda and you'll notice this change.
Now the economic downturn is happening. This is but the first salvo in their trying to say the Earth is cooling because of an economic downturn and not because their claims are false. - lisaawesome, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4I just hope we don't use our economic woes as an excuse to ignore our environmental degradation (not just global warming).
- epilogue, on 10/13/2008, -7/+9Nature loss 'dwarfs bank crisis':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7662565. ... - wunksta, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4climate != weather
- bbqsalad, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4nobody cares... you're alone
- didgital, on 10/13/2008, -4/+6Another reminder of what got ***** up in 2001 when we had a surplus
- alappat1, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2i don't know why the links don't work here in the forums but the SciAm article titles are as follows:
1) Are Malthus's Predicted 1798 Food Shortages Coming True?
2)Human Demands Exceeds Earth's sustainable Supply
3)The World is not Enough for HUmans - angryredplanet, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1You do understand that you live in a capitalistic society? You also understand that sometimes, under the lure of the mighty American green-back, people don't always behave altruistically?
There is nothing wrong with what Al Gore has done. Yes he owns a carbon credit company. Yes he has offset his personal CO2 emissions by purchasing credits from his own company. The net effect is that money moves from him to a company he owns and his CO2 emissions are offset. If you owned an ice cream store, would you be seen eating your competitions ice cream? If you had good business sense, the answer to that would be no.
Al Gore has done a lot to spread the word about the problem which poses to be one of our greatest threats. People may not like him, but that's ok, his job in getting people thinking is done. He is no scientist and has got some things wrong, but at least he's out there doing positive things. You may well have a problem with him - that's fine as nobody can please everybody - but can you prove any of the science behind climate change wrong? Nothing of what you have said invalidates the science yet that is where your focus, as a skeptic, should be. - SuperVepr308, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3Yeah, and drilling for our own oil would kick start it like a mofo. How about we try that?
- alappat1, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Mykonos08, thanks for the compliment. I just wanted to respond to a couple of your points. Please don't take this as criticism- just a discussion.
as far as increasing efficiency; the crop yields in the large farms in the US have slowed in growth over the last few yrs, despite GM crop yield increases. Also GM crops are not being fully used as there is a problem with cross contamination which may result in catastrophic loss in crops should there be a genetic weakness in the GM crop that leaves it vulnerable to disease etc.
In addition, meat production is several times less efficient than crop production; in terms of usable calories (which is not the only measurement) i think its in the 4-10 times less efficient (much more land needs to be used to produce the same amount of calories). So yes this does mean that if US was dedicated to wheat it would help feed people the world over, however the main issue is will we be able to do that, and i think the answer will be no for several reasons including the deforestation necessary for the farmlands, and the lack of economic incentive to stop meat production.
Finally, innovation is all well said and done, but at this point innovation is lagging behind population growth. Basic primary industries do have a limit; there are only so much area if the world we can use before the eco-system collapses around us- it is not as adaptable as we are.
There are only is only so much we can do with GM crops right now; my cousin who is a scientist who specializes in genetics was telling me that the ability for those kinds of yield increases (that are necessary) are atleast 35-40 yrs away at best, if they are ever possible.
That is not to say we will not adapt; I'm a bit pessmistic about the immediate future, but past 2050-2060 or so, if we can make it relatively unscathed, i think the bottleneck will be over. :) - SuperVepr308, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3Banks cause Climate Change!!! Finally The Goracle can complete the puzzle of science and reign as Enviro-Man forever and ever:)
- sumgi, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1This idea that we need to regulate complex systems like the global economy and the global environment are absolutely ridiculous and wasteful. Seriously if I ever hear myself say that it would be a great idea to regulate worldwide climate I hope that I combust spontaneously. On the other hand it is a great idea not to dump crap in your rivers and streams and pump dirty junk into the air that you breath...that is just common sense. If people attack it from the angle "I don't want to live in garbage and oil residue" rather than "I think that it should be five degrees cooler in Manila this year" I would definitely go along with it because not living in our own waste is doable but it requires everyone to be involved and is not a government project.
- wunksta, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1are you saying that the world getting warmer is a lie? because thats been shown. are you saying that humans dont have an impact on it getting warmer? because thats also been shown.
- wunksta, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1"On the other hand it is a great idea not to dump crap in your rivers and streams and pump dirty junk into the air that you breath...that is just common sense."
common sense? that doesnt prevent people from doing it. without regulation people are more apt to do that as it saves them money. - FLUX, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1and think of this each day the world emits 200 times as much co2 as man does and nature does it naturally like it has been for a billion years, but we are not blaming nature we are blaming man for a 0.02% increase in co2 levels over 1 century now who is the fool
- SpacePoet, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3You can drive the biggest truck on the planet if it was clean. You already pay taxes on a wide range of needless things and tons that you don't even know about, why would you care if some of your money was diverted to the continuing comfort of your existence? And eating less meat is just common sense, but no one is putting a gun to your head. You could go on all day, you're speaking only to yourself, most intelligent people have figured out that the Earth is a finite resource and to blatantly waste it is at least immoral, and you probably come from the most polluting population on the planet, so your little tirade is even more ironic. You probably pollute more than 20 normal people on this planet and you're proud of it, hell you berate others for caring, wow, what a human being you are.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is