Green Options › Forums › What's Going On in Green? › Environmental News and Politics › Humans vs Animals -- To Reduce Global Warming, Which One Needs To Go?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Humans vs Animals -- To Reduce Global Warming, Which One Needs To Go?

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
Too many bodies and not enough resources to sustain us. That's what many scientists are saying in terms of global warming and how we must curb the fallout. Human vs. animal populations are now on the chopping block -- which one do you think should be pushed aside so we can save the planet?
post #2 of 7
Could start with the PETA bunch!

 İ like the, 'That's what many scientists are saying', statement. That certifies that all is correct and wonderful? 


post #3 of 7
Thread Starter 
No one is saying that scientists are correct, wonderful or infallible. A large percentage of them might be easily deemed mad. An example of that could be seen with the notion of geo-engineering, which in my view, is teetering dangerously on the edge of insanity with regard to the far-reaching implications on our environment and mankind.
post #4 of 7
Geo-engineering is a bit difficult to take! Too many things and relationships in our environment we don't understand to start making those kind of adjustments.

My distaste for the statement 'scientists say' is that without a name, position, organization or other qualifier attached the journalist could well be asking the janitor who has been nominated as a 'scientist' for the purpose of obtaining quotes. 
post #5 of 7
The correct answer is neither because of the poor wording of the question.  The first part of the article isn't talking about  humans "needing to go" (which suggests killing people), but rather expanding the use of birth control, which is indeed a critically important measure.

The second part talks about a dog's "eco-pawprint", which conveniently sounds a lot like a carbon footprint, even though the study in question didn't calculate anything related to carbon emissions.  What they looked at is the amount of land necessary to raise the animals and grow the grains needed to feed dogs, which is certainly something worth looking at, but it bothers me that they aren't careful making the distinction, because when most people see "footprint", they automatically think of carbon.

Anyway, we already practice dog birth control.  You can't get a dog from the pound without it being neutered/spayed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elizahleigh View Post

No one is saying that scientists are correct, wonderful or infallible. A large percentage of them might be easily deemed mad. An example of that could be seen with the notion of geo-engineering, which in my view, is teetering dangerously on the edge of insanity with regard to the far-reaching implications on our environment and mankind.

Ignoring the silly "mad scientist" comment (did we suddenly enter a sci fi film?), no climate scientist that I'm aware of supports geoengineering as anything more than a last-ditch desperation measure in case carbon emissions reductions fail to prevent catastrophic climate change.
post #6 of 7
You actually read the mad scientist (geo-engineering) stuff in the mainstream press from time to time. İ expect Dana is correct that no real scientist supports it - unfortunately the way the press uses the word 'scientist' they can attribute the thoughts to someone supposedly qualified.
post #7 of 7
You actually read the mad scientist (geo-engineering) stuff in the mainstream press from time to time. Like today - from Green Biz & Marc Gunther:

İs Geoengineering inevitable? A couple of excerpts from the post - for the rest please see the link  http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/02/10/geoengineering-inevitable?page=0,1&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20greenbiz/energy-climate%20(Energy%20%2526%20Climate%20|%20%20Greenbiz.com)

'What the best way to block the sun's rays? That's to be determined. Keith explained that high-flying planes could scatter sulfate particles in the stratosphere, although little is known about how the aerosols would be formed into particles and therefore how long they would stay in the air. Stephen Salter, an emeritus professor of engineering design at the University of Edinburgh, said a fleet of about 500 self-driven sailing ships could be designed to spray salt water into the air that would increase the reflexivity of clouds, thereby blocking sunlight.'

skipping forward - 

'Nearly the entire community of geoengineering scientists could fit comfortably in a single university seminar room, and the entire scientific literature on the subject could be read during the course of a transatlantic flight.

Nor is it clear how geoengineering can be tested, and how useful any tests would be. Writing in the Jan. 29 issue of Science, Alan Robock et al tackles this subject and says that "stratospheric geoengineering cannot be tested in the atmosphere without full-scale deployment.''

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Environmental News and Politics
Green Options › Forums › What's Going On in Green? › Environmental News and Politics › Humans vs Animals -- To Reduce Global Warming, Which One Needs To Go?