Comments for Global Change

Comment on Could “hairier” crops help mitigate climate warming? by ResearchBlogging.org News » Blog Archive » Editor’s selections: Maxwell’s demon, hairy crops, poison frogs and a copper conundrum

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:22:15 +0000

[...] Could “hairier” crops help mitigate climate warming? Humankind plays such a large role in our planet’s ecosystem that it is easy to forget that unusual and offbeat changes can affect the climate in significant ways. Phil Camill at Global Change describes one of these odd possibilities — changing the reflectivity of the planet’s surface by using “hairier” crops — and the pros and cons of such an approach. [...]

Comment on The grand challenges of Earth system science and sustainability by The grand challenges of Earth system science and sustainability « Learning Change

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:36:59 +0000

[...] via The grand challenges of Earth system science and sustainability « Global Change. [...]

Comment on A debate over meat and morality by Phil Camill

Phil Camill — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:42:36 +0000

Thanks, Kim, for your always to-the-point points. It’s important to point out that I’m not endorsing Harris’ brand of philosophy or, for that matter, the work of either of the authors featured in The Atlantic, although I find the Phillips’ piece more intellectually robust. As you know, there are many classical and contemporary works that could be recommended here. My nod to Harris’ book stems from the fact that he’s driving an important conversation right now that’s related to the Atlantic debate. In my opinion, it’s often worth plugging into these conversations for their timeliness and for a diversity of perspectives, even if—and, maybe, especially if— there’s a lot we disagree with. There are many contemporary works we read every year that fall to the same criticism, but that doesn’t mean they’re not worth reading. Perhaps I could have said, “For a current example of how this deeper debate is playing out, check out Sam Harris’ latest book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. For good example(s) of the philosophical foundations of this debate, read Sen, Nussbaum, Appiah, etc.”

Comment on A debate over meat and morality by Kim Smith

Kim Smith — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:47:25 +0000

Oh Phil. I can’t believe you actually recommended the Harris book. It’s truly awful philosophy. Much better to recommend Elizabeth Anderson’s Value in Ethics and Economics, a much better foundation for understanding this debate.

Comment on Another challenge to confront with geoengineering: Ocean plankton toxins by charlie

charlie — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:22:13 +0000

nice catch! There is another PNAS paper that came out this year documenting the same concern. (“Iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas”, Trick et al 2010)

geoengineering… well, we’re ALREADY geoengineers; we started on that course when we started digging up the carboniferous and dumping it into the atmosphere, if not earlier. Thusfar, humans have been pretty terrible geoengineers. But the proposed schemes, like ocean fertilization and aerosols, all have this unsubtle character to them that makes them susceptible to the complexity of real-world systems. Someday we may know enough to come up with a successful geoengineering scheme, but right now the best solution seems to me to be the obvious one: Cut carbon emissions.

Comment on Science Magazine considers whether decreasing meat consumption can increase global food security by Eve A

Eve A — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:18:46 +0000

Although I didn’t read the original Science article, I’ve read the your quotes from it. The quotes seemed to have the agenda to rationalize meat eating. To vegan ears it sound like the author doesn’t want meat eating to have any impact on world hunger. For example the idea that developing countries will eat more meat if we eat less seems totally unsubstantiated. Who’s to say developing nations would choose to squander environment, health and ethics the way we have for generations.

Comment on Post-election reality and what that might mean for our common future by Sara Tenney

Sara Tenney — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:35:13 +0000

interesting article. Thanks for this.

Comment on Is “humanely slaughtered” the next best thing in industrial meat production? by RedDirt

RedDirt — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:25:39 +0000

Good Lord!! Now this is just too scary. Great article.

Comment on More on genetically modified (Bt) corn: Is it an economic boon to all corn farmers? by Wouter Cloete

Wouter Cloete — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:37:57 +0000

“To delay evolution of resistance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated that a minimum 20 to 50% of total onfarm maize be planted as non-Bt maize within 0.8 km of Bt fields as a structured refuge for susceptible O. nubilalis. ”
This does not make much economic sense to me. If you have to plant up to as high as 50% non-BT then you will have a 50% portion of your crop producing an inferior (lower yield) harvest. The other 50% of BT-maize now has to produce even more to compensate for this loss. This is all done just to delay rezistance not avoid it. So rezistance in the 50% BT will not be zero and will grow over time thus causing the yield in this part also to drop.
I wonder if this is really worth the risk of unknown side effects on the ecology. It can not be argued that the risks are known because the whole ecology of soil consisting of a miriad of still unknown micro-organisms is still unknown and therfore the effect on these organisms.
The problem with rezistance is not just GM on its own but the principle that a pest has to be destroyed in its totallity wheter chemical or GM induced chemical. The total removal of a pest causes a shift in the ecology because of the subsecuent removal of the associated predator. This creates an ecology wherein the non-susceptible of the pest can flourish because of the absence of its predators.
Anyway I am not an expert and these are just a few random thoughts.
By the way your comment box does not display correctly in Google Chrome I had to revert to the primitive IE to make this post.

Comment on Is “humanely slaughtered” the next best thing in industrial meat production? by Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:04:47 +0000

Why would someone who cares about the welfare of chickens eat chickens?