How Much Does It Cost: What Can I Do? (6)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:18 AM GMT on May 09, 2013

Share this Blog
17
+

How Much Does It Cost: What Can I Do? (6)

This is the continuation of a series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” Links to the previous entries are listed at the end.

Last week rather than taking the conventional view of looking at greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, I presented an accounting of the emissions associated with agriculture. My primary points were that agriculture was a major emitter of greenhouse gases, and, therefore, the choices we make individually and collectively about what we eat have large environmental consequences.

I want to explore more the impact of agriculture, particularly livestock. First, however, I want to remind folks of the series on calculating budgets. Last summer I did a series where I compared the basic methods of climate science to keeping a budget – just like a checking and savings accounts. One of the entries in that series looked specifically at complexity. The idea being that despite the fact that maintaining a budget is a relatively simple matter of addition and subtraction, if you consider all of the ways we get and spend money, then it can become remarkably complex.

I implied the complexity of accounting for the greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture in the previous entry. The amount of emissions from the direct use of fossil fuels is relatively small. Big sources of emissions come from removing trees and changing forests to agricultural lands and soil management. Many aspects of soil management influence how much carbon and nitrogen is stored in the soil. There is also the need to consider greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide: for example, methane associated with ruminates and solid waste from livestock and nitrous oxide associated with fertilizer. Emissions also depend on:

- what crops are grown and what animals are raised

- agricultural practice, for example, whether the land is plowed or no-till methods are used

- policy, for example, renewable energy policy provides incentives and disincentives on what to grow

- biological processes that are different from field to field, region to region, year to year, and that are not highly quantified

The calculation of the budget of emissions from agriculture is a difficult problem. We can say with certainty the emissions are large and they change based on many factors. We can also say that the impact of agriculture on the environment is more far reaching than climate change. Anecdotally, most people think of the impacts of pesticides and herbicides, the issues of genetically modified organisms, soil erosion and water quality before they think of how agriculture and climate change play together. Agriculture is also a major focus of those who think about sustainability.

I ended the previous entry with a relatively weak statement that what we chose to eat or not eat does make a difference. I stated that at the top of the list, perhaps, the easiest decision is to eat less meat. The issue of eating meat, of course, steps into a set of the more controversial subjects of our society. For example, there are the issues of personal choice and intrusion into individual's lives. Also, there are those who place high value on the ethics of raising and slaughtering animals. There is no doubt, however, that livestock production uses immense resources.

The source of much of the material in my previous entry was Livestock’s Long Shadow a 2006 publication of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In that report they conclude:

“Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reduction in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost.”

As strong as this statement is, there is a school of thought that Livestock’s Long Shadow is a significant underestimation of the emissions due to livestock. Most notably is an analysis by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, Livestock and Climate Change, which does a different accounting of the budget of emissions of greenhouse gases. In Livestock and Climate Change it is maintained that there is significant undercounting and misallocation in the United Nations budget calculation. A point that is particularly important is that the proliferation of livestock production is human-made just as much as any building, road or power plant. Therefore, for example, the carbon dioxide of respiration of the animals needs to be considered in the budget calculation. Taking all of the budget changes in Livestock and Climate Change, the conclusion is that livestock is responsible for 51 percent of the total emissions. With this number, a far larger intervention is needed than “eat less meat.”

In December 2009, I took a group of students to the 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. When I got off the subway at the conference center, there were two loud groups of advocates. One was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who had gone around Copenhagen and placed markers on utility poles and in trees where sea level would be if the Greenland ice sheet melted. Another group claimed that if we were all vegetarian, then we could reduce global warming by 70 percent.

The numbers in Livestock and Climate Change follow from a well-reasoned argument in the calculation of the budget of the emissions due to livestock. However, they are not without controversy. This controversy can be found in a number of places on the web: Columbia Journalism Review and Lifting Livestock's Long Shadow, Nature Climate Change and Measuring Livestock's Long Shadow, NYTimes. At the center of the controversy is another accounting of the impact of livestock, Cleaning the Air: Livestock's Contribution to Climate Change by Maurice Pitesky and others. This paper takes a vastly different accounting and concludes that impact of livestock is much smaller than in the United Nations Report, Livestock’s Long Shadow. An interesting aspect of its argument is that “The fact that land-use changes associated with livestock (i.e., forested land converted to pasture or cropland used for feed production) are a significant source of anthropogenic GHGs in Latin America and other parts of the developing world is apparent. However, it is likely that any kind of land-use change from the original forestland will lead to great increases in global warming.” The argument being that development in countries with growing population will lead to deforestation. Their argument is carried further “The United States and most other developed countries have not experienced significant land-use change practices around livestock production within the last few decades. Instead, over the last 25 years forestland has increased by approximately 25 percent in the United States and livestock production has been intensified (concentrated geographically), thus reducing its geographical footprint.”

The line of reasoning in Cleaning the Air: Livestock's Contribution to Climate Change contributes to the argument that concentration into highly efficient, mass producing farms is a more practical way forward than reducing consumption (Livestock production and the global environment: Consume less or produce better?, by Henning Steinfeld and Pierre Gerber).

In this food niche of strategies to mitigate climate change, we see the same arguments emerge as in the discussion of fossil fuels. We could be more efficient in our use of resources. With efficiency, however, in the face of a growing population and growing consumption, we are still faced with a growth of emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, if climate-change and broader environmental issues are given priority, then we must consume less of those products that are responsible for our largest greenhouse emissions. We can conceive of sources of renewable energy that are free of carbon dioxide emissions. However, it is more difficult to imagine how we raise livestock without the methane and nitrous oxide emissions, and these greenhouse gases cannot be dismissed.

My original list topper on diet was eat less meat. If we take the high emissions scenario as correct, then a climate priority calls for an intervention into our dietary practices that is comparable to the intervention required for reducing fossil fuels. This is a change in diet that I assert will be more difficult than the change in our energy system. Therefore, back to the original question, “What can I do about climate change?” – eat (a lot) less meat. Vegetarianism is good for the planet. This from a man who does eat a lot less meat than he used to, but has been, I maintain, overidentified with BBQ.

r

Some dietary resources: I have not checked these out too closely!

Environmental Working Group: Meat Eaters Guide (I do like this group’s approach to things.)

Climate Diet

Human Media: The Diet-Climate Connection


Previous Entries in the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Counting agriculture and its emissions of greenhouse gases


Moderation of comments: I have been getting more and more complaints about what is going on in the comments. WU and I will be addressing this. To start, here is a modified version of Dr. Master’s Blog Contents Rules.

Rood's Rules of the Road

1. Please do not carry on personal disputes.
2. Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil.
3. No spam.
4. Stay on the topic of climate change or the entry topic.
5. Foul language is not allowed.
6. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information.
7. Threats and intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with accordingly.
8. Do not circumvent a ban. Most bans last 24 hours or less; please accept the ban. If you create a new username to circumvent a ban, you will be blocked from the site completely.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 389 - 339

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

388. Neapolitan
1:04 PM GMT on May 16, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
Southern Illinois, there's something about you I like, and I'm glad you have joined the regulars here. You appear to be a conservative, yet your skepticism seems to be open to logic.
I keep hoping to catch a glimpse of such a willingness to accept science, but I'm afraid I see nothing but one silly denialist talking point after another. I'll keep watching, though, and perhaps one day I'll see it...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13266
386. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:55 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
385. AlwaysThinkin
5:18 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Should the federal government should get out of subsidizing crop insurance and flood insurance so that the people covered and the insurance companies have to bear the costs of global warming directly?

Discuss.


I personally think it should stay in place, however have strings attached to it so that large ag producers or large landowners/developers can't game the system as they do now. Just about any nation since the dawn of civilization has subsidized agriculture and I don't really know if there is a way around it.

P.S. thanks for all the news articles I just got done reading them.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
384. AlwaysThinkin
5:12 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
While we're on the topic of cycling meat out of our diets has anyone ever tried a Walnut Burger? There were only a few reviews at OnMilwaukee.com, but it seemed generally pretty good.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
383. cyclonebuster
4:37 AM GMT on May 16, 2013

'Multiple fatalities' reported after tornado rips through North Texas town, officials say


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
382. cyclonebuster
3:45 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
381. cyclonebuster
3:44 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
OOPS! Make it two...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
380. cyclonebuster
3:43 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
OUCH!

Deadly Tornado tonight in Texas... Looks like one hitting Fort Worth right now...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
379. goosegirl1
2:48 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Should the federal government should get out of subsidizing crop insurance and flood insurance so that the people covered and the insurance companies have to bear the costs of global warming directly?

Discuss.


The government should not have to subsidize those who keep choosing to build and re-build in flood-prone areas. Consumers should bear that cost.

As for farms, the best approach, as far as I see it, is to encourage smaller, local farms instead of huge regional operations. You would cut out costs of transportation that way, and subsidies could be offered for those who reduce production of CO2. This would give small farms an advantage and allow them to stay in business, and hand the burden of paying the price to the big operations.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1184
378. cyclonebuster
2:19 AM GMT on May 16, 2013

Mathematically it is written 97:1 in that case....LOL.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
377. cyclonebuster
1:44 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Apparently they're all worked up over at WUWT. Hotwhopper has a takedown of all their silliness here.

I think a couple of Sou's graphics say all that's needed:




A stubby short of a six pack



LOL WUWT WUWT?


....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
376. JohnLonergan
1:40 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Apparently they're all worked up over at WUWT. Hotwhopper has a takedown of all their silliness here.

I think a couple of Sou's graphics say all that's needed:




A stubby short of a six pack
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2744
375. RevElvis
1:24 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
We've Hit the Carbon Level We Were Warned About. Here's What That Means.

MotherJones.com

Over the last couple weeks, scientists and environmentalists have been keeping a particularly close eye on the Hawaii-based monitoring station that tracks how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, as the count tiptoed closer to a record-smashing 400 parts per million. Thursday, we finally got there: The daily mean concentration was higher than at any time in human history, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported Friday.

Don't worry: Earth is not about to go up in a ball of flame. The 400 ppm mark is only a milestone, 50 ppm over what legendary NASA scientist James Hansen has since 1988 called the safe zone for avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, and yet only halfway to what the IPCC predicts we'll reach by the end of the century.

"Somehow in the last 50 ppm we melted the Arctic," said environmentalist and founder of activist group 350.org Bill McKibben, who called today's news a "grim but predictable milestone" and has long used the symbolic number as a rallying call for climate action. "We'll see what happens in the next 50."
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
374. BaltimoreBrian
1:20 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Should the federal government should get out of subsidizing crop insurance and flood insurance so that the people covered and the insurance companies have to bear the costs of global warming directly?

Discuss.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
373. JohnLonergan
12:56 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature





Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Posted on 16 May 2013 by dana1981, John Cook

A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.

The study is published in Environmental Research Letters and may read here(open access):

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature


Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2744
372. barbamz
12:39 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Spiegel German (unfortunately not the English version) has a report on the very large ice crack in the arctic near Greenland combined with a photo gallery. We've discussed it on the main blog two days (nights) ago. They say this happened due to a storm and because of the shallow depth of the sea in this region. Nevertheless the crack was really hugh, larger than whole Germany. Good night from here.

Link
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 43 Comments: 5020
371. cyclonebuster
12:29 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Tornadoes tomorrow and the next day?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
370. BaltimoreBrian
12:04 AM GMT on May 16, 2013
Last one-article comment


For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
369. cyclonebuster
11:02 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


At what level is co2 harmful to humans?



Anything above 330ppm....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
368. cyclonebuster
11:00 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


Zombie alert!


Anything above 330 ppm...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
367. ScottLincoln
10:20 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

CO2 in and of itself isn't harmful to humans. It's rather the effects of excessive CO2 floating around in the atmosphere trapping heat and warming the Globe.

Actually, as with almost anything, CO2 can be harmful to humans, and can be a pollutant. Anything can cause "pollution" and "harm" - the key is the concentration and how much is required to do harm.
This is why we immediately know that arguments like "CO2 is only like 0.01% of the atmosphere, it can't change climate!" are bunk right off the bat, because there are numerous chemicals and substances that can kill a human at even lower concentrations in our blood. There is a different threshold for "harm" for every substance. Water is the essence of all life, but if you drink too much, you can become seriously injured or even die. Water can become a pollutant. But, in contrast, with regards to most other types of pollution, sometimes a "dilution" approach is used where water pollution might be diluted with even more water.

It's just not as simple as "this is a list of all pollutants," unfortunately.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2874
366. JohnLonergan
9:50 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Morocco Begins Construction of World's Largest Concentrating Solar Plant

Morocco is embarking on the first of a series of mammoth solar plants that in total will raise renewable energy to 42% of its mix by 2020.

The country plans to build five huge solar plants that all come online in 2020, as well as a string of wind farms along the coast.

The first solar project is now under construction - the world's biggest concentrating solar project, Ain Beni Mathar plant. The first 160 megawatt (MW) phase is being built by a consortium led by Saudi developer ACWA Power. It should come online in 2015.

That will grow to 500 MW by 2020, covering 3000 hectares at a cost of $1.4 billion. It will supply electricity to Ouarzazate's 1.5 million residents.

Financing for phase one is coming from the World Bank, Global Environment Facility, African Development Bank, European Investment Bank and others.

When all five solar plants are finished the cost will be $9 billion for projects that will produce 2 gigawatts of energy.

The other plants are a 400 MW solar plant adjacent to this one, two other 500 MW projects and a 100 MW project. They will all be built close to simultaneously, coming online in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Morocco imports almost all its energy, mostly oil and coal. The Ain Beni Mathar plant will replace coal-generation and allow the country to generate revenue from home grown energy for the first time, since it will export some to Europe.

Besides generating clean electricity, Ain Beni Mathar is being used to develop a domestic skill base in Morocco to construct and operate such facilities. It will pave the way for a pipeline of solar projects in Morocco and across North Africa, including Desertec.

"Morocco is ideally positioned to serve European markets and to use this positioning to take a technology and market lead," says the World Bank.

In 2009, the World Bank's Clean Technology Fund approved a $750 million Investment Plan for Concentrating Solar in the Middle East and North Africa region. It's been raising an additional $4.85 billion for projects in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan.

Two similarly sized solar plants will soon be commissioned in Egypt and Algeria.

In 2011, developing countries surpassed advanced economies for the first time in building utility-scale projects.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2744
364. JohnLonergan
9:39 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
U.S. Arctic strategy aims to exploit oil and gas for 'national security'

The U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic, announced by the White House on May 10, includes this: "The Arctic region’s energy resources factor into a core component of our national security strategy: energy security. The region holds sizable proved and potential oil and natural gas resources that will likely continue to provide valuable supplies to meet U.S. energy needs." What does this say about White House accountability on climate change?

National Strategy for the Arctic Region
The strategy document includes this key paragraph (page 7):

"Provide for Future United States Energy Security –The Arctic region’s energy resources factor into a core component of our national security strategy: energy security. The region holds sizable proved and potential oil and natural gas resources that will likely continue to provide valuable supplies to meet U.S. energy needs. Continuing to responsibly develop Arctic oil and gas resources aligns with the United States “all of the above” approach to developing new domestic energy sources, including renewables, expanding oil and gas production, and increasing efficiency and conservation efforts to reduce our reliance on imported oil and strengthen our nation’s energy security. Within the context of this broader energy security strategy, including our economic, environmental and climate policy objectives, we are committed to working with stakeholders, industry, and other Arctic states to explore the energy resource base, develop and implement best practices, and share experiences to enable the environmentally responsible production of oil and natural gas as well as renewable energy."

The report acknowledges consequences of climate change, but the only mention of the connection between Arctic development and carbon is this single sentence: “Uncoordinated development and the consequent increase in pollution such as emissions of black carbon or other substances from fossil fuel combustion – could have unintended consequences on climate trends, fragile ecosystems, and Arctic communities.”

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2744
362. BaltimoreBrian
9:31 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


Zombie alert!


They're coming to get you yonzabam! Look! There comes one of them now!
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
360. yonzabam
9:26 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


At what level is co2 harmful to humans?


Zombie alert!
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2421
359. ScottLincoln
9:25 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting AlwaysThinkin:
Hey Brian could you put your links in one comment on here? The only reason I ask is so that I don't have to like 8 posts for the links you post :>P.
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Sure I will do that from now on.

Thanks, Brian.
I read a lot of your links from time to time, but sometimes it gets bogged down when they are several posts in a row. Maybe do a summary/digest of several every little bit, maybe even with a brief sentence or so telling us an overview of the article.
I know... I'm guilty of posting subsequent posts at times, too...
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2874
357. RevElvis
8:35 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
UN says natural disasters have cost $2.5 trillion since 2000

RawStory.com (AFP)

The cost of natural disasters has hit $2.5 trillion so far this century, far higher than previously estimated, a UN report said Wednesday, urging companies to face up to the risks.

The study by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) said the figure, representing only direct losses, was more accurate than traditional tallies.

Most tallies “just represent the picture from internationally-reported disasters, the big disasters which get into the headlines,” said Andrew Maskrey, author of the UNISDR’s latest Global Assessment Report.

“If you add in all the nationally-reported disasters, which don’t get into the international media and the international databases, our impression is that losses are about 50 percent higher than is currently being reported, and losses are going up rapidly,” he said.

As governments strive to limit the economic and human impact of catastrophes such as hurricanes or floods — which experts warn will strike increasingly amid climate change — Maskrey said business has been missing from the debate.

Businesses have been outsourcing to disaster-prone locations without taking adequate catastrophe-proofing precautions, a move which could be potentially costly in case of a disaster, he noted.

In 2011, for example, rains swamped factories located on a flood plain in Thailand, hitting a plant that supplied the global auto sector and thereby halting output in countries such as the United States, Britain, China and India.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
356. BaltimoreBrian
8:03 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Sure I will do that from now on.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
355. AlwaysThinkin
7:59 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Hey Brian could you put your links in one comment on here? The only reason I ask is so that I don't have to like 8 posts for the links you post :>P.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
354. BaltimoreBrian
7:34 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Helping Forests Gain Ground On Climate Change
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
353. BaltimoreBrian
7:33 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
'Fish Thermometer' Reveals Long-Standing, Global Impact of Climate Change
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
352. BaltimoreBrian
7:32 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Fall Warming On Antarctic Peninsula Driven by Tropically Forced Circulation
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
351. BaltimoreBrian
7:30 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Rockies and Everest lose ice and snow
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
350. BaltimoreBrian
7:29 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Ground slows glacier ice loss
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
349. BaltimoreBrian
7:28 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Warming in Central China Greater Than Most Climate Models Indicated
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
348. BaltimoreBrian
7:27 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Groundwater Unaffected by Shale Gas Production in Arkansas
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
347. cyclonebuster
7:24 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
346. cyclonebuster
7:23 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Run the loop.....


Link






....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
345. cyclonebuster
7:19 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Huge hole opening up in Kara Sea and Barents Sea.




However graphic charts do not not depict extent as dropping that much.... Why?



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
344. cyclonebuster
7:14 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Huge hole is opening up in Chukchi Sea now...






However, graphic chart has extent increasing..... Something is amiss....

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
343. Xulonn
6:22 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:


I tend to give more blame to von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman and their adherents than to a second or third rate writer.
True, but my snark target was those who believe that Al Gore claims to have invented the internet, and who believe that Al Gore is a part of the climate science community, and equal in credibility to climate scientists with reference to AGW/CC. Ayn Rand is a heroine to many commoners and clueless politicians on the right, and she died in poverty - in spite of the economic philosophy she espoused.

Ever since I learned the meaning of the word "externalities" at U.C. Berkeley in an upper division class on the economics of natural resources in 1975, I realized that the field of economics was, for the most part, seriously flawed with respect to the long term. Like bad climate science that is based only on analyzing certain sets of data without comparing it to what is actually happening in the natural world - earth's biosphere, economics often leaves out large chunks of relevant information.

The very concept of perpetual growth, especially when that growth depends on damaging the natural systems that support it, is preposterous on it's face.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1139
342. JohnLonergan
4:01 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
The legacy of Ayn Rand lives on - in Canada - GREED IS GOOD!!!!


I tend to give more blame to von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman and their adherents than to a second or third rate writer.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2744
340. Birthmark
3:11 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:
What a revolting development this is:

And with that, I scratch Canada off the list of possibly sane countries to which I might emigrate.

{Edited to make it a real sentence.}
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5182
339. Skyepony (Mod)
2:46 PM GMT on May 15, 2013
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

Can we Boycott NASA? Oh wait. You'll get thrown in the slammer if you don't pay your taxes.

Any idea the spin-off products that have come from NASA? Money spent on NASA ends up skyrocketing about everything from human health benefits to commercial profits. Much of the technologies & material we use in our everyday lives & medical industry are a direct result of money spent on NASA. Lets compare NASA's 2010 budget with the military's..which at least a part of, is currently defending our global oil interests..which I can't boycott either.



Monsanto's Genetically Modified crops have been linked to health problems as diverse as reproductive damage, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes. You know about all corn & soy that isn't organic is sprayed with round up before you eat it right? That is why genetically modified crops are banned in so many countries.


Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36074

Viewing: 389 - 339

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.