Archive for the ‘climate change’ tag
That seems a little surprising. How many searches do I get if I add loading the first result? It seems likely that there’s more green information in a newspaper, but only if you’re interested in all they’re delivering to you. Which I guess in the primary argument for the web in the first place.
Someone finally asked the Green Lantern the question I’d been meaning to since Slate started the column:
Green Lantern, you’re always telling us how bad meat is for the environment. I’m willing to throw some more zucchini kebabs on my barbecue this summer, but are all meats equally awful? Or are there some that I can grill with a little less guilt?
The answer’s pretty much in line with what had been my assumption: the bigger the animal, the less efficient the meat.
A weeks-old piece from the New York Times Magazine discussing Freeman Dyson’s heterodoxy seems a fitting response to the previous link — and also, perhaps, it’s inspiration.
“I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice.”
(via Ross Douthat, who points to non-climate heresies)
I’ve always had mixed feeling about Thomas Friedman. While I applaud many of his goals, I often find his style (and moustache) off-putting. But I do had to say that Matt Taibbi ripping into him certainly has it’s moments:
Or how about Friedman’s analysis of America’s foreign policy outlook last May:
The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.”
First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at once? Secondly, what the fuck is he talking about? If you’re supposed to stop digging when you’re in one hole, why should you dig more in three? How does that even begin to make sense? It’s stuff like this that makes me wonder if the editors over at the New York Times editorial page spend their afternoons dropping acid or drinking rubbing alcohol.
(seen many places, noticed on DF)
First, sorry for the title.
Second, the chart attached to this article answers a question I’ve been meaning to ask a knowledgable person for a while: different kinds of meat really are different in the amount of carbon dioxide their raising produces. While chicken produce relatively little CO2 per pound, beef makes quite a bit. Pork, shrimp, and salmon all fall between those two. All of those are (obviously) much less efficient than grains and other plants.
Also interesting: cheese is actually roughly as efficient, in CO2 per pound terms, as shrimp.
Hypothetical question: You’re heartsick about global warming, so you’ve just paid $25,000 to put a solar system on the roof of your home. How do you respond to news that it was manufactured with a chemical that is 17,000 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a cause of global warming?
I’d probably say, “Really!? Wow. That sucks. Is there any replacement.” To which the article says nothing.
Some Australian scientists think they’re a natural replacement for beef. Patrick Fitzgerald explains:
Unlike sheep and cattle, kangaroos emit little methane, which accounts for 11 percent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The study suggests that increasing the kangaroo population to 175 million while simultaneously decreasing the the number of other livestock would lower emissions by 3 percent over the next 12 years. The plan would have added benefits for soil conservation, drought response, and water quality as a result of reducing the number of hard-hoofed livestock.
Ten things the New York Times think you’re worrying about, but shouldn’t be:
- Killer hot dogs.
- Planet-destroying A/C. (This is only vehicular.)
- The carbon footprint of exotic fruits.
- Cellphones giving you brain cancer.
- Evil plastic bags.
- Killer sharks!
- Declining Arctic Ice. (With this caveat: “You can still fret about long-term trends in the Arctic.”)
- The unverse’s missing mass. (This boys and girls, is what is known as padding.)
- Unmarked wormholes. (This boys and girls, is what is known as padding.)
Scientists think they may have found the ideal reservoir for all CO2 America needs to remove from the atmosphere.
The answer, say Columbia researchers, lies in huge reservoirs of basalt off the coast of the Pacific northwest. That basalt is buried underneath hundreds of feet of sediment, and that in turn lies thousands of feet below the ocean’s surface.
The basalt, located on the San Juan de Fuca tectonic plate, could store about 150 years’ worth of the United States’ yearly load of 1.7 gigatons of emissions.
It’s also worth noting, as this story does, that there are more than a few people who think the whole idea of carbon sequestration is a waste of time and resources.
In pure combustion terms, propane always wins. If you add enough other factors, you may be able to excuse your preference for the taste of charcoal.
…because the substance is made from trees, it can actually be carbon neutral in the end. They contend that the harvested trees, if taken from well-managed timberlands, are presumably replanted. So, while the felled trees are emitting carbon on barbecues nationwide, the new trees are sucking that carbon right back up. Gas, on the other hand, can’t be replenished—or at least not for the millions of years it takes for organic matter to break down into fossil fuels.