![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7){kind=small}
Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day.At first I thought the Columbia physicists were simply moonbats of a slightly higher grade, but these guys seem legit.
While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists are opposing the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
"Now, I don't know about whether this technology will solve global warming," said Burnett, "but let's say it is cost-effective, and let's assume for the sake of argument that global warming is a real, serious problem that needs to be solved. Then I would argue that this technology may be a good thing."Note that they're not ceding the premise that CO2 contributes to global warming. They're simply creating a way to entirely separate the question of CO2 buildup with the question of fossil fuel consumption. This allows ongoing legislation efforts to work on questions of economic policy (f.e. the price of gasoline) separately from questions of environmental policy (emission control, pollution taxation, etc.). This research is a classic example of how to unravel a Gordian knot. In short, these scientists are trying to make everybody's lives a helluva lot simpler, easier, and better.
...
Leading energy analysts agreed with the scientists, rather than the protesters.
"If CO2 emission reduction is a goal, then investigating and investing in strategies for capitalizing on our existing infrastructure efficiently and effectively makes more sense than throwing away reasonable options simply because they don't align with a political philosophy about our energy economy," said Amy Kaleita, an environmental policy fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.
Of course, not everybody wants this Gordian knot to be broken.
Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem.So, the Greenies are upset because it won't stop people from burning fossil fuels - it'll merely take away all allegedly negative ramifications of doing so. 'Cuz when you base your entire sense of self around throwing a righteous snit that purportedly demonstrates your moral superiority, nothing's worse than some clever engineer coming along and knocking the wind out of your sails by obsolescing the premise of your anger.
On May 5, for example, the activist groups Students Promoting Environmental Action and Save Our Cumberland Mountains demonstrated in Knoxville, Tennessee against carbon sequestration. Repeatedly citing a Greenpeace position paper, they argued eliminating the use of coal, not reducing atmospheric CO2, should be society's primary goal.
But hey, maybe they have legitimate arguments. Let's hear them out. What do they bring to the intellectual table? This:
"Our position is we need to start phasing out coal as soon as possible," said Cathie Bird of Save Our Cumberland Mountains.Actually, yes, it does. That's exactly what it does. And besides, modern-day coal-burning facilities are insanely clean in the first place - coal power plants today are not only far more energy-efficient than oil, but they have far better mechanisms for reclaiming secondary pollutants like sulfur dioxide.
"Carbon capture and storage does not make coal clean," read a banner hoisted by protesters.
Evidently these Greenies can't produce a valid intellectual point - possibly due to the relative locations of their brains to their colons. Of course, I make the assumption that they are actually interested in making points, rather than protesting just because it's fun to be angry about stuff with all your friends and make a big scene and maybe pick up some hippie chicks while you're at it. Perhaps I give them too much credit.
July 23 2008, 20:35:46 UTC 3 years ago
July 23 2008, 21:59:45 UTC 3 years ago
If that is their platform, it is not evident from their protests. If their stance is that they oppose the methods by which these resources are acquired rather than the usage of these resources in the first place, then they would be fighting against the construction of mines, not the use of coal in general. After all, coal-mining, to my knowledge, doesn't use stripping techniques quite as much as mining for, say, iron or nickel or uranium. Their spokesmen would be open to exploring ideas for how to acquire these resources in a more environmentally friendly way. Instead, "they argued eliminating the use of coal, not reducing atmospheric CO2, should be society's primary goal." This is not something that would be said by somebody who opposes coal-mining techniques; this is something that would be said by somebody who opposes the use of coal, period. When they say flat-out that they want to stop the use of coal, I see no reason not to take their statements at face value.
But for the sake of argument, let's grant them this premise for the moment.
The question of how much humans should disturb the environment is a question of degree, which ultimately breaks down to a matter of opinion and aesthetics. The discussion about whether or not to disturb the environment is separate from the discussion about pollution, and as such it is not a discussion about negative effects on humans, but rather a discussion about environmental preservation for its own sake.This is not an argument about pragmatism but rather one about morality.
Imagine, for example, that I might be okay with sparing 5% of the land area of some forest preserve to build a strip mine whereas the Greenies aren't okay with sparing any. Neither position is necessarily inherently unreasonable. People's preferences can differ on such things, and the point of public policy debate is to find compromises that everybody can live with.
But when the Greenies stage protests against people whose preferences differ from their own, they effectively want others to believe that their preferences are "Right" and others' are "Wrong". When they frame their own opinions in lofty rhetoric about the sanctity of the environment and the need for social change to match their point of view, they fall far outside the realm of reasoned debate and dialog, and into the realm of proselytizing.
Now, that's fine. I don't really have anything against proselytizing (well, okay, I sorta do, but it's a free country so I can't do anything about it). They can feel free to call me a Bad Person(TM) because, unlike them, I don't really see what's so inherently special about a forest preserve that we can't spare 5% of it to get me some coal and lower my electric bill. People can also feel free to call me a Bad Person(TM) for using lots of swear words, or for eating meat on Fridays or not throwing rocks at homosexuals. Hell, there are people out there who think I'm a Bad Person(TM) just because I'm Jewish. There's a reason why the First Amendment covers both freedom of speech and freedom of religion; if people are entitled to their own opinions, it's inevitable that they're also entitled to elevate some of those opinions to the level of dogma.
But let's not treat them like something they're not. These protesters aren't staunch young idealistic do-gooders standing up against big powerful corporations bent on destroying the world. They're a bunch of cultists bent on imposing their morality on others at all costs.
Or maybe they're just a bunch of college kids that are riding the high that comes along with believing you're doing something important, regardless of what that something might be and regardless of whether or not you're actually accomplishing anything. The environmentalist rhetoric gives them a locus around which to form social bonds and establish a common culture and a sense of identity. Besides, there's lots of hot girls at these protests, and they'll sleep with you if you say the same things they're saying, regardless of what that something is. This generation's protest girls are a helluva lot cleaner than they were back in the 60's - they shave now and everything! - so there are definite benefits to joining the crowd.
July 24 2008, 03:24:10 UTC 3 years ago
July 24 2008, 03:32:58 UTC 3 years ago
July 24 2008, 03:35:21 UTC 3 years ago
July 24 2008, 03:58:58 UTC 3 years ago
1. In their own words, their opposition is to the use of coal. Quote: "eliminating the use of coal ... should be society's primary goal." They say nothing about the methods by which we harvest the resources. Indeed, there are a lot of things we stripmine for, such as iron or nickel or uranium. They're not protesting those things, only coal. So, to take their statements and their actions at face value, they're upset about people using coal, independently of how coal is gathered.
2. The claim that it's "not right" to disturb the environment for its own sake is a moral argument, not a pragmatic one. I believe it's worth disturbing, they disagree. That's fine, we're both entitled to our opinions. But, based on the fact that they are actively protesting, it appears they are actually angry with me for disagreeing with them, and they believe that their opinion represents a higher moral plane and that I'm a Bad Person(TM) for not sharing it. If that's the case, well, they're zealot nutcases and they can go fuck themselves.
Anonymous
July 24 2008, 15:20:55 UTC 3 years ago
Hippie Freaks
No, the eco-freaks' goal is the control of the economy. Co2 scrubbers eliminate their long sought quest for absolute power. These people are dangerous, anti-American zealots who must defeated at all costs.