Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Economist: Cars saved the planet
Author Message
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


niuhuskie84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,930
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
 
an economist talking about the environment...makes perfect sense 01-wingedeagle
02-27-2007 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #3
 
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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
 
niuhuskie84 Wrote:an economist talking about the environment...makes perfect sense 01-wingedeagle

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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
 
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.