Plan to Dump Iron in Ocean Criticized

If they can grow potatoes in Idaho, so much as to see if they can expand or improve the growth of potatoes in places potatoes can grow with their technique. So the most appropriate place to do that would indeed be Idaho, rather than say, the swamps of Florida.

If the experiment produces good results it seem the next step would be to try it in an area where the algae bloom has faltered or died out to see if they can bring it back. It wouldn't make sense to do it in an area where there has never been a bloom.

This is small enough that if the results were damaging it could easily be stopped by ceasing to add iron to the ocean.

Contrast that with the "Greens" who show no hesitation with demanding large scale economic experiments like Kyoto which can't be easily measured or controlled if they cause widespread damage.

... and artificial constructions of man. Aside from that, Kyoto was not an experiment but a set of guide lines. The US and several other countries rejected those guidelines as detrimental to their economic prosperity.

Money over nature. It's as simple as that.

The way I see it (which you have disagreed with before) is industry is asking for permission to pollute and trying to create public fear with predictions of economic and material wealth upheavals if they are not allowed to do what they want. The question of long term sustainability for current production methods are never discussed... the question of what the world's environment may be for our children is downplayed. In this respect I find frightening parallels between pretending pollution is not a problem with the long term solutions various politicians come up with for the US national debt and spending without paying for it. My view? Our culture (the US mostly, but other countries as well) has decided that current problems will be solved by future solutions the same way that a cancer patient decides that ignoring the cancer or freezing himself is a more viable solution to dealing with disease rather than quitting smoking.

I do agree with trying experiments such as these. Heck, I've argued that the US should lead the world in developing more eco-friendly industrial production methods and sell them to the developing world. I could see our economic future based on our leading the way... but the reality of today is that the problem to begin with is pollution. We make it and we control it. I could care less about global warming and man's part because that is really a political debate since we can't agree which scientists to believe. We know we pollute but the question is are we willing to stop polluting? So far, the answer has been "no".

I say lets take the leading industry champions and the leading greenies, give each of them knives, and lock them in an empty shipping container for 24 hours. Whoever comes out alive wins. Thats about as logical as the whole debate has been so far.

I'm still curious about the Galapagos Islands putting out iron in the ocean. Anyone know how that works?

the islands are volcanic so i guess the the run off and erosion would be iron rich?

.,

It is no more an artificial construction than mathematics is. Theories are proposed and tested. Predictions are made. Behaviour is observed and measured.

Economics provides the tools to assist in making good decisions. One of those tools is cost-benefit analysis which is used by most people and most institutions daily to guide their activities.

There is also no simple money over nature trade-off being made in environmental policy. The environmental lobby has not demonstrated, among other things, damage to the environment which is caused by, or could be altered by, human behaviour. Failing to supply facts, the environmental lobby falls back on propagating scare stories. This type of scare tactic has been around for a very long time. If we don't take some drastic measure to curb freedom, the sky will fall. Before the environment, it was population that was going to do us in.

Thankfully, the American people are pretty good at ignoring scare stories.

that if we drill in Alaska, every animal won't fall over and die?

In the interest of accuracy... who suggested that would happen to begin with? Or are you exaggerating just a leeeetle bit?

?Illustrating absurdity with absurdity?

Yeah, I got an A in my economics class, thank you.

Just because the laws governing mathematics, probabilities, statistics, cost-benefit analysis, etc. work in analyzing economic trends does not make it any less an artificial construction invented by man. The "economy" is a construction of humanity just as the concept of money is as well. The "economy" would not exist if man did not exist. Do you deny this?

Now, is the idea of the economy important to man? Yes, yes it is. I never denied that. However, the fundamental goal of the good decision making you mentioned is simply to achieve the maxim production and exchange of products, services, and money.

I'm not being a smart *** here... but economics and the economy are indeed an artificial construction of man kind.

The environmental lobby has not demonstrated, among other things, damage to the environment which is caused by, or could be altered by, human behavior.

Do you stand by this statement or would you like to throw in a couple of qualifiers here? Otherwise, I would have to say that there is huge and very quantifiable amounts of proof that man has damaged the environment whether it be the local strip mine down the road to Chernobyl, Russia. My original post was talking about pollution.

As such, I stand by my original statement that the whole discussion can be simplified down to money versus nature. We manipulate the planet for our own benefit but argue over how much money we are willing to spend in order to lesson the pollution we produce in our day to day activities.

I don't understand why we can't accept this without complicating it. Does it embarrass us to say it's my air conditioning or the ozone,or are we afraid god is looking and going to be mad at us?

anything you didn't get an "A" in?

My latest degree from this past may, 2007? I graduated with a 4.0.

Thanks for asking... I don't get to mention it too often.

your BA was a 4.0. That should have made your answer everything"

Getting personal... trying to assign me an attitude I don't have. The only person you're making look bad is yourself.

It's a conversation on line, an exchange of ideas and opinions so quit trying to make a federal case out of it.

A long time ago, a college professor summed it up for me when he said: Man has unlimited wants. He has limited means to satisfy these wants. The result of this we call economics.

Of course they are! However, they describe what we see happening in the real world around us. Economics is artificial in the same sense, and it also describes what is happening in the real world around us.

It is ludicrous to ask what the state of economics would be if we did not exist. We do, and we have real behaviour. Is medicine or psychiatry something we've simply made up? Artificial constructs? They would have no meaning without the presence of humanity either.

I suggest something beyond Econ 100 before entering a debate on Economics. I received A's in my Econ courses also. Since I've had several such courses, that must make me more of an expert than you are (that's your logic, not mine). I suggest you've even got the main goal of good decision making wrong, but that's a diversion.

I didn't say there hasn't been any damage. I did say that it can't be altered by human activity. Chernobyl is a done deal. We can't change it. Once we understand the risk, we can alter our decisions. We cannot sit on the sidelines immobilized worrying that some action might have unforeseen consequences.

What's air conditioning got to do with ozone? Allegedly harmful chemicals are no longer used, and air conditioning saves countless lives. No one need be embarrassed by using it unless they are Ludites who do fear destruction from some unknown source, but can't quite explain what that source is.

And your welcome to it.

industry is asking for permission to pollute and trying to create public fear with predictions of economic and material wealth upheavals

Complete lefty cliche nonsense. If you think there are no real, adverse economic consequences to "green" fanaticism then there is no point at all discussing it with you.

can't we all just stop polluting, all will be well !!!!!!

I post an answer to a question and POOF! it's gone.

Surely it didn't violate the TOS.

... to Three Mile Island in response to your comment about the boogie man (pardon me... greenie leftists rebels) caused the Nuclear power industry to disappear from US shores. Where your and my posts went? No one knows.

I have to say, as I watch you and DM take turns... I am reminded of a comment you made about such patterns not too long ago.




Are you admitting...
by EdH - 6/23/07 9:22 AM
In reply to: Won't make a difference JP by grimgraphix
as Bill did, that you are baiting? Seems to me that the two of you are employing "pack" behavior. Don't break your arms high-fiving each other.






Are you admitting that this, along with...
by grimgraphix - 6/23/07 9:32 AM
In reply to: Are you admitting... by EdH
... all similar behavior, no matter who does it... is baiting?




Handsome is...




I'm busy tonight so don't knock yourself out posting. I'm putting the toilet back after pulling it up yesterday to replace the floor tile in the upstairs bathroom so I will be elbow deep in fecal matter. I know... what else is new.

Ciao