Comments hugopottisch has made

  • E O Wilson has started claiming that...

    ..technology is not enough more than 20 years ago.

    In his article Is Humanity Suicidal and in his book The Future of Life - he argues that given land and water usage of livestock agriculture - we have to decrease our animal products while increasing our technology.

    The UN has since confirmed all this as well as the WWF.

    I take it that Joseph Romm is a vegetarian/vegan?? Or what does he mean by: technology alone won't do? I hope he does not merely make the case for government policies - that is what Wilson wants too! I hope Joseph walks the talk.On NYT's Andy Revkin and E. O. Wilson get suckered by Newt Gingrich's phony techno-optimism posted 2 years ago 24 Responses

  • Trock and Steven

    I agree with both of you.

    I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed with Al Gore - who claims to be a true environmentalists - that he does not have his science in order. For example how many hundred pages can your write and how many thousand speeches and tips can you give for cutting pollution without ever mentioning livestock as being worse than all the car, planes and trucks combined?

    But in the end he has done good work to wake up the left and I hope that Gingrich does the same for the right. As Trock argued:

    Try to get conservatives to at least read this book that global warming is true. Then work on them for methods that will actually work.
    On Anti-environment, anti-technology Gingrich tries to rewrite history posted 2 years ago 9 Responses

  • we need both sides to work together in this...

    I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this:

    And the enviro-left blows a gasket. It seems to me that if environmentalists actually care about the planet, they should be engaging in dialogue with those who want to do the same thing, even if they differ on policy. Here you have an impeccably credentialed conservative puling the GOP to a more eco-friendly position. And they can't hurl enough vitriol in his direction."

    Even E O Wilson has written the foreword and his does differ from Gingrich on oh so many political issues (religion for example and its implications).

    I believe that Republicans were right to block ethanol initiatives as ethanol is not sustainable and faces the same environmental constraints as growing feed for livestock. Greenpeace agrees with Gingrich and NOT with Joseph Romm on this?!!!

    That nuclear is not a solution most environmentalists agree. But then the author should criticize all the Democrats who are promoting it too..?? What is wrong with Joseph Romm? Hillary - Obama (who I support) - etc?

    If we has tackled livestock agriculture the way that Matthew Scully has suggested years ago - we would not have such a challenge that goes far beyond climate change! Scully was the Republican speech writer of George W Bush and has shown more environmental awareness years ago than even the Grist?

    The environment is too important to make a team sport out of it as Mr Joseph Room attempts. Please read E O Wilson's letter to a priest (Wilson himself is a humanists and as such an atheist). That is the way to do it if you really cared about nature?On Anti-environment, anti-technology Gingrich tries to rewrite history posted 2 years ago 9 Responses

  • Thank you Schrmin

    The grist is looking for a new editor? Why do you not apply? they need more than mere journalists and politicians or sociologist or whatever they are given their ecological awareness?

    Why does the Grist only apologetically mention the insanely great problem of livestock agriculture? Why can the Grist not prioritize?

    The Grist has yet to explain its full position on the FAO UN report claims that livestock is worse than all cars, trucks and planes combined (its 1-2 post were an embarrassing joke). The Grist has yet to take position on the WorldWatch Report that livestock is the number one cause of deforestation, water shortages, species loss, etc.

    Grist... where art thou? is your news service not somehow related to the environment? why do you write/think/argue as if you were PC Magazine?On How the nation's breadbasket is poisoning its own water supply posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

  • How much do Iraq/Iran/NorthKorea/Pakistan cost us?

    ..well argued comments all around!

    They inspired the following questions?

    How much would oil and gas independence be worth to the cause of national security (and hence the DoS) alone? And what are the risks of promoting nuclear energy as a world-wide solution in this context?

    I know that we can rather survive a dirty bomb in DC or NY than an ecological disaster... but there must be a price tag attached to those risks as well which should be passed on to solar, wind, geothermal solutions (and away from nuclear)?

    How much is risk mitigation of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, etc conflicts worth to us? The DoS/Pentagon/CIA should publish their current quantifications sooner rather than later in the climate change and nuclear context?

    I hope that contrary to John's fear that the defense government "wants more enemies and risks" in order to protect their "jobs" - many actually want to prevent social costs. The same argument can be made for the pharma industry (which wants to keep us sick and ill and in need of their products) but that is not how the world works.

    As long as humans are mammals they will fall ill and will need treatment. The same for violence and need for policing and defense of some form. Many defense employees understand this - they know that their jobs are more secured doing something that the public perceives as productive (eg also defending them from natural disasters at home and not some oil protecting adventure around the globe?)

    Again:

    DoS/Pentagon/CIA: give us your honest assessment of the security risks of global spread of nuclear applications. Please attempt to quantify it in economic terms ($) as well.

    DoS/Pentagon/CIA: give us your honest assessment of the economic benefits ($) of resource independence (from eg Middle East, South America).
    On Shellenberger & Nordhaus respond to critics posted 2 years, 1 month ago 23 Responses

  • Well argued article.. more work for all of us?

    Kudos for the poignant Walk the Talk tag line:

    There is an existential question at the heart of the debate over global warming: can green groups transform themselves into institutions motivated by a vision of prosperity and possibility? Or will they remain grounded in the politics of pollution and limits?

    I agree that we have to consider spending and not only taxing. In this respect I do not agree that public R&D is as much needed as in former decades where the motivation was a Cold War enemy?

    Rather one should consider more market transparency. One could argue that public spending in streets for cars indirectly subsidizes gasoline. That however would not help manifest an uptake electric cars?

    The utility industries also scream for more transparency. Retail prices are often very different than production costs. Solar can be produced locally and economically during peak times and therefore does not stretch the grid as much as remotely produced energy?

    Livestock is the worst single climate polluter on the planet and yet the US is pouring almost $20 billion per year of tax payer money into mostly factory farms. There is no transparency yet - no matrix of application and customer segment?

    Further - it might well be that the US government comes to the conclusion that it is even better to subsidize solar than to invest in public or private R&D.

    Sunflower's angry first comment was right. We underestimate how far many green technologies have traveled. This Microsoft Research lecture is among the best on the net.

    Before pouring money into R&D - we should determine how far we have already come. Analise the German example a bit deeper before risking political instability with nuclear?On Shellenberger & Nordhaus respond to critics posted 2 years, 2 months ago 23 Responses