RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, September 30 - 11:20am

Link

Edit

I saw this cool article discussing a fairly cheap and easy way to catch CO2 straight from the air.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080929123941.htm

I think of this kind of technology, along with carbon capture and storage (AKA carbon sequestering), along with seeding the oceans with limestone to prevent further acidification, along with energy harnessed from kites (which is not only remarkably efficient and versatile but beautiful as well), and more -- and I'm just blown away.

When crises, perceived or real, present themselves, we can always look forward to the totally amazing innovations that would not only solve these crises, but would've been great additions to our situation had the crises not even come about!

I suppose its a perverse sort of optimism that regards crises as instigators of creativity booms, but there you have it, nonetheless.

Maybe the current fiscal crisis will give way to similar fantastic innovation.

Jordan
(Edited by Jordan on 9/30, 11:36am)

Post 1

Tuesday, September 30 - 11:31am

Link

Edit

I saw an article recently, though I didn't save the link, in which somebody from one of Those Organizations objected to carbon sequestering on the grounds that it wouldn't get people to change their lifestyles (i.e. to lower their standard of living and convenience). It was a perfect corroboration of Objectivist claims (from Rand and Tracinski among others) about the fundamental misanthropy and insincerity of environmentalism. If the technology gets off the ground you'll hear more such objections, just as we're hearing them in the case of wind power (that it wrecks the landscape).

Post 2

Tuesday, September 30 - 11:33am

Link

Edit

Find that article, Peter. Please.

Post 3

Tuesday, September 30 - 2:56pm

Link

Edit

Do any of them object on the grounds that people will simply consume all the world's oil more quickly and thus deplete the finite supply faster?

I saw this argument on Doctor Who recently in "The Sontaran Stratagem" so I wanted to mention it.

Post 4

Tuesday, September 30 - 5:35pm

Link

Edit

If anything, we want more greenhouse gasses to help us get through the coming ice age. Warmth = life, Cold = death. Not that Atmospheric CO2 content (especially human contributed) has any significant influence on global temperatures.

Post 5

Wednesday, October 1 - 7:58pm

Link

Edit

This is old news now, but polar bears aren't endangered:

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

... and ...

The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.

At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.

... but if you think polar bears aren't an endangered species, then that makes you a dishonest person with an ulterior motive:

"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."

And I'll give you 50-to-1 that professor Andrew Derocher owns stock in "green technology".

;-)

Ed

Global Warming doesn't stand a chance