Wednesday, November 10, 2010
what the greens got wrong
This piece from the Atlantic concerns a new British doc on the green movement.
useful article on GM foods in Africa
This article explains why GM foods have been rejected by some African governments, even during times of famine.
Stewart Brand on the Colbert Report (May 2010)
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Stewart Brand | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Interesting article relating to the cons of geoengineering
Here is an article that uses many of the arguments that we came up with in class to try to dissuade people from using geo-engineering as a solution to climate change.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Opposing Views
Here is a video of Indian activist Vandana Shiva expressing her criticism of Monstanto and Genetically Modified (GM) foods.
Here is a piece from the Guardian (UK) in which British environmentalist George Monbiot challenges a fact claim from Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline.
Here is an excerpt from the Mike Davis book, Planet of Slums>
And here is a quick profile of Fixing the Sky, James Rodger Fleming's critical history of climate control and geo-engineering.
Here is a piece from the Guardian (UK) in which British environmentalist George Monbiot challenges a fact claim from Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline.
Here is an excerpt from the Mike Davis book, Planet of Slums>
And here is a quick profile of Fixing the Sky, James Rodger Fleming's critical history of climate control and geo-engineering.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Pro & Con Arguments
Genetically Engineered Crops
PRO
GE crops fight soil erosion.
Drought resistant crops will save lives.
GE crops require less labor and time to grow, and are thus less expensive.
GE crops can add vitamins to dietary staples such as rice (e.g. "Golden Rice" with vitamin A).
CON
Could throw a lot of people out of work---especially farmers & farm workers.
Could raise global population by increasing food supply.
Drought resistant crops over-tax land resources.
Has already created "superweeds" resistant to herbicides.
Could be a slippery slope that leads to overuse of GE crops across the board.
GE crops could disrupt fragile ecosystems.
Widespread use of GE crops could give far to much power to a few corporations.
GE crops do not address the economic imbalance that leads to global hunger in the first place.
Nuclear Power
PRO
Nukes provide a constant source of baseline electricity.
We can, and do, turn nuclear weapons into nuclear fuel.
Nukes are carbon neutral.
Nuke plants take up less space than solar and wind plants.
Reactors and storage facilities are safer now.
CON
It would be too difficult to overcome public fears of nuclear power.
It's impossible to eliminate the possibility of a serious accident.
It's impossible to eliminate the possibility of terrorist groups or rogue nations misusing nuclear materials.
Nukes are highly subsidized by government money.
Shutting down plants after a few decades in costly and dangerous.
Mega-Cities
PRO
These cities are "population sinks"; people living in cities have fewer children.
People leave the land to move to cities, and rural areas recover ecologically.
Urban economies offer greater stability.
Urban populations tend to be more educated, and women have more opportunities for advancement (and then they have fewer children).
CON
Slums are less sanitary than rural villages, due to overcrowding.
Too few people living on farms could threaten stability of food supply.
Mega-cities are a logistical nightmare.
Can be breeding grounds for horrific crime.
City dwellers are not economically or politically autonomous.
Economic inequality becomes greater in urban societies.
Geo-engineering
PRO
We are already engaged in geo-engineering, so we might as well learn to do it correctly.
Geo-engineering could protect biodiversity.
Geo-engineering is likely to be more feasible than changing human behavior.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
It's better to establish agreed upon norms for geo-engineering while we still have the opportunity.
CON
There are unforeseen consequences in almost everything we do in nature; in the case of geo-engineering, those consequences would be very large.
Since these policies would affect everyone, everyone should have a voice in the decision-making process; at this point, there is no mechanism for achieving that.
Geo-engineering does not address root causes of our environmental crises; it only addresses the symptoms.
Geo-engineering could be used as a weapon.
PRO
GE crops fight soil erosion.
Drought resistant crops will save lives.
GE crops require less labor and time to grow, and are thus less expensive.
GE crops can add vitamins to dietary staples such as rice (e.g. "Golden Rice" with vitamin A).
CON
Could throw a lot of people out of work---especially farmers & farm workers.
Could raise global population by increasing food supply.
Drought resistant crops over-tax land resources.
Has already created "superweeds" resistant to herbicides.
Could be a slippery slope that leads to overuse of GE crops across the board.
GE crops could disrupt fragile ecosystems.
Widespread use of GE crops could give far to much power to a few corporations.
GE crops do not address the economic imbalance that leads to global hunger in the first place.
Nuclear Power
PRO
Nukes provide a constant source of baseline electricity.
We can, and do, turn nuclear weapons into nuclear fuel.
Nukes are carbon neutral.
Nuke plants take up less space than solar and wind plants.
Reactors and storage facilities are safer now.
CON
It would be too difficult to overcome public fears of nuclear power.
It's impossible to eliminate the possibility of a serious accident.
It's impossible to eliminate the possibility of terrorist groups or rogue nations misusing nuclear materials.
Nukes are highly subsidized by government money.
Shutting down plants after a few decades in costly and dangerous.
Mega-Cities
PRO
These cities are "population sinks"; people living in cities have fewer children.
People leave the land to move to cities, and rural areas recover ecologically.
Urban economies offer greater stability.
Urban populations tend to be more educated, and women have more opportunities for advancement (and then they have fewer children).
CON
Slums are less sanitary than rural villages, due to overcrowding.
Too few people living on farms could threaten stability of food supply.
Mega-cities are a logistical nightmare.
Can be breeding grounds for horrific crime.
City dwellers are not economically or politically autonomous.
Economic inequality becomes greater in urban societies.
Geo-engineering
PRO
We are already engaged in geo-engineering, so we might as well learn to do it correctly.
Geo-engineering could protect biodiversity.
Geo-engineering is likely to be more feasible than changing human behavior.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
It's better to establish agreed upon norms for geo-engineering while we still have the opportunity.
CON
There are unforeseen consequences in almost everything we do in nature; in the case of geo-engineering, those consequences would be very large.
Since these policies would affect everyone, everyone should have a voice in the decision-making process; at this point, there is no mechanism for achieving that.
Geo-engineering does not address root causes of our environmental crises; it only addresses the symptoms.
Geo-engineering could be used as a weapon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)