maladapted’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "Miami is going to be safe!"

  If you believe that, I've got a great deal on some Miami oceanfront property for you.  A sound long-term investment!  I wonder how many of those 700 "dissenting scientists" are buying oceanfront property?

   

  On EPA says greenhouse-gas emissions a threat to public health posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "I don't want to pay more for anything, so I'll believe anyone who tells me I don't have to, and ignore anyone who says I do."

  On EPA says greenhouse-gas emissions a threat to public health posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Heh, heh -- you've got stones, posting those tired denier talking points on this venue, I'll give you that.  Deniers llike you give yourselves away though, by demanding "proof" before you're willing to internalize the true cost of your lifestyle.  "I don't want to pay more for anything, so AGW can't be true!"   Unfortunately, you and your fellow deniers will probably succeed in postponing any meaningful abatement efforts until Miami is underwater.   Human nature just isn't up to this challenge, and you're a perfect example.

   

  On EPA says greenhouse-gas emissions a threat to public health posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Certainly the i=PAT equation is flawed, if it's considered to be a complete theory.  I had assumed Grist readers would recognize it as an heuristic, i.e. a starting point for analysis in a systems framework.   Assuredly, we all know that access to global resources is unequal; that's implicit in "per capita".  A more elaborate version of the model might attempt to account for unequal consumption within the Affluence term.

  In any case, the scope of Umbra's column was "simple things all environmentally concerned individuals should do".   Many of us have tried to reduce our levels of consumption, or at least to consume what we do more efficiently.  Those who choose to have children, however, should recognize that you are responsible for your children's consumption, and your grandchildren if any, and indeed all your future descendants.  That is why limiting your reproduction dwarfs anything you do about your own current consumption.

  
  Mal.

   

  On Umbra advises on population posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 35 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It's useful to model Humanity's aggregate impact on the global environment as "I=PAT" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_PAT):

  
  Human Impact (I) on the environment equals the product of population (P), affluence (A: consumption per capita) and technology (T: environmental impact per unit of consumption).

  From this, it's clear that reducing the size of any of the three factors can contribute to reducing the aggregate impact. As individuals, we can choose to address any or all of them.  We can limit our personal reproduction, to zero if we wish; we can limit our consumption by choosing to live simply; and we can use technology to minimize the impact of our chosen level of consumption.  I'm sure we can all agree that Grist.org is a great clearinghouse of information on ways individuals can address their personal A and T. 

  For myself, I've chosen to ensure that my personal contribution to future P will be zero -- hence my Darwinian nom de web 8^).  I'll not judge anyone who chooses otherwise, in hopes that I may not be judged in turn.

  Mal.

  On Umbra advises on population posted 6 months, 4 weeks ago 35 Responses