Call me Scrooge. Call me anti-Christian. Call me un-American. But I think this needs to be said.
Why have I never heard anyone commenting on the extra energy consumption that is represented by Christmas lights? Granted, tiny little lights, individually, don't use a lot of electricity. But this whole Christmas lights/decoration thing has gotten so out of hand, with people vying to outdo one another, that people are getting electric bills in the thousands of dollars.
This extra demand for electricity not only means more depletion of resources (coal, gas, oil) to generate the power, and the concomitant greenhouse gas emission, but also a seldom-mentioned consequence of our power consumption, the production of mountains of coal ash (from coal-burning power plants) that can be a toxic environmental hazard, according to the EPA.
And then there are Christmas trees. (I except artificial trees from these comments.) How many millions of Christmas trees are grown every year, to be used for a short time and then disposed of (hopefully turned into mulch, at the very least)? How much land is used for growing Christmas trees? Maybe that land could be used for growing food crops to feed a hungry world or even corn for ethanol production. Almost any use of that land would seem to me more sensible than use as Christmas tree farms when that's for such an ephemeral product.
Even if the land used were not good for anything else, it could be returned to wildlife habitat, which continually shrinks as humans spread themselves and their activities over the face of the planet.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Showing posts with label ecology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ecology. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
More on Oil Spill from Gulf of Mexico Drilling Rig
Today the news said that Mr. Obama is halting any new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course I regard that as good news.
Unfortunately, that won't do anything to solve the current very serious oil-spill problem, which is beginning to look very tragic. If you follow the news, you already know that the spilled oil is going to ruin the industries for fishing for shrimp, oysters, crabs, and so forth, and seriously impact the livelihood of the fishermen, not to mention Americans' dinner tables--plus it is going to be deadly for shore birds in the Louisiana wetlands.
What is maybe even more tragic is that the oil spill probably could have been prevented. Oil-drilling platforms can be equipped with a type of shut-off valve called an acoustic valve. Had the oil rig in question been equipped with this device, the flow of oil probably could have been stemmed before very much oil spilled into the water.
Some countries, such as Norway, require this device on all offshore oil-drilling rigs. The U.S. does not. Yet another instance where government non-interference with corporations has had disastrous consequences.
Note added: The oil rig did include an explosive device that was supposed to enable shutting down the flow of oil in an emergency. However, it did not function as intended. As of the last I heard, no one knew why, other than simply that it was faulty.
Here is a link to an interesting article. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/bp-oil-crisis-and-massey-coal-disaster-bring-blame-home/19461901/
She blames our energy-hungriness as the ultimate cause of not only the oil rig accident and subsequent oil spill; but also the mining disaster that occurred a short while before. I agree with her but, in the main. But she says we should drive less and I say, stop driving those big SUVs. Of course some drivers--probably less than 10%--who want to cause less energy consumption and less creation of greenhouse gasses from their driving have purchased hybrid cars or very small cars. The rest don't give a damn. (True confession time: I don't have a hybrid, nor a very tiny vehicle, but my car still is probably more economical than most, and I drive very little.)
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Unfortunately, that won't do anything to solve the current very serious oil-spill problem, which is beginning to look very tragic. If you follow the news, you already know that the spilled oil is going to ruin the industries for fishing for shrimp, oysters, crabs, and so forth, and seriously impact the livelihood of the fishermen, not to mention Americans' dinner tables--plus it is going to be deadly for shore birds in the Louisiana wetlands.
What is maybe even more tragic is that the oil spill probably could have been prevented. Oil-drilling platforms can be equipped with a type of shut-off valve called an acoustic valve. Had the oil rig in question been equipped with this device, the flow of oil probably could have been stemmed before very much oil spilled into the water.
Some countries, such as Norway, require this device on all offshore oil-drilling rigs. The U.S. does not. Yet another instance where government non-interference with corporations has had disastrous consequences.
Note added: The oil rig did include an explosive device that was supposed to enable shutting down the flow of oil in an emergency. However, it did not function as intended. As of the last I heard, no one knew why, other than simply that it was faulty.
Here is a link to an interesting article. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/bp-oil-crisis-and-massey-coal-disaster-bring-blame-home/19461901/
She blames our energy-hungriness as the ultimate cause of not only the oil rig accident and subsequent oil spill; but also the mining disaster that occurred a short while before. I agree with her but, in the main. But she says we should drive less and I say, stop driving those big SUVs. Of course some drivers--probably less than 10%--who want to cause less energy consumption and less creation of greenhouse gasses from their driving have purchased hybrid cars or very small cars. The rest don't give a damn. (True confession time: I don't have a hybrid, nor a very tiny vehicle, but my car still is probably more economical than most, and I drive very little.)
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
People = Polution
Humans are killing the planet by their sheer numbers.
As we all know, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases from our cars and from power plants. Pollution of the air, land, and sea is caused by chemical plants and other industrial sources that generate toxic chemicals, and the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and so forth.
There's also destruction of the environment and extinction of plant and animal species due to increased farming, which sometimes means removing the tropical rainforests that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; and increased "development" to make shopping malls and housing tracts. There's depletion of the oceans' fish due to over-fishing.
The real and ultimate cause of all these things is not "industry" or some abstract entity; it's people. Individually and collectively, we are destroying the Earth. It's people that cause pollution and destroy the environment.
Small human groups typically have a small impact on the environment. Hunter-gatherer societies usually harvest only sustainable amounts of plants and animals, meaning not more than can be replaced by those organisms' natural reproduction. But it's a very different situation when human societies number in the billions.
The human species has been too successful, and population growth is the ultimate threat to our species' own survival. When we pave over our land for parking lots and deplete the oceans of fish for our tables, this should make us think about the consequences of uncontrolled growth of human populations. Even a bacterial colony will multiply and grow until all its nutrient resources are gone; and then it will completely die from lack of available food.
The solution to this problem is to be found in virtually every home, every human habitation on the planet. The human species needs to control its own fertility.
China has gone from a country perennially threatened by mass starvation to a very prosperous country. How? By limiting population growth. Chinese families are not allowed to have more than one child.
By contrast, in America, we value individual rights and choices. It's inconceivable to Americans that the government should ever dictate how many children a family has. And we feel, "If I can support my family, I have the right to have all the kids I want." But those kids will need more houses, more refrigerators, more cars, more schools, more roads, more parking lots. But heck, America is a big country, we still have lots of room.
Well, very much of all that "room" or space in America is not good for anything (well, to be more accurate, it's good for whatever nature is adapted to living there, and it should be left that way). Have you seen the vast emptiness of the West? Humans have already invaded the deserts and made huge efforts to make them habitable. We have, with incredible massive irrigation projects, made desert areas like Los Angeles and Las Vegas habitable. But it's been at a price. To supply Los Angeles with water, we divert rivers, we use up lakes and completely destroy them—all with tragic ecological impact. The water must continually be brought from farther and farther away.
We need to change the ethos by which we give positive approval to families with many children. Politicians running for office list, as if a credential, the number of children they have (at least where I live, maybe just to demonstrate to the voters—heavily Irish or Polish and Catholic--that they have a "good Catholic family").
We cheer and applaud and congratulate people for having children, even if it's the fifth or sixth or seventh. We have to stop doing that. Any couple who have more than three children should be met with disapproval, not approval.
Also, the U.S. federal income tax system subsidizes having children by giving parents a tax break—a deduction—for every "dependent." If we were ever to get serious about addressing population problems, I think even this would have to be examined.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein.
As we all know, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases from our cars and from power plants. Pollution of the air, land, and sea is caused by chemical plants and other industrial sources that generate toxic chemicals, and the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and so forth.
There's also destruction of the environment and extinction of plant and animal species due to increased farming, which sometimes means removing the tropical rainforests that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; and increased "development" to make shopping malls and housing tracts. There's depletion of the oceans' fish due to over-fishing.
The real and ultimate cause of all these things is not "industry" or some abstract entity; it's people. Individually and collectively, we are destroying the Earth. It's people that cause pollution and destroy the environment.
Small human groups typically have a small impact on the environment. Hunter-gatherer societies usually harvest only sustainable amounts of plants and animals, meaning not more than can be replaced by those organisms' natural reproduction. But it's a very different situation when human societies number in the billions.
The human species has been too successful, and population growth is the ultimate threat to our species' own survival. When we pave over our land for parking lots and deplete the oceans of fish for our tables, this should make us think about the consequences of uncontrolled growth of human populations. Even a bacterial colony will multiply and grow until all its nutrient resources are gone; and then it will completely die from lack of available food.
The solution to this problem is to be found in virtually every home, every human habitation on the planet. The human species needs to control its own fertility.
China has gone from a country perennially threatened by mass starvation to a very prosperous country. How? By limiting population growth. Chinese families are not allowed to have more than one child.
By contrast, in America, we value individual rights and choices. It's inconceivable to Americans that the government should ever dictate how many children a family has. And we feel, "If I can support my family, I have the right to have all the kids I want." But those kids will need more houses, more refrigerators, more cars, more schools, more roads, more parking lots. But heck, America is a big country, we still have lots of room.
Well, very much of all that "room" or space in America is not good for anything (well, to be more accurate, it's good for whatever nature is adapted to living there, and it should be left that way). Have you seen the vast emptiness of the West? Humans have already invaded the deserts and made huge efforts to make them habitable. We have, with incredible massive irrigation projects, made desert areas like Los Angeles and Las Vegas habitable. But it's been at a price. To supply Los Angeles with water, we divert rivers, we use up lakes and completely destroy them—all with tragic ecological impact. The water must continually be brought from farther and farther away.
We need to change the ethos by which we give positive approval to families with many children. Politicians running for office list, as if a credential, the number of children they have (at least where I live, maybe just to demonstrate to the voters—heavily Irish or Polish and Catholic--that they have a "good Catholic family").
We cheer and applaud and congratulate people for having children, even if it's the fifth or sixth or seventh. We have to stop doing that. Any couple who have more than three children should be met with disapproval, not approval.
Also, the U.S. federal income tax system subsidizes having children by giving parents a tax break—a deduction—for every "dependent." If we were ever to get serious about addressing population problems, I think even this would have to be examined.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Be Sure to Buy That Big SUV
Big SUVs have been heavily discounted by dealers. It's supply and demand, no one—at least no one sensible—wants them. So you've got this person who says to himself, "Well, I can buy that TailGrazer (or Exhibitionist or GM Ginormous) for $38,000 instead of $45,000, and gas prices have been much lower—so I think I'll go for it!"
Well, aside from the fact that the people buying and driving those monsters are helping to destroy the planet, they're going to find that they were short-sighted. Out my window I can see a gas station, with its price sign, so I can keeps tabs on the price of gas. A couple days ago the price went up 20¢-- and it was Monday, not Tuesday, when they usually raise their prices. It's up to $2.659 for regular now. I bought gas last week for $2.24, and it's only been a few weeks since it was $2.11.
Now that we're in sight of $3 a gallon again, can $4 be far behind? Woe be to him who thinks for a moment, It won't happen again.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Well, aside from the fact that the people buying and driving those monsters are helping to destroy the planet, they're going to find that they were short-sighted. Out my window I can see a gas station, with its price sign, so I can keeps tabs on the price of gas. A couple days ago the price went up 20¢-- and it was Monday, not Tuesday, when they usually raise their prices. It's up to $2.659 for regular now. I bought gas last week for $2.24, and it's only been a few weeks since it was $2.11.
Now that we're in sight of $3 a gallon again, can $4 be far behind? Woe be to him who thinks for a moment, It won't happen again.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
