I still have tons to get done this weekend including some Stress Analysis CAD/FEA as well as most of the problem set for that along with building a deck, effectively, down in the new S'n'S Dungeon and perhaps going to see Greek Sing and working on my Phase HW sunday evening.
Should be a good weekend.
Anyway, two things:
1. I am not Travis! I keep getting calls asking if I'm Travis, and those of you who know me clearly know I am not. Please, I'm just going to get 'up in the face' (over the phone, of course) of the next person who calls for Travis!
2. My thoughts on policies regarding global warming:
First off, I thoroughly believe that humanity has had a negative impact on our environment. How much, I'm not sure, but I am sure that the effects are there and will continue to get worse. A lot of people, including a certain governing administration do not want to believe that anything's wrong, and therefore go about their merry business.
Let's consider failure modes, for a moment, of two opposing bases for policy:
I) Global warming isn't happening
Ia) The Earth's climate is changing, but it's solely due to natural, periodic fluctuations.
II) Global warming is happening, and we're to blame, at least partly
Ia) The Earth's climate is changing, but it's solely due to natural, periodic fluctuations.
II) Global warming is happening, and we're to blame, at least partly
Let's start at the end, and work our way up, shall we?
Suppose for a second that policy is generated assuming case II is true. What happens? We switch to power sources that are 'carbon-neutral' or close to it, we drive more efficient cars, carpool, take public transit more, insulate our houses better and plant more trees. What's so bad about any of those things? And what if it turns out we're wrong about global warming? Well, we'll have reduced our dependence on foreign oil and have more trees. Sounds nice to me!
Now, lets reverse it, let's say that we assume that Case I or Ia is true and do not choose to reduce our usage of fossil fuels or opening of the carbon cycle. If we're right, things're OK, but Acid Rain etc are still problems. If we're wrong well, we migh have to start building domes over our cities or just move to Mars. Now, as much as I'd like to travel to Mars, I'm looking more to it more as a vacation destination, rather than a permanent move.
So...yea. I got distracted reading about changes in HDD sector sizes on /.
Basically, my point is, nothing good will come if humanity continues to act as though global warming isn't happening.
[UPDATE]: Just read this and noted that it is remarkably topical. Go give it a read if you get a chance.
Suppose for a second that policy is generated assuming case II is true. What happens? We switch to power sources that are 'carbon-neutral' or close to it, we drive more efficient cars, carpool, take public transit more, insulate our houses better and plant more trees. What's so bad about any of those things? And what if it turns out we're wrong about global warming? Well, we'll have reduced our dependence on foreign oil and have more trees. Sounds nice to me!
Now, lets reverse it, let's say that we assume that Case I or Ia is true and do not choose to reduce our usage of fossil fuels or opening of the carbon cycle. If we're right, things're OK, but Acid Rain etc are still problems. If we're wrong well, we migh have to start building domes over our cities or just move to Mars. Now, as much as I'd like to travel to Mars, I'm looking more to it more as a vacation destination, rather than a permanent move.
So...yea. I got distracted reading about changes in HDD sector sizes on /.
Basically, my point is, nothing good will come if humanity continues to act as though global warming isn't happening.
[UPDATE]: Just read this and noted that it is remarkably topical. Go give it a read if you get a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment