Gay Sex and Global Warming
Digg it! | add to Technorati | Post to Del.icio.us | Furl it | Spurl it
Why do we think terrorism is more important than global warming? According to this LA Times editorial, "If Only Gay Sex Caused Global Warming": "First, global warming lacks a mustache."
Well, sort of. The reason is simple: our brains aren't built to deal with the type of threats that global warming poses.
It's an excellent editorial. Check it out.
Well, sort of. The reason is simple: our brains aren't built to deal with the type of threats that global warming poses.
It's an excellent editorial. Check it out.
posted by Will at 5:44 PM
| EmailThis! 
Subscribe to my Feed (via feedburner)
9 Comments:
That is honestly the dumbest thing I have ever heard (no offense intended)!
Do you want to know my answer to the question? Here goes:
Global warming poses the threats of increased storms and water levels and the occassional losses of life accompanying them- which are avoidable through use of storm preparations such as shelters.
Terrorism poses immediate threats to thousands of lives at a time. It is intentionally committed by the thousands of Islamists who seek world domination of Sharia law, which is otherwise known as fascism or theocracy.
Global warming is a theory which may simply be explained as part of the world's regular climate change. Terrorism is no theory- Islamofascism is a fact.
LC,
Good to see you back.
It's funny how things like global warming seem to line up along political lines. Seem to, anyway. Why is it that conservatives are the ones who don't think it's a threat?
Anyway, we face more of a threat from global warming than we ever faced from Saddam Hussein's nonexistent WMDs.
Here are some things to read:
"The environmental and health costs of global warming will be astronomical. One United
Nations report conservatively estimates worldwide economic losses due to global
warming at $150 billion per year.7 Dr. Gerhard Berz, a researcher at insurance giant
Munich Re, projects annual worldwide losses of $304.2 billion, with some $68 billion of
these annual losses occurring in the United States.8 Experts agree that globally costs will
fall disproportionately on the world’s poorer nations. This, however, is not likely to leave
wealthier countries, including the United States, unaffected. Famines, wars, and other
social disruptions in developing countries will inevitably affect U.S. interests. A report
compiled for the Pentagon states that global conflict is likely to increase as climate
change diminishes some countries’ access to water and their ability to produce sufficient
sources of food."
Quoted from here.
Also read this. And read this report from the insurance industry about the anticipated costs of climate change.
And if you're still not convinced, and I know you won't be because you're you, read this report from the Pentagon about the threats posed by global warming.
It's about a little more than a few stroms and rising water levels.
I'm completely open to the idea that global warming may exist and it may be costly if it does exist in the way of money, but there is no evil in global warming. At worst there is selfishness and at best there is denial, assuming global warming is a fact, but there is no evil.
Let me ask you this FG: Doesn't the blame truly lie in the hands of those who have foolishly rallied against nuclear power for so many decades? The truth of fuel alternatives, it seems to me and my oracular (: senses, is that where the money goes, the oil companies will go. They are already prepared to turn away from oil- the next twenty-thirty years will be a transitionary period in which they will suck all the oil they can from the ground (and money from consumers) and with that money buy nuclear power plants or any other power sources. It's not that I have any illusions of their altruism, I say this because these are intelligent men. When on the hunt, they will not continue on with the oldest hound when he grows lame- they will replace the hound to reach their quarry.
The key to ending global warming is to guide the hunter in that decision. Hand him the leash- tell him not only that the dog is lame, but that the younger dogs are ready to better serve him.
So you would say that ignoring something that can kill thousands or millions of people is no big deal? You would say that denying this thing, or refusing to do anything about it, is not evil?
As for nuclear power - the problem with that is it is not economical. There has been a tremendous amount of tax money paid out the nuclear industry, and there are tremendous incentives - but guess how many nuclear plants have been built since the 70's: 0.
This is not because of citizen opposition and environmentalist obstructionism. If that were the case, coal fired power plants would never get built because they are devastating to air quality, and the mining is horrible - google Mountain top removal sometime.
Nuclear power plants are not scalable. You can't build a small power plant. You have to spend millions of dollars to build it and then millions more operating it. If the market changes, you can't make rapid changes in your energy production with a nuke plant.
That's why power companies don't like nuclear. Coal and natural gas are much more economical and profitable.
Wind and solar power, if it had the same sort of subsidies that nuclear power had, (solar is like 5 billion since 1950, compared to around 140 billion to nuke, I think) would be very competitive, but the money isn't there.
Are you going to read the stuff I linked to?
"since the 70's"
Don't you mean "since Three Mile Island"? Immediately after the "disaster" every nuclear power plant construction was cancelled. There is no question that nuclear energy was doused by the accident among any mainstream experts.
For many cities nuclear power is not profitable, but in France it has served them well, and in Perry, Ohio, the power plant not only sprouted a beautiful city, it also feeds electricity to Cleveland/suburbs every day.
"And if you're still not convinced, and I know you won't be because you're you, read this report from the Pentagon about the threats posed by global warming. "
(wasn't it here that I was recently reading about the Pentagon making plans for the Rapture, and mentioning that the Pentagon and other first world goevernments have made plans for possible ET encounters? This would then not necessarily in itself lend credence to Global Warming ;) )
TMI (and all US nuclear plants) have fundamental flaws in their operational processes, since from the start they thought very piecemeal about "what are the bad things that could happen"?
It would be interesting to design one with the computer-operational capabilites of today.
Of course, there would need to be physical hardware shut-down ability that people could use in case some terrorists ever managed to actually develop the sci-fi "Pulse" weapon that kills magnetic computer data.
Am I the only one that has ever read that modern windmills kill all the butterflies (same as dams extinctify the fish)? (To touch on the diversity thread above.)
(I am, personally, against nuclear until there is reasonable waste-storage/disposal. I am undecided on how reasonable the current scheme is.)
solar, if we can figure out how to minimize the toxins involved (I've seen at least two major schemes) is maybe where I lean. Today ;).
LC, I contribute to global warming. Therefore I contributed to those people dying in New Orleans (as one example of a direct consequence). (I voted the bastards in. Therefore I contributed, more than half the citizens, to the horribly managed military/rebuilding situation in Iraq.)
Evil ways. Someday I hope to have better choices than the lesser of (x) evils.
Every choice matters.
One of the most compelling arguments in favor of nuclear energy today is that there are much safer technologies available now than there were 30 years ago.
I still think the lack of new nukes has been an economic decision rather than an environmental one, although I'll allow that Three Mile Island might have added to the psychological block on building new ones.
For an interesting debate on the issue, here's a short summary of seminar from the long now foundation. You can download the MP3 here.
Apparently there is another similar debate on nuke power available from audible.com, titled "Nuclear Energy Must Power Our Future: An Intelligence Squared Debate." I haven't checked that one out yet.
I highly recommend the global trends report (pdf) that I linked to in a comment above. Here's a quote:
"Even under the most favourable conditions, the nuclear cycle will produce approximately one-third as much CO2 emission as gas-fired electricity production. Furthermore, nuclear power could only supply the entire world electricity demand for three years before sources with low uranium content would have to be mined. Given that one of the main factors is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by the mining and milling of uranium ore, the use of the poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning
fossil fuels directly, and may actually consume more electricity than it produces.20 Furthermore, the
problems of the depletion of uranium mineable at economic prices would become as serious as the
depletion of oil and gas if a significant nuclear renaissance were to occur."
And about wind, I've just started researching that myself. Here's an interesting article, no real substantive facts but it ties resistance to wind to industry front groups...
Thats something to consider as you weigh new power alternatives. Each industry has its own paid PR machine and lobbyists, all trying to convince you that their particular technology is the best. The nuke industries is probably the largest and best paid (thus the most professional) of the 'clean' power technologies... so keep that in mind.
Myself, solar water heaters (becoming extremely widespread in China) and a technology involving algae that essentially halves the carbon output of traditional fire-based power plants (it had something to do with hydrogen production, and them burning the dead dried algae later) seem like good directions. Geothermal probably too, but not widely applicable.
Way too cheap and nont resource-intensive to garner massive industry interest here in the US, though. Room for profit, much smaller.
Windmills worry me because by definition they remove energy from the wind. De facto, that affects weather patterns. This very well might be negligible, but I wish someone somewhere would at least mention that someone is trying to study it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home