Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: environment (page 1 of 2)

Romney: Not a car guy

Mitt Romney decided to drag Tesla Motors into the last debate.

“We’re going to have to have a president, however, that doesn’t think that somehow the government investing in – in car companies like Tesla and – and Fisker, making electric battery cars – this is not research, Mr. President,” Romney said. “These are the government investing in companies, investing in Solyndra. This is a company. This isn’t basic research. I – I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks — great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not. That’s the wrong way to go.”

I was irked. Yeah, I do own stock in Tesla, but that’s not why Romney’s comments peeved me. I felt that he was trying to turn Tesla into a political football, and that’s not helpful at all.

Tesla is an excellent investment for the US government. If it succeeds, it will accomplish at least three things:

  • It will help the US reduce its dependence on foreign oil, with all the attendant wars and military actions. Wouldn’t it be great to stop funding Middle Eastern oil-producers?
  • It will transition us into the coming post-oil age. We haven’t heard much about peak oil recently, but one thing’s for sure: we’re not getting more of it. We need to use this time now to develop other kinds of engines. Electric cars are a great choice. I’m getting a Model S just as soon as they can build one for me and ship it to Australia, and it will run on electricity generated from the 20 solar panels on top of my house.
  • It will create jobs. I think they said something about jobs in the last few debates.

Tesla will be an excellent return on investment.

Manufacturing doubt

Check out this short film “Doubt” from the Climate Reality Project.

What they did to obscure the facts about smoking is what they’re doing now to muddy the waters about climate change: Manufacture enough phony controversy and confusion to get people to ignore the science.

And according to the film, “they” are the same people in both cases.

Manatees are fair game again

I don’t like to go after religious nutters. Well, I do, but I feel sort of guilty when I do, like I’m going for the easy targets. But I’m approaching this story in a different way, so stick with me.

This story is about manatees and Jesus.

A Citrus County tea party group has announced that it’s fighting new restrictions on boating and other human activities in Kings Bay that have been proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“We cannot elevate nature above people,” explained Edna Mattos, 63, leader of the Citrus County Tea Party Patriots, in an interview. “That’s against the Bible and the Bill of Rights.”

Their interpretation of the Bible is such that the right of humans to enjoy riding speedboats trumps the rights of manatees to not be killed. Must be that part about having dominion over the Earth, though I think they’re defining that a little broadly.

Of course, a religious person could complain that I’m tarring all believers. They could quite rightly say, “That’s ridiculous. I’m religious, and I think it’s important to save manatees.” Good, and I’m glad you’re out there.

But this is central to my point: Religious methods are not able to help co-believers to come to an agreement about even the simplest of moral decisions. This wouldn’t be a problem, but for the fact that religious people view their religions as (among other things) a morals-delivery mechanism. They routinely claim that their morals come from a god, that their religious system helps people become more moral, and they wonder aloud where people who don’t believe in a god get their morals from. For all that, religion seems to give co-believers widely diverging results on moral issues.

Opt-out for phone books

Like everyone else in Australia, every year I get phone directories plopped onto my porch (sorry, veranda), even though I don’t want them. (Between Google and the White Pages website, phone books seem like such a leftover artifact.) And every year, I dutifully carry the dratted things off to the Post Office because they want them, and they’re happy to hold extra copies for people who want extras. Apparently there are such people.

Sensis is the company that makes the books in Australia.

Sensis admits that producing the 22.5 million White Pages and Yellow Pages directories in 2009-10 created the largest part of the company’s carbon footprint. More than 52,000 tonnes of paper are used to make the directories each year and they account for 175,000 tonnes of emissions annually, while Sensis’s business operations (fleet, electricity and air travel) total 30,000 tonnes of emissions.

If everyone’s getting the books I’m getting, 22.5 million phone books would cover the state of WA nearly twice.

Well, I’ve just discovered that you can halt the tide by opting out through Sensis’ Directory Select website. By telling them your address, you can cancel delivery and stay off the list for three years.

It’s not the best solution — the process should be ‘opt-in’, rather than ‘opt-out’. Why don’t they do it that way? Oh, someone’s already asked.

Why not offer an opt-in system rather than an opt-out system?

With such widespread use of Yellow Pages® and White Pages® books and only a small proportion of people requesting not to receive a book, we believe an opt-out such as www.directoryselect.com.au is an appropriate way to support consumer choice.

Hey, how about we make that proportion a whole lot bigger? Head over to Directory Select now while you’re thinking about it.

Frauds, linguistic and otherwise

It’s a week for Obama-bashing. Nothing new there, but now a pseudo-linguist is trying to linguify the sport. Paul Payack is the guy in charge of the Global Language Monitor, a group which serves mostly to promote bogus claims about language. This time, Payack is carping about Obama’s Oval Office address. He says it’s far too professorial at an impenetrable 9.8 grade level. Also, it’s ‘aloof’ and ‘out of touch’.

Mark Liberman comments:

I think we can all agree that those are shockingly long professor-style sentences for a president to be using, especially in addressing the nation after a disaster. Why, they were almost as long as the ones that President George W. Bush, that notorious pointy-headed intellectual, used in his 9/15/2005 speech to the nation about Hurricane Katrina, where I count 3283 words in 140 sentences, for an average of 23.45 words per sentence! And we all remember how upset the press corps got about the professorial character of that speech!

Payack’s critique appeared in this CNN article.

Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence “added some difficulty for his target audience,” Payack said.

He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: “That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge — a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s secretary of energy.”

Did that sentence stump you? If it did, it’s not your fault — blame Obama.

In fact, why not blame Obama for everything? That’s the strategy employed here by Sarah Palin, whose sentences could never be described as ‘professorial’, though one could say ‘aphasic’.

I get through about 13 seconds of this before I get a strong desire to cram her down an oil pipe (along with her three-legged stool), which may just be worth trying. I’m amazed at her ability to criticise someone who’s actually working on the problem. Remember how she used to say “Drill, baby, drill” not too long ago? For some reason, not so much anymore.

I can only imagine what the extent of the disaster would have been if the GOP clowns had won the election. More drilling, plus even less regulatory oversight.

John Cole takes up the theme:

All I know is that if Obama doesn’t stop the oil leak with his massive Kenyan penis and then give a rousing FDR/Trumanesque speech delivered using a grade 7.5 language level that gives Chris Matthews a blue-vein hard-on and then personally scrubs every drop of oil from the gulf without hurting BP’s profits and making sure every oil worker has a job, I’m out. I mean, come on. That isn’t asking too much, is it? And why don’t we have gay marriage and a cure for cancer? What a loser!

Yeah, because saving the economy and passing health care is so last year.

Weekday vegetarians

A quick TED talk by Graham Hill, founder of Treehugger.com. He has an innovative solution for people who want to go veg, but maybe aren’t ready to make the jump.

Text, for the non-video-watchers.

I realised that what I was being pitched was a binary solution. It was either: you’re a meat eater, or you’re a vegetarian. And I guess I just wasn’t quite ready. Imagine your last hamburger.

So my common sense, my good intentions were in conflict with my tastebuds. And I’d commit to doing it “later”. And not surprisingly, later never came. Sound familiar?

So I wondered: might there be a third solution? I thought about it, and I came up with one, and I’ve been doing it for the last year, and it’s great. It’s called Weekday Veg.

The name says it all. Nothing with a face, Monday to Friday. On the weekend, your choice. Simple!

Sounds like a good idea.

You know, I’ve been doing this for years, but with punching people. On weekdays, I refrain from punching people. Nothing with a face. Or in the face. On the weekends, my choice. (I confess I do go a bit nuts on the weekend.)

I’ve always known that it’s better for people’s faces and gonads if I didn’t punch anyone at all. I always told myself I’d stop leaving random strangers languishing in a pool of blood or leaving a trail of broken noses — ‘later’. But I figure: being a weekday non-puncher is something I can do. Surely cutting down on the pummeling is better than nothing.

Talk the Talk: The language of global warming

A timely interview on RTRFM, this time about the hidden persuaders in language about global warming.

Watch out for that link; it plays immediately, so make sure your speakers are at the right level. As always, I’m on about 5/6ths of the way through.

The world is a confusing place sometimes.

There are times when the news throws up some story just ambiguous enough that I don’t know what to think. Here are my current sources of mental torsion.

Switzerland’s War on Architecture

You know what? Minarets are annoying. About as annoying as church bells. First off, minarets tend to have either a muezzin or loudspeakers, either of which is noisy (though the Swiss minarets are supposed to be the quiet kind). Also, if we allow minarets today, we’ll have a caliphate tomorrow, and then falls Europe, or something like that.

But I can’t get behind the Swiss ban on minarets. As long as zoning and noise ordinances are obeyed, I think people should be allowed to be as big of idiots as they want, including practicing their religion and building buildings. Yes, churches are stupid, but if they’re not free to get their religious groove on, I’m not free to get my anti-religious groove on.

No, I’m not going soft on Islam. I still think Islam is currently the worst religion in the world, though other religions could easily pass Islam up. I mean, think of what you could accomplish if you had two million people working together. You might be able to stop the murder and violence against women that your religion engenders. Instead, they just do stupid shit like this.

Two Million Muslims to Stone Devil at Hajj

Two million Muslims are headed to Muzdalifa, Saudi Arabia, to cast stones at the devil in the most dangerous part of the annual hajj pilgrimage, Reuters reported.

Once the Muslim pilgrims get there, they will collect pebbles to throw at walls of the Jamarat Bridge to symbolize the rejection of the devil’s temptations.

Friggin’ jerks.

But towers aren’t where the fight is. We should be fighting to stop the formation of parallel justice systems based on what religion you are. We need to fight laws intended to punish criticism of religion. The minarets are only scary for people who are easily scared.

Meat in a vat

I already blogged about this when it was an idea, but now it seems they’ve gone and done it.

SCIENTISTS have grown meat in the laboratory for the first time. Experts in Holland used cells from a live pig to replicate growth in a petri dish.

The advent of so-called “in-vitro” or cultured meat could reduce the billions of tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year by farm animals — if people are willing to eat it.

Would I eat meat if no one has to die to make it? Is the image of muscle growing by itself in a vat of fluid too offputting? Why won’t the scientists try eating it? Will it taste like chicken? This is confusing on many levels.

Australian Liberal party changes drivers

They’ve dumped their leader Whatsisname. You know, the one who wanted to work to prevent climate change. Now they’ve guaranteed their irrelevance for the next ten years. This would normally be good, but I have nagging fears. What happens if the Liberal party does manage to sink climate change legislation and the Australian public isn’t pissed off at them?

Hot Mormon Muffins!

You’ve seen young Mormon hunks in the Men on a Mission calendar, but you’ve also thought, “What about the ladies? Will there be a cheesecake calendar full of sister missionaries?” Sadly for you, a calendar of sexy sisters was just a little too hot. They’ve decided to send up an image that’s equally ripe for satire, Mormon motherhood. It’s messing with my head because I’m imagining ladies from the old ward in Cheney, in vintage poses. With doilies.

Ta to Snowqueen.

More questions from the search logs

People posed questions to Google, searching for wisdom, and instead found themselves here, looking at posts that were only tangentially related. Well, now I’m answering their questions. Too bad they left in disgust before they could read these responses, but you’re in luck.

is there ever a good reason for children to work

Why, yes, there is. My boys and I have just finished cleaning up Australia. (It took a while, but now it’s done for another year.) We spent a couple of hours picking up rubbish at a public park nearby with other volunteers. The boys got to do some public service, and they now have little patience with people who litter. I also learned that every volunteer thinks they’re going to find a body in the leaves, like at the beginning of a CSI episode.

But I think the question refers to child labor. Employers would love to get their hands on children because they’re cheap, compliant, and don’t unionise. Thank goodness progressives in the last century worked to pass laws to stop the exploitation of child workers. But you’d expect the current generation of conservative vipers to wish for a return to the Gilded Age, and argue for rollbacks. And so they do.

Meet Connor. He’s a constitutional conservative, a Mormon, and is currently in training to become a member of the next generation of apologists for unreconstructed small-government conservatism. He sharpens his rhetorical chops on his blog, where you’ll sometimes find me disrupting the social fabric. And the most jaw-dropping post so far has been this one where he argues that government has no business dictating the terms of child labour, and that it should be left up to financially desperate parents and their children. Can’t see any problems coming there!

This is why I say that movement conservatism is a pathology. Allowing employers to exploit children like in the old days would cause untold problems. And what problems would it solve? The problem of not enough conservatism? It’s madness. And since no one’s going to implement their program in totality, there’s no way to show them it’s madness. They’ll always claim that their program hasn’t been followed in an ideologically pure fashion.

Have a look at the post and prepare to shake your head in amazement. This is the logical conclusion of small-government libertarianism. They really are amoral cretins.

fatherly quotes

My father had a lot of quotes, mostly because he liked to say the same things over and over. As an educator, he called it ‘reinforcement’, but as a kid I called it ‘boring’. But at least I still remember a few things he said, so maybe he was onto something.

When, as a kid, I would get my shoelaces in a knot, Dad would untie them for me, and as he did, he’d say:

If a string is in a knot,
Patience will untie it.
Patience can do anything.
Have you ever tried it?

And now I say it to my boys, and the cycle continues. Cycle of what, I won’t say.

And my favourite:

When in danger,
When in doubt,
Run in circles.
Scream and shout.

I have followed this advice many times.

does milk cause mucus
do dairy products cause mucus
does dairy cause mucous
does dairy cause mucus
milk causing mucus

How many ways can we ask this question? Can we spell ‘mucus’ any differently? What if we include the various spellings of ‘yoghourte’?

But however you ask it, the answer is still: nope, milk does not cause mucus or mucous. Here’s a recent (2005) study entitled Milk Consumption Does Not Lead to Mucus Production or Occurrence of Asthma. From the abstract:

There is a belief among some members of the public that the consumption of milk and dairy products increases the production of mucus in the respiratory system. Therefore, some who believe in this effect renounce drinking milk. According to Australian studies, subjects perceived some parameters of mucus production to change after consumption of milk and soy-based beverages, but these effects were not specific to cows’ milk because the soy-based milk drink with similar sensory characteristics produced the same changes. In individuals inoculated with the common cold virus, milk intake was not associated with increased nasal secretions, symptoms of cough, nose symptoms or congestion. Nevertheless, individuals who believe in the mucus and milk theory report more respiratory symptoms after drinking milk.

So if you believe dairy causes mucus, and if you think you’ve just drunk some, you’ll report more mucus. Even if you haven’t had any.

40 and still in grad school

Hey, that’s a bit harsh. Go somewhere else if you’re going to be like that.

Suddenly skeptical!

Who cares what the Pope thinks about global warming, but check this lede:

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

That’s one snarky writer over there at the Daily Mail.

Older posts

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑