Home
Show latest blog entries
| Go suck an iceberg, WSJ | |||
| (Friday, 03 February 2012) Written by greeniac5271907 | |||
| Last week the Wall Street Journal released an article that I found so appalling that I want to respond here. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1. This article was written as an opinion piece, and opinion being what it is, the WSJ is entitled to one. However, labeling the threat of climate change as the "Global Warming Hoax" as the WSJ has done in this piece is irresponsible on many levels. The least of which is the harm to honest debate and the worst of which is further polarization on a topic with huge potential to adversely impact the lives of our children, grandchildren, and global civilization. Listing 16 scientists who accept human-induced climate change as fact but differ its impact is not sufficient to back up the multiple claims made throughout the article that "many" or "a large and growing number of" scientists do not believe that serious action should be taken to limit climate change. When human civilization dumps 250 million years worth of stored CO2 into the atmosphere in 150 years things like climate change. It may take generations to play out, but be certain of one thing: the true price of all that cheap energy will be paid in full unless responsible debate leads to effective policy. And in my mind, responsible debate does not include turning environmental regulation into a business scheme that is supposed to achieve some magical ROI. And it certainly does not involve rhetoric about gulags. |
|||
| [ Back ] | |||
View/Add Comments (0)
| Building Energy Use Map | |||
| (Wednesday, 01 February 2012) Written by greeniac108389 | |||
| Columbia released this map of estimated energy use in NYC buildings today: http://modi.mech.columbia.edu/nycenergy/ At first glance, it's pretty sweet concept. The better we are able to see some of these "invisible" actions we take, the more likely we are to want to do something about it. However, I am a bit disappointed in the data chosen for the map. Due to privacy concerns, the building energy uses (and end uses) are estimated based on typical building data- they don't come from the utility. But this isn't really too troublesome for me, most of all it's practical. Their real mistake is their decision to color code based on kWh/square meter of land area. This essentially renders their data meaningless. What they have is a great map of building heights, with little to do with actual energy use data that's useful. A much more standard statistic is Energy Use Intensity, which accounts for square footage of floor space. This would begin to help us better understand the relative performance of the buildings, and start creating some incentives. My other qualm is that it would be great to start including fuel sources in these energy maps. Sure, its great to reduce energy, but were always going to need it. So why not show who's using cleaner energy than others? |
|||
| [ Back ] | |||
View/Add Comments (0)
| Plastic Eating Fungi | |||
| (Tuesday, 31 January 2012) Written by greeniac37000 | |||
| I always love it when I think nature is fighting back. Although it was pretty graphic and, during some parts, disturbing, I loved the movie The Happening (2008). I felt like nature was trying to protect itself and I like that concept. Its almost as if nature has a higher intelligence than we believe to be true. I recently saw this article that discussed a new species of fungi (Pestalotiopsis microspora) that eats Polyurethane (or plastic) that was discovered in the jungles of Ecuador. Even more surprising is the fact that they can live in an oxygen-free environment. This fungi could actually live in the bottom of landfills. Isn't it amazing when nature can dispose of things we can't? http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679201/fungi-discovered-in-the-amazon-will-eat-your-plastic |
|||
| [ Back ] | |||
View/Add Comments (0)
Show all blog entries
