GGniner
All American
Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
|
Economist: Cars saved the planet
This is interesting to say the least...funny how things work out, kinda makes you beleive in the almighty guiding things, huh?
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opini...dcows.html
Quote:Cars improved the air ... that's no bull
By DWIGHT R. LEE
Published on: 02/27/07
The motto of all environmentalists should be "Thank goodness for the internal combustion engine."
The abuse heaped on the internal combustion engine by environmentalists was never justified. But a recent story on cow flatulence in the British newspaper, The Independent, makes the environmental benefits from gasoline-powered engines even more obvious. Based on a recent study by the Food and Agricultural Organization, The Independent reports that "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."
|
|
02-27-2007 11:53 AM |
|
niuhuskie84
All American
Posts: 3,930
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For:
Location:
|
an economist talking about the environment...makes perfect sense
|
|
02-27-2007 12:13 PM |
|
Bourgeois_Rage
That guy!
Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:
|
While gasoline engines may have replaced horses and other beasts of burden, the engine allowed for one farmer to have greater yields of livestock.
According to this domestic animal population has increased .5 to 2.0 percent each year for the last century. So while the combustion engine replaced horses and other beasts of burden, many people moved away from sustenance farming and into jobs that produce goods and services that do not directly relate to survival. However, people still need to eat, so livestock is still raised at levels comparable to the pre-combustion engine era.
So you really have to add he combustion engine by products to the livestock byproducts minus the beasts of burden replaced by combustion engines. Obviously, combustion engines byproducts have increased. According to the link above livestock populations have increased over the last hundred years. The question remains, have the beasts of burden populations decreased enough to offset the addition combustion engine?
This does not even take into account parts of the world (like third world countries) where beasts of burden are still the primary farm equipment.
|
|
02-27-2007 01:31 PM |
|
OUGwave
All American
Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
|
niuhuskie84 Wrote:an economist talking about the environment...makes perfect sense
I've done a lot of coursework (undergrad and grad) in environmental economics. Its a really interesting subset of economic theory -- involves a lot of public good analysis, externalities, discount rates. For instance, you can use economics as a tool to analyze why coastal degradation along the Louisiana Coast has occurred, and thusly, how to use economic incentives to help put a stop to it, which will boost hurricane defense.
Economics isn't merely a subject area, its theoretical tool, a way of approaching problems.
|
|
02-28-2007 03:09 AM |
|
OUGwave
All American
Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
|
I don't think anyone would suggest the combustion engine is a bad thing.
Rather, the argument is, is a CARBON-intensive economy the best thing going forward, particularly with rapid development in China, SE Asia, and India.
I would submit no. So the question is how to most effectively transition to the NEXT generation of productivity-driving technological improvements. If you believed the combustion engine was a net-environmental improvement, how awesome would photo-voltaics and fuel cells be? The possibilities are limitless
|
|
02-28-2007 03:14 AM |
|