Comments Ekirky has made

  • agreed!

    The reason that greens continue to appeal to the "annihilation" aesthetic is because nobody bought the arguement that we should save nature because it is pretty. Panda bears are cute, but spotted owls aren't all that charismatic. And yet we have to save spotted owls for a variety of ecological reasons that have their roots in prudence, not aesthetic taste.

    "We are entering a period of consequences."

    On 'Church', from Songs of Shiloh, shows some love for the planet posted 1 year, 11 months ago 8 Responses

  • ice cream...

    Ben and Jerrys? Yes/no? I've heard good things about them. On 15 Green Business Founders posted 1 year, 11 months ago 33 Responses

  • well...

    If we make it expensive to emit carbon (and we stick to that) then, hopefully, there will be an economic incentive for development of parts 1, 2, and 3: we will be more efficient and we will use renewables. Hopefully, if emitting carbon is expensive enough, there won't be a large market for fossil fuels, because no one will be able to afford the cost of burning them. On Efficiency without renewable energy is not sufficient posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

  • it's ironic....

    Cheap corn has wreaked havoc on our society: it helped create the obesity epidemic and the diabetes epidemic, it helped create the world of processed food, it helped to feed the growth of fast food chains and supermarkets and, with them, the growth of strip malls and sprawling suburbs. (Quick plug: everyone should watch the movie King Corn. Google it. It's awesome.)
    So any increase in the price of corn would seem like a very good thing...
    and yet ethanol is dumb on so many levels.
    Short-sighted government policy created our corn surplus in the first place, at great enviornmental and societal cost. Now short-sighted government policy is going to dispose of that surplus in the dumbest possible way.
    ARGGHHH. On Notable quotable posted 1 year, 11 months ago 5 Responses

  • oops...more thoughts

    The real solution to population growth? Renewable energy. The 'Third World' is going to modernize, whether we like it or not, and when they do so birth rates will fall, almost certainly. And population will stabilize. So the main worry should be this: how do we modernize the Third World without causing so much enviornmental destruction that it's all over? On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

  • just some thoughts...

    it isn't as bad as all that...
    a) for one thing, food production will not drop 25% as a result of climate change except under the very worst scenario (accrording to the ICCP report which only projected food shortages of any kind at about 5 degrees of warming.
    b) for another, food avaliability does not decline directly with an increase in population. Increased population does not mean less food per person because with more people, there are more people to grow food. Although we're using a lot of the earth's surface today, we're not using 100% of arable land, nor are we using that land to maximum productivity, and as a result, more people could mean more food. It's very hard to say how much food per person will result.
    c) finally, there is always technological breakthroughs. They saved us last time, and they may save us again, or at least ameliorate the problem. Producitivty per acre has soared since 1970 or so. I recognize that it is a result of fossil fuels; but who knows what GMO's or biotech could bring us?
    On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

  • there seems to be a bit of confusion....

    A "clean" coal plant can mean one of two things. Some coal plants emit more sulfur and other non-carbon pollutants than others. These pollutants contribute to acid rain and other problems, and old plants tend to emit more than new ones. Old or new coal plants can be outfitted with "scrubbers" that remove some of the sulfur, mercury and other pollutants and stop them from exiting into the atmosphere. These scrubbers exist and are relatively cost-effective at removing some, if not all, of these non-carbon pollutants.
    However, the only way to stop a coal plant form emitting carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas, is by capturing and sequestering the carbon. This process is not currently under way anywhere, and its not entirely clear whether it ever will be. It is prohibitively expensive, at least for the moment, and it has not been proven to be safe. Certian scientific or enginnering breakthorughs could make it a real possibilty, though, which would allow us to burn coal without contributing to global climate change. FutureGen's clean coal plant will, supposedly, use carbon capture and sequestration while producing electricity. On Expensive coal + hydrogen = ? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 5 Responses

  • just a question

    anyone know of a good option for buying clothes that contributes less to enviornemntal degradation, sweatshops, etc, etc.? i mean, are there any companies or brands that offer a good option? i know that buying secondhand is the way to go, but sometimes i need to find a speciific item that fits well.
    On Shop till you drop? There's a better way posted 1 year, 11 months ago 10 Responses

  • hmm...

    Won't the costs of global warming be very, very different depending on our mitigation efforts? If we cut carbon 80% by 2050, it may well be the case that future consequences of global warming will only cost us 1% of world GDP in present dollars. But if we continue with a business-as-usual scenario and the feedback loops get out of control, the damage to terrestrial and marine eosystems and the associated decreases in ecosystem services will be very, very expensive.
    Or have I made a mistake in my understanding? On Jim Manzi replies to Ryan Avent posted 1 year, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • TAX CARBON!

    We need to make emitting CO2 expensive.
    I'll say it again.
    We need to make emitting CO2 expensive.
    Getting food to our tables is complicated. There are many, many factors. We can't be expected to sit down and do out the calculations to figure out the carbon footprint of each tomato. If carbon dioxide emissions were expensive...the free market would do the calculations for us. The energy intensity of each food item would show up in the price. And everyone ( not just benevloent greens) would care.
    This is exactly the type of complicated problem (maximizing benefits while minimizing costs) that the free market is designed to solve. On And other revelations from the latest big-media expose of local food posted 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Responses

  • agreed

    Like really, really, really disappointing.
    Get it together, guys! On Candidates reveal their priorities posted 1 year, 11 months ago 3 Responses

  • Justlou's post

    I think your question about happiness footprint is a good one, Justlou. 200 years ago, most people lived in walkable communities (it's called a village) and grew their own food or knew the man that was growing it. Clothes, buildings and all other material goods were made by hand, laboriously.   Travel was slow, costly, and uncommon. Their carbon footprint was a hell of a lot lower, but were they happier? They had stronger communities but stronger prejudices. Their days were filled with more meaningful work, perhaps, but their nights were dark and cold.
    This isn't to say that a return to simpler life won't make us happier, nor is it to say that the modern consumer economy doesn't have its downsides. (The downsides are becoming more and more obvious every day).
    All I'd want to say is that we should be careful to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fossil fuel consumption has brought us to an age where many more people can travel and see the world and live without the fear of hunger or cold. And communicate with complete strangers via websites, for that matter.
    On Scaling back our energy-hungry lifestyles means more of what matters, not less posted 1 year, 11 months ago 24 Responses