Via Borepatch, a discussion CO2 efficiency. As for my personal views- I do believe we, as a species, have an obligation to protect and maintain the world ecology- our advances in technology have allowed us to counteract the forces of nature to a degree beyond any other species. This tech has been the catalyst for our success and developement. It has also allowed us to have a disproportionate effect on the world around us, meaning the fate of the world as we know it is in our figurative hands. Preferring to live and let live, I find it to be morally sound to lessen my impact on other species when I can. While I have very strong doubts about the science involved in AGW, I do not deny that we have had a negative impact on our habitat, and this is a problem. It would be a good thing to mitigate this effect.
However, TANSTAFL. Nuclear power is low air impact, but costly, and carries other hazards. Coal is cheaper, but has many environmental impacts. Natural gas burns much cleaner than coal, but fracking comes with its own costs (I prefer not to be able to light my tapwater on fire) The most carbon neutral energy source available is hydroelectric, but dams are under attack on many fronts. Every one of our sources has a cost.
There are some, of course, who feel we should do NONE of these things. Mainly, it seems, this idea is espoused by people who do not understand the further implications of their beliefs. I find quite an irony in the idea that there are groups of people who feel it is nobler, somehow, to be without- a form of asceticism, if you will. If everybody followed their lead, to give up all our technological progress, to the benefit of the natural world, we would then be subject to the whims of the natural, which are aggressive and devoid of mercy or regret. The strong will live, the weak will fail, and we would then be free of the forced acetics, and could regain our current state without their burden.
No comments:
Post a Comment