According to James Lovelock, a writer at the BBC, the earth is becoming sick, and Gaia will take her revenge if nothing is done!!! This is the apocalyptic tone of the recent article from BBC, "The illness in Planet Earth". (Thanks to wikipedia, I too now know what is meant by Gaia.)
From what I have found, James Lovelock is a reasonably respected scientist, but I can't help but think that the sensational journalist in him got a bit keyboard-happy. The first three-quarters of this article are little better than a maniacal rant. Within the article, the temperature increase is presumed to be on the order of 3-5 degrees Celsius (5-9 degrees Fahrenheit) over the course of the century, but what I don't know is how this change leads to the claim that "Siberia and northern Canada may flourish." The people there probably wouldn't complain if it got a little warmer, but with an average annual temperature of 0C, something tells me an average annual temperature of 4C will not suddenly become the new 'hottest vacation spot' (pardon the pun). Lovelock also predicts a mass exodus of people from mainland Europe to Great Brittan. I may not live in Europe, but it did study in London, and from that experience I can not fathom what makes him think there will be an exodus to Great Brittan of all places.
On the other hand, Lovelock promotes a very noble idea: the idea that, like WWII Brittan, people are charged with a sense of purpose and are willing to work once the call arises. I have never seen, nor have I ever been a part of such an event, but what an event it would be! Would it be good if everyone came to the rescue of the earth? If everyone took responsibility for themselves, and took initiative to undo what has already been done? If only I could imagine such a response! But then I think about the ramifications of those hypothetical actions. All those power plants that produce all those noxious gasses provided power for us to use. All those cars that pollute the air transport us around the world. The bottom line is that the easiest way to pollute less is to use less, but who is going to volunteer for that?
Lovelock does something in this article that I do not see often, but wish I did; he offers a critique of his views within the article itself! These may be skewed too, but they do temper the sensationalism expressed in the article, bringing the ideas of 'certain doom' down to the level of 'probabilistic unpleasantness'. One of the most key ideas presented in the critique of the article is that idea that assertions about issues like global warming, which are not completely understood by science, should not be presented as scientifically verified facts. Much of the science used to understand global warming is still coming into maturity, and should be treated as such.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The future of energy
On February 25th 2009, The New York Times published as article about the energy plans of president Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/opinion/26thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The author seems optimistic, but remembers the similarities between Mr. Obama's start and former president Bush's start. He also remembers that it has been "four decades since Richard Nixon urged Congress to free the nation from its dependence on foreign oil", but we all know how much America relies on foreign oil now. This is probably a pretty safe stance, hoping for the best but expecting what we have come to expect.
Unfortunately I see very little in the way of a plan, whether it is details on Obama's plan, or comments on any sort of plan. The most I find in the way of what we will use to 'defeat global warming' is the obligatory phrase "renewable energy sources like wind and solar". Even if Obama doubles the amount of solar and wind energy this country produces, where would that bring the total? 5%? It would be a step in the positive direction, but we need a bigger step.
The other point of this 'new' source of energy is that it can help to improve the economy, which is probably true and a very valiant effort. This point should appeal to a wide variety of either grad students or technical workers.
As for the last sentence in this editorial, the country has been challenged for the past 40 years. Mr. Obama will have to do better to actually change something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/opinion/26thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The author seems optimistic, but remembers the similarities between Mr. Obama's start and former president Bush's start. He also remembers that it has been "four decades since Richard Nixon urged Congress to free the nation from its dependence on foreign oil", but we all know how much America relies on foreign oil now. This is probably a pretty safe stance, hoping for the best but expecting what we have come to expect.
Unfortunately I see very little in the way of a plan, whether it is details on Obama's plan, or comments on any sort of plan. The most I find in the way of what we will use to 'defeat global warming' is the obligatory phrase "renewable energy sources like wind and solar". Even if Obama doubles the amount of solar and wind energy this country produces, where would that bring the total? 5%? It would be a step in the positive direction, but we need a bigger step.
The other point of this 'new' source of energy is that it can help to improve the economy, which is probably true and a very valiant effort. This point should appeal to a wide variety of either grad students or technical workers.
As for the last sentence in this editorial, the country has been challenged for the past 40 years. Mr. Obama will have to do better to actually change something.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Salary Cap
If you haven't heard, executives whose companies took money from the financial bailout plan are having their salary capped at $500,000. Undoubtedly anyone reading this blog would be more likely to see this type of money from winning the lottery than from actually working (which basically means that it's not going to happen).
But how likely is it that some of us will be making $50,000 within the next decade? A recent article in the New York Times suggested that a six figure income in New York was only worth about $50,000 in Houston.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?em
Let me first clarify by saying that I still believe $500,000 (or a mere $250,000 here in TX) is plenty of money to live on, even for a top executive. Just because you are at the top of a company that just had to be given a few billion dollars, does not mean that you should forget where Walmart is located. On the other side of that, just because you can pay the minimum payment on a loan does not mean that the minimum payment will even cover the interest you incur.
The article suggests that the executives need to keep up appearances similar that of their peers, and this is understandable. It is vary naive to suggest that anyone would regularly associate with someone who has significant differences, and financial restrictions can create these differences. Even so, something tells me that these are not the people that clip coupons, these people buy fitted suits, these people live in houses that cost more than I will make in a lifetime. I have little sympathy for someone making $500,000, but I would not be happy either if my income just became 1/6th of what it was.
But how likely is it that some of us will be making $50,000 within the next decade? A recent article in the New York Times suggested that a six figure income in New York was only worth about $50,000 in Houston.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?em
Let me first clarify by saying that I still believe $500,000 (or a mere $250,000 here in TX) is plenty of money to live on, even for a top executive. Just because you are at the top of a company that just had to be given a few billion dollars, does not mean that you should forget where Walmart is located. On the other side of that, just because you can pay the minimum payment on a loan does not mean that the minimum payment will even cover the interest you incur.
The article suggests that the executives need to keep up appearances similar that of their peers, and this is understandable. It is vary naive to suggest that anyone would regularly associate with someone who has significant differences, and financial restrictions can create these differences. Even so, something tells me that these are not the people that clip coupons, these people buy fitted suits, these people live in houses that cost more than I will make in a lifetime. I have little sympathy for someone making $500,000, but I would not be happy either if my income just became 1/6th of what it was.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Comments on the Constitution
Amending the constitution, as was said by Larry J. Sabato, Government Professor at the University of Virginia, should not be taken lightly, but it is reasonable to update the basis of a government to suit the time at hand. There are very prevalent issues for the current generation which were not known at the time the constitution was written. In short, the founding fathers could not predict the behavior of future generations; and it is the social and moral behavior of a generation which defines how much freedom that generation should have. Just as the freedoms of prisoners have been restricted due to a lack of social or moral conscience, the baseline freedoms of a generation need to be tempered, either toward more or less freedom. It is my opinion that we should worry less about changing the constitution and worry more about changing the people under the constitution.
I feel that many of the suggested changes to the constitution designed to "level the playing field" or to "be more representative" are purely a ruse for government officials to avoid real problems. Granting more spots in the Senate and House of Representatives is only going to result in more people who can slow the government down if the quality and character of our representatives is left unchecked. The perfect example of this happening right now is nuclear waste storage. No official wants to suggest a solution to store nuclear waste since there is a solution right now which will last until the end of their foreseeable career.
There are also very good suggestions for amending the constitution. Giving the president a line-item veto would make so many good bills into great bills. Encouraging fiscal fairness and revising campaign practices may even bring about a better quality representative.
If I could offer an amendment to the constitution, I would mandate that at least half of the representatives in the House of Representatives and Senate have significant study in a technically scientific area. This is not to suggest that half of our representatives should be engineers and scientists (engineers and scientists have a different niche), but the lack of technical scientific knowledge is appalling.
I feel that many of the suggested changes to the constitution designed to "level the playing field" or to "be more representative" are purely a ruse for government officials to avoid real problems. Granting more spots in the Senate and House of Representatives is only going to result in more people who can slow the government down if the quality and character of our representatives is left unchecked. The perfect example of this happening right now is nuclear waste storage. No official wants to suggest a solution to store nuclear waste since there is a solution right now which will last until the end of their foreseeable career.
There are also very good suggestions for amending the constitution. Giving the president a line-item veto would make so many good bills into great bills. Encouraging fiscal fairness and revising campaign practices may even bring about a better quality representative.
If I could offer an amendment to the constitution, I would mandate that at least half of the representatives in the House of Representatives and Senate have significant study in a technically scientific area. This is not to suggest that half of our representatives should be engineers and scientists (engineers and scientists have a different niche), but the lack of technical scientific knowledge is appalling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
