Tales of the Heliosphere

This weekend while America prepared for the Presidential Inauguration of its first living god, it was good to get away and view some of the handiwork of Thomas Jefferson's creator.

A gull floats over the Pacific off the coast of Imperial Beach, California.


A hummingbird hovering in a San Diego backyard.


Reflections in a vernal pool at Mission Trails Regional Park.


A mule deer at Mission Trails.


A white-tailed kite at Mission Trails.


-tdr

Labels: Animals, Birds, Environment, Photography, Politics

Steve Running, a professor of forestry from the University of Montana, is profiled in a recent article. (Here.) He's a global-warming scientist in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But, apparently, he's moving on.

"In the next year, Running hopes to slightly change the scope of his research again. He’s begun to take an interest in how socioeconomic issues such as population and economic growth affect climate change. That’s in part because of invitations he’s received to speak to groups such as Planned Parenthood.

"Running was puzzled by the invitation at first, but soon realized that population growth affects the quantity of emissions released into the atmosphere.

"He’s also gearing up to push the idea of a no-growth economy in terms of consumption. With the current recession the nation is facing, he said, maybe it’ll cause people to return to a lifestyle 'that maybe we never should have left.'"

Well, at least he said "maybe." Maybe he's waiting to find out whether the evidence from his scientific research supports his no-growth political agenda.

What is it about scientists today that they believe their role, as scientists, is to shape society rather than simply to describe the world as it is? It's a free society and scientists have as much right as anybody to express their political or moral opinions. Just don't call it science. When scientists use words like "should" or "ought," they're no longer talking science. They're talking politics or morality.

-tdr

Labels: Environment, Science, Scienceism

Arctic Ocean nations might have to put their economic plans to take advantage of a polar sea without ice on hold for a while.

"Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. ...

"Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

"Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center." (Here.)

Climate scientists don't know everything about how Earth's climate works? Who could have known?

The news might be bad for the Northwest Passage, and embarrassing for climate scientists, but it could be good news for the poor polar bear.

-tdr

Labels: Environment

Southern California is a dry land. Okay, all land is dry land, but Southern California's land is especially dry. We don't get a lot of rain and we don't have much of our own water. Well, there is that giant ocean just to the west, but it's got all that salt in it, and don't get me started about the lack of desalination plants in this region. So, let's pretend the Pacific Ocean isn't there. That's what San Diego's City Council is doing.

Water supply is so bad that San Diego, thanks to the City Council, is going to start recycling waste water into drinking water. So, if you live elsewhere and have thought about moving here because you see how wonderful the weather is every time you watch a Chargers or Padres game from San Diego, think again. You'll be drinking cleaned up toilet water. Yummy, yummy toilet water. Not quite Tang but just like NASA!

Anyway, all that's a round about way of getting to the point. Those beautiful green lawns that define the suburbs consume way too much water for this region. That doesn't stop everybody from having one. But if the consequence of everybody having a lawn is everybody getting to drink toilet water, well, maybe it's time to go native and start replacing our lawns with native plants. You know, the plants that evolved to thrive in San Diego's low water ecology. Don't buy that argument? Then how about this one: the plants that God in his infinite wisdom perfectly created to grow here.

So, here's the home in the suburbs the week after moving in last February. And here's the same home today, two days after putting in all native plants. And here's a side angle shot.

Not too lush or green just now. (Clicking the photos to enlarge them helps.) But the picture doesn't capture the slight fragrance of sage, either. And the plants just went in. There are close to 100 new plants in the yard and each one produces either flowers or berries. Once the yard is established there will be an abundance of reds, and greens, and blues, and yellows, along with butterflies, hummingbirds, and other seed eating birds.

The best part is, once the yard is established, it won't need watering, except for the occasional sprinkle with the hose using the beer can method. The beer can method, for those not in the know, is this: grab a hose, grab a beer, and water the yard until you're done drinking the beer. Sounds like the perfect Southern California lifestyle to me.

-tdr

PS: Props to Clayton Tschudy of Tschudy Ecological Designs for the design and the plant selection of the yard. He's got the right vision. The plants came from Las Pilitas Nursery, a native plants nursery, north of Escondido. Here are the names and links to the nursery's website for the plants in the yard. (You're going to have to cut and paste to see the pictures of the plants fully grown and descriptions.)

Galvezia "Firecracker"--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/321.htm
Viguiera laciniata--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/1426.htm
Eriogonum umbellatum polyanthum--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/527.htm
Eriogonum arborescens--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/277.htm
Eriogonum grande rubescens--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/288.htm
Mahonia nevenii--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/422.htm
Salvia "Pozo Blue"--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/607.htm
Iris douglasiana--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/352.htm
Muhlenbergia rigens--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/446.htm
Ribes viburnifolium--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/586.htm
Diplacus puniceus--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/247.htm
Zauschneria californica--http://www.laspilitas.com/plants/3365.htm

Labels: Aesthetics, Birds, California, Environment, Nature, San Diego

Life hangs on and does what it can to survive. There have been a lot of spiders this Fall. This web in the front lawn is outlined by the morning dew about a month ago. The lawn is gone so the spider will have to find something else to build on. This snail used to drink from the bird bath every day. Today, I went to water the plants in the back yard. This praying mantis was resting on the wand and refused to give up its spot. It remained on the wand the entire time I watered. It got so complacent it took to grooming itself. Isn't that cuuute!? -tdr

Labels: Animals, Environment, Insects, Nature, Photography

From the world of science comes news that female-dominated societies aren't necessarily less violent than male-dominated ones. At least among the bonobos.

Who, you might ask? The bonobos are some kind of primate living along the Congo. They, along with chimpanzees, are closely related to humans. The bonobos, unlike chimps (and humans), live in female-dominated social groups. Bonobos, unlike chimps (and humans, again), also have a reputation for peaceful behavior. Apparently, they don't resolve conflicts by fighting each other. They resolve conflicts by promiscuous sex: male-female, male-male, female-female. Whatever gets them through the long jungle nights. The bonobos apparently really like banging each other.

Also, where chimpanzees have been known to hunt and kill monkeys for food, the bonobos were not known to do that. Until now, that is. Apparently a new study has shown bonobos do hunt and kill monkeys.

"Unlike the male-dominated societies of their chimpanzee relatives, bonobo society—in which females enjoy a higher social status than males—has a 'make-love-not-war' kind of image. While chimpanzee males frequently band together to hunt and kill monkeys, the more peaceful bonobos were believed to restrict what meat they do eat to forest antelopes, squirrels, and rodents.

"Not so, according to a study, reported in the October 14th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, that offers the first direct evidence of wild bonobos hunting and eating the young of other primate species.

"'These findings are particularly relevant for the discussion about male dominance and bonding, aggression and hunting—a domain that was thought to separate chimpanzees and bonobos,' said Gottfried Hohmann of the Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. 'In chimpanzees, male-dominance is associated with physical violence, hunting, and meat consumption. By inference, the lack of male dominance and physical violence is often used to explain the relative absence of hunting and meat eating in bonobos. Our observations suggest that, in contrast to previous assumptions, these behaviors may persist in societies with different social relations.'
...
"Overall, the discovery challenges the theory that male dominance and aggression must be causally linked to hunting behavior, an idea held by earlier models of the evolution of aggression in human and non-human primates. Future work on the bonobos of LuiKotale may shed light on the social and ecological conditions that encourage their monkey-hunting expeditions, yielding insight into the evolutionary significance and causes of aggression, hunting, and meat eating in bonobos, chimpanzees, and ourselves." (Here.)

-tdr

Labels: Animals, Environment, Ethics, Food, Science

With all the attention focused on national manned space programs and private space entrepreneurs, India's space program often gets overlooked. Well, the world's largest democracy is preparing to send an unmanned spaceship to the moon. (Here.)

After posting this, I finally received this week's edition of The Space Review in my email inbox. Dwayne Day reports on a recent conference on India's space program. Krishnaswami Kasturirangan, former head of India's space program, was a speaker.

"Now that India has not only developed significant space capabilities but also experienced substantial economic growth, the Indian space program has entered into what Kasturirangan describes as its 'expansion phase.' India can afford the luxuries of space science and possibly even human spaceflight. The country’s first lunar spacecraft, Chandrayaan-1, is scheduled for launch later this month. The government has also created the Antrix Corporation to market Indian space capabilities around the world. The country’s next goals are development of a heavy launch vehicle, lunar exploratory missions, a two-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle, human spaceflight, and further international cooperation. (Here.)

Later, Kasturirangan spoke about India's manned space plans.

"Kasturirangan explained that right now India’s government has not officially approved a human spaceflight program. Although he did not say so, other sources have indicated that India will pursue a two-person capsule. ISRO is currently studying technology options and questions and he rattled off a long list, including life support, reentry, tracking and human-rating a launch vehicle, clearly indicating that he was personally familiar with the studies. Only after the Indian space agency has answered these questions and defined the kind of vehicle they want to build, its costs, and the timeframe for the first human space launch, will ISRO officials take those plans to the Indian Parliament for formal approval. Simply put, India’s human space program has not yet been fully defined or approved."

Meanwhile, in other news from the subcontinent, a new solar powered ricksha developed by the Indian government is hitting the streets of New Delhi.

"It's been touted as a solution to urban India's traffic woes, chronic pollution and fossil fuel dependence, as well as an escape from backbreaking human toil.

"A state-of-the-art, solar powered version of the humble cycle-rickshaw promises to deliver on all this and more.

"The 'soleckshaw,' unveiled this month in New Delhi, is a motorised cycle rickshaw that can be pedalled normally or run on a 36-volt solar battery.

"Developed by the state-run Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), prototypes are receiving a baptism of fire by being road-tested in Old Delhi's Chandni Chowk area." (Here.)

-tdr

Republished once to add content.

Labels: Energy, Environment, Leviathan, Nationalism, Space Exploration

Fear of global warming has led governments around the world to push biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels. It's a policy that results in farmers devoting farmland to growing food for machines instead of food for people. Not surprisingly that policy appears to be more harmful than helpful.

"The U.N. food agency yesterday called for a review of biofuel subsidies and policies, noting that they had contributed significantly to rising food prices and the hunger in poor countries."

The United Nations report confirms the findings of an earlier intergovernmental report.

"In an assessment released this summer, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that government support of biofuel production in member countries was hugely expensive and 'had a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security.' It did have 'a significant impact on world crop prices' by helping to raise them, the report said." (Here.)

Imagine that. Less food production results in higher food prices, which leads to hunger among poor people. On the other hand, maybe that's the goal. More hunger could result in fewer people and fewer people is better for the environment, people being a cancer on the Earth and all. (Here.) You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

-tdr

Labels: Environment, Ethics, Food, International

Fear of global warming is leading governments to regulate people's lives at lower and lower levels. For instance, there's the move to ban standard light bulbs and replace them with compact fluorescents.

"Touted as a greener alternative to traditional lighting, CFLs are about four times more energy-efficient than incandescent bulbs and last up to 10 times longer. This increased efficiency lessens the energy demand on generating stations powered by fossil fuels and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the amount of packaging and old light bulbs that end up in landfills. But unlike incandescent light bulbs, CFLs contain mercury, a toxin with potentially hazardous effects that can be released during manufacturing and disposal.

"'It's always good to promote energy efficiency, but it's always a tradeoff,' said lead author Matthew Eckelman, a graduate student in Yale's Department of Chemistry and the Center for Industrial Ecology. 'You may get a lower energy bill at home, but you don't see the emissions or the runoff downstream.'

"While the researchers stress that their study isn't an excuse to ignore the energy problem and stick with old, inefficient technologies, they caution that nation-wide strategies such as recent bans on incandescent bulbs, adopted by several countries including the U.S., may be too general. 'All sustainability issues are local,' said Zimmerman. 'We need to ask if we should be making decisions on a national level, or if this is something better left to local governments.'" (Here.)

I would ask whether the regulation is necessary at all.

-tdr

Republished once to correct omission and spelling.

Labels: Energy, Environment, Technology

So about a month ago I was a panelist at a local science fiction convention. Our panel’s topic was the ethics of killing. I guess they figured a lawyer would have something to say about that. I was the moderator so we did not discuss the ethics of killing lawyers. Which reminds me, did you hear the one about the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead lawyer? There are skid marks in front of the skunk. Ba da boom.*

One topic that day was genocide. A vegan panelist proposed --- “in jest,” so he said, "truth in humor," I said --- that it would be ethical to kill off all of humanity in order to save the planet. Surprisingly most objections to this plan from the other panelists and the audience were practical ones: "Who decides, how do we decide it's necessary, and who gets killed" not "it's wrong to kill most or all of humanity to save the planet." People accepted the premise that the rest of life on Earth had greater moral worth than humans.

I’m in the "it's just wrong" camp. First, because it's anti-humanist to elevate the environment to a level superior to humanity, and, second, because there's no way to know with sufficient certainty that such genocide would be necessary to save the planet. Anyway, I was struck at the willingness of people to be utilitarian about it and accept that it would be okay to do it.

Some will say that it's speciesist to give humans privileged moral status. So be it. The vegan panelist used the term when he explained why he believed it would be acceptable to kill off all humanity to save the planet. The irony is that humans are the least speciesist beings on this planet. There is no animal that even tries to look out for other animals or plant life in the way that humans do.

With some insignificant exceptions, animals look out for their own and that's it. Humans on the other hand often look out for nonhuman lifeforms. So why should humans step aside through an act of genocide or mass suicide to make way for creatures who don't look out for species other than their own? We don't deserve that fate and the rest of the biosphere doesn't deserve the benefit of that kind of sacrifice by us.

I suppose killing off humanity would save the planet. I'm sure the Earth would get along very well without us. But I don't think science can tell us it's necessary to kill off humanity to save the planet. Besides showing that the only future scenario is the worst case scenario, science would have to show there are no alternatives to human self-extinction in order to save the planet. If other options could save the planet then self-extinction is not necessary.

But I admit my main objection to the idea is the humanist one.

The fact that the idea of humans having less moral worth than the rest of nature seems so non-controversial to people surprises me. I've heard of the humans as virus notion before but I always figured it was a fringe view. Apparently, it's not.

I found a statement recently by ethicist Peter Singer, who refused to sign one of the versions of The Humanist Manifesto because he said the manifesto suffered from speciesism. He objected to the manifesto's language making the welfare of humanity the purpose of humanist ethics. He called this speciesism and said it was a remnant of Christian thinking because in his view, “[t]here is no nonreligious reason why the pains and pleasures of nonhuman animals should not be given equal weight with the similar pains and pleasures of human beings.” (Here.)

I wonder if the belief, espoused by people like Singer, that maintains it's morally wrong to privilege humans over animals is a greater threat to humanism than Christianity. Christians and humanists may agree on the primacy of human beings but their fundamental disagreement over the supernatural makes them more rivals than allies. People like Singer may fundamentally disagree with humanists over the primacy of human beings but they share humanism's rejection of the supernatural. Humanism is therefore more likely to be influenced by people like Singer than it is by religious people. I wonder if that's likely to cause humanism eventually to reject the moral primacy of human beings.

-tdr

* Lawyer jokes are the price we pay for running the world. It's a small price to pay.

Labels: Animals, Environment, Ethics, Humanism, Nature, Religion

Nothing in the universe comes without a cost. The solutions to today's perceived problems will create problems of their own. Take, for example, America's so-called addiction to foreign oil. Environmentalists don't want to open up America's oil fields off-shore or in the Arctic wasteland because oil is a dirty technology. Green technologies are favored instead. But even green technologies have damaging consequences.

Food prices will increase if we shift from oil to biofuels, according to a study by The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. In the United States alone,

"Quantities of maize [what we Americans call "corn"] grown for fuel have already doubled since 2003. Where is it all being planted? In 2006, maize for fuel accounted for one-fifth of maize production in the United States. By the end of 2016, the period under review for the report, it will have increased to 32 percent of maize production. ... The report confirms that grain prices are expected to remain higher than they have been in the past decade." (Here.)

You might think making food more expensive in order to fuel automobiles would be a good reason to get our fuels from things we wouldn't otherwise eat. But that would mean you aren't thinking like your typical environmentalist. The goals of environmentalists are much grander than protecting the environment. Their goals are to change the way we live our lives at every level. So, instead of keeping fuel and food production separate, we can change our diets and eat mostly

"...lentils, chickpeas, kidney beans, and other dried legumes ... Variety of flavor is added with vegetable like potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, onions and garlic. Serve them with rice ... and you have a cheap, nutritious and filling meal."

Sorry, my ancestors didn't crawl their way to the top of the food chain so I could live on vegetables and beans.

Biofuels are likely to affect more than just food prices and diet. They could also harm the environment they are supposed to save. Leading environmental groups in the United Kingdom warn

"that without proper management, cultivation of crops for fuel, electricity and heat could cause further declines of farmland wildlife, damage the character of landscapes, harm historic and archaeological sites and damage soil and water quality." (Here.)

There's that phrase, "without proper management." And who gets to do the proper managing? In the words of one of the environmental leaders in the UK,

"'We're particularly concerned about potential environmental damage from intensively grown biofuel crops used for transport fuels. This report is a timely reminder that government has a key role to play to ensure that the growth of bioenergy in the UK is sustainable, working in partnership with conservation organisations, farmers and land managers.'"

O, what a surprise, the government. Is it any wonder governments all over the world are rushing to embrace apocalyptic environmentalism? It's a compelling rationale for more and more state power.

-tdr

Technorati: environment, environmentalism, global warming, biofuels.

Labels: Environment, Leviathan

The SUV is a much-maligned vehicle in these days of environmental scare-mongering and angst about our so-called addiction to foreign oil. I prefer to blame large semis more than cars, pickups, or SUVs. You can check the data. (Here.) Gas efficiency for all consumer vehicles, including the much-scapegoated SUV, has improved over time. But big-rig trucks remain mired at about 5 miles per gallon. America's freight should not travel on highways, it should travel on the rails.

Anyway, to me the car-based SUV is the ideal vehicle. It's not a gigantic vehicle like many SUVs. Its station wagon-like design allows for flexibility in carrying passengers and cargo. But its design is much cooler than a station wagon's.

For SUV lovers like me, who want to use less gas and even pollute less, the Ford Escape Hybrid could be the perfect vehicle; SUV design and flexibility with economy car mileage. I traded in my old Subaru Forester the other day for the new Escape Hybrid. This is it outside my garage. Automatic transmission, moon roof, heated leather seats, satellite radio, all the amenities. The Escape hybrid drives like a regular SUV except when gliding along silently at city-street speeds in all electric mode. Instead of the 20-25 mpg I was getting with the Forester, I'm getting 32-35 mpg in the Escape. And its hybrid technology appeals to the techie in me.

As much as I like my new Escape hybrid, I'm looking forward to when the Venture One hits the road -- 100 mpg at 100 mph. (Here.) This is the European version in action.*
O yeah.

-tdr

Technorati: environment, oil, hybrids, hybrid cars.

*Photo from flytheroad.com.

Labels: Environment, Personal, Technology

When your mission is saving the planet from ecological catastrophe no sacrifice is too large, no behavior is too small, and nothing is ever enough. Is it any wonder that Big Green is finding willing allies in governments all over the world? The planet's salvation demands that experts and public officials tell us how to live every single aspect of our lives.

For instance, there's this story from the United Kingdom:

"Recycling rates have risen, and the UK is on schedule to meet EU targets, but the key to dealing with our escalating waste problem lies in changing our buying habits and our attitudes to consumption, according to the authors of a new Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) publication." (Here.)

Recycling isn't enough, you see, there's too much consuming going on out there. How do these experts propose to get us to change our bad habits of buying too much stuff? By using commercial marketing techniques to convince us that doing without is good for us.

"[Professor] Ken Peattie explains that social marketing can be successful because it focuses on the target audience's point of view, taking account of any emotional or physical barriers that may prevent people from changing their behaviour. 'Guilt messages are ineffective. A focus on the benefits of a greener lifestyle has been shown to be a better way to encourage people to reduce their consumption,' the report says."

If that fails, they can always force us to comply.

From San Francisco comes this story about Mayor Gavin Newsom's latest executive order. No water bottles for city departments. That's right. No water bottles.

"In a decision announced Thursday, Newsom said the ban will go into effect July 1 and extend to all city and county water coolers by Dec. 1. The decision will save taxpayer money and fight global warming, the mayor's spokesman said." (Here, third story down.)

Some cities just can't be satirized. You think bottled water is expensive now? Wait until you have to buy your water bottles on the black market. When bottled water is outlawed, only outlaws will sell water bottles.

-tdr

Technorati: environment, global warming, San Francisco.

Labels: Environment, Leviathan, Politics

Factcheck.org is more active again now that the presidential campaigns are in full swing. The website does reality checks of statements and positions taken by America's political leaders.

The site recently looked at the feasibility of ethanol replacing gasoline. Turns out it's not as easy as the Presidential wannabes and their allies in Big Corn and Big Green would have us believe.

"Still, even if the oil companies immediately began giving 1 percent of their profits toward the installation of E85 pumps, other obstacles — like limitations on how much corn the nation can produce or the fact that many flex fuel vehicle owners aren't even aware that their cars can run on E85 — are significant.

We do not dispute that ethanol along with other renewable fuels such as methanol and biodiesel have the potential to play a significant role in moving the U.S. away from foreign oil consumption and lessening greenhouse gas emissions. But ethanol has a long way to go before the campaign promises made by Clinton, Edwards and Obama can be fulfilled." (Here.)

-tdr

Technorati: elections, politics, energy, environment.

Labels: Energy, Environment, Leviathan, Politics, Technology

Environmentalism is an all-encompassing ideology that pushes its adherents to change every aspect of their own lives, and everybody else's too. It's a young and confident religion unabashed about proselytizing.

So it should come as no surprise that environmentalists hope to change how we dispose of human remains. The website Terra Daily tells of a move in Sweden to freeze dry corpses and turn the remains into compost.

"The freeze-drying method offers an environmentally friendly burial transforming corpses into organic compost. Traditional burials and cremations hurt the environment by polluting air and water, as a corpse buried in a coffin will take many years to decompose completely." (Here.)

What is surprising is the organization advocating the change: The Lutheran Church of Sweden. It's strange to see a Christian church promoting such dehumanizing treatment of human remains. Freeze-drying the corpse is significantly different than typical burial or cremation. In traditional burial or cremation, disposal of the body is done as an end in itself. Freeze drying, on the other hand, treats the corpse as mere raw material for plant food.

Perhaps the Lutheran Church of Sweden's involvement is not that surprising. The church is part owner of Promessa, the company that has developed the freeze-drying burial. This is what the Terra Daily story says about Promessa's plans. "Promessa has promoted the idea of using the human remains, like compost, to feed plants and shrubs." Where's Charlton Heston when you need him? (Here.)

-tdr

Republished once to correct a noticed punctuation error. Whatever unnoticed errors there are remain.

Technorati: environment, religion, Sweden.

Labels: Environment, Religion, Society

This weekend's global warming news was about how so very cheap it will be to solve the global warming crisis. Just three percent of projected growth in Earth's total economic output until 2030. Oh, and a few taxes. (Here.) No biggie.

Today's news is about the cost of implementing California's very own law to save the planet. (Here.) Under the rule of its new law, California's carbon emissions have to be down to 1990 levels by 2020. How much will that cost California's economy? Who really knows? Who really cares?

"Regardless of how funding disputes are resolved in the Capitol, [California State] Sen. [Alan] Lowenthal said the public will have to accept the costs. The alternative – doing nothing – would result in 'catastrophe,' he warned.

'This is just the beginning,' Lowenthal said. 'There's going to have to be changes to every part of life. Ultimately, we will all pay.'" (Here.)

What are a few billion or trillion dollars more of less when the fate of the entire world is at stake?

So when it came time to buy a new lawnmower, I knew I had to do my part to help save the world. A gas mower was out of the question. Too polluting. A hand-pushed mower was the most green alternative. But who wants to spend all the livelong day mowing the lawn? Not me. Just because the world is hurtling towards environmental doomsday doesn't mean I have to give up my weekends. Does it?

So, here it is. My new $400 rechargeable electric lawnmower. Sure it's $250 more than I would have spent on a perfectly fine gas mower, but the world may last a bit longer because of my sacrifice. And not only is it greener than a gas mower, so I can cop a holier than thou attitude, it's also a really cool, cutting edge gadget that makes me the envy of my neighbors. It's a twofer! Yes, life is good.

-tdr

Technorati: Global Warming, environment.

Labels: Environment