Slashdot Mirror
Undersea Deposits of Frozen Methane Found
geoswan writes "The CBC is running a story about large deposits of
Frozen methane off the
coast of Vancouver Island .
The deposits may be 850 meters deep. The story doesn't say how the methane came to be a
solid. Pressure? The story doesn't address what technology could be used to mine these deposits,
if the decision is made to develop these resources. The CBC showed pictures taken of the methane
hydrate. Sure enough, it looked like a big snowbank. It is an environmentally sensitive area. So, how about it, should it be exploited?"
Remember that scene in the movie "Paint Your Wagon" where, during a funeral service at a burial site in the Old West, gold was discovered at the bottom of the 6' hole? I vividly remember people jumping in with shovels and the corpse (wrapped in a sail) flying out. I thought that was pretty funny then. I still do. I think the chances of that area remaining pristine are directly and inversely proportional to the amount of money to be made from that deposit.
To seque a little, how should (or can ) one decide objectively/mathimatically between short-term and long-term benefits?
"Nothing to see here. Just keep on consuming. Nothing to worry about."
Idiot. Even if there is a small chance of a environmental catastrophe, strong action must be taken to preempt the threat.
Why is it that people are talking about how the unspecific "threat" of Saddam's (most likely non-existent) weapons of mass destruction warrants a bloody invasion of a sovereign country, but the far more credible threat of Global Warming can safely be ignored?
I guess because it is easier to lash out at a "Foriegn Power" than it is to curb the bad behavior of the people who elected you and the corporations that bought your soul.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
The leading cause of death on the planet today is good ol' malaria. Mosquito control with DDT could solve that problem - and no, it wouldn't require spraying massive amounts of tens of millions of pounds on food crops, just a few hundred thousand pounds a year.
"B-b-b-ut DDT is bad! The enviros said so!" - really? The evidence for that is highly questionable.
DDT also help with another up-and-coming disease, too.
> In my opinion listening to the environmentalists causes no harm; but if they are right we're fucked. So whether or not I agree with them or with you - I'm going to modify my behaviour based on what they tell me. I'll buy a more efficient car, I'll steer clear of GM foods, and I'll try to avoid creating vast quantities of waste. And where I can I'll also support them in their efforts.
Dude - WTF kind of logic is that? Believing the earth is flat is also harmless. (And if the earth is flat, we're fucked because someday someone's gonna sail off the edge! ) So even if I don't agree with flat-earthers, I'll avoid cruise ships and support the flat-earthers in their efforts.
How about trying something revolutionary, like the idea that "the d00d who makes the statement has the burden of proof". If the enviros make a claim, it's up to them to prove their case to you.
If, after listening to their argument, you still agree with them, modify your behavior. But if you don't agree with them, don't modify your behavior.
Avoiding GM foods because there's no harm there? You mean, like rice that could provide folks with beta-carotene and vitamin A, preventing millions of cases of blindness and about two million deaths every year? Yeah, no harm there.
Now I dig that we might not need the carotene-advanced rice, and as such, we're quite free to stick with regular rice if we so choose. But to support the environmentalist agenda to deny everyone access to this technology is going too far. So I choose to support GM foods (and most genetic engineering in general), and I'll eat the GM foods if they taste good.
And sometimes the enviro arguments do make sense. F'rinstance, I choose efficient cars because, umm, well, they're more efficient. Unless I'm hauling freight (which I ain't), I'm interested in getting from "A" to "B" in a reasonable timeframe, preferably with a minimum of expense. Hmm, the econobox costs $10K and $0.10 per mile, and the SUV costs $30K and $0.20 per mile, and the hybrid $20K and $0.05 per mile.
If I expect to keep a car for 10 years and I drive 5000 miles a year, I buy the $10K car. (I could save $2500 by spending an extra $10000 for the hybrid, losing $7500 - almost enough to buy another car!) If I drive 20000 miles per year, I save $7500 out of $10000 and hybrid starts to look pretty good - assuming I can get 10 years out of the batteries. The SUV sux azz and isn't in contention for me. But even though I think they're a poor choice, I wouldn't deny someone else the right to buy one. They may simply have different transportation needs than I do.
> And when the oil runs out and you're left with a rusting pile of useless metal on your drive remember to blame the government because "they should have done something".
Long before the oil runs out, it'll run low. Supply and demand will increase the price of oil. When it's $0.50 per mile for the shitbox, $2.00 per mile for the SUV, and still $0.05 per mile for the electric vehicle, everyone will have an incentive to switch. (...well, assuming we have nuclear power, which is the only way we'll be able to generate enough electricity to power all the cars when the internal combustion engine dies.
(Or would you prefer to burn more coal or natural gas - same amount of CO2 released - to get the electric current to recharge the batteries... or to electrolyze the water for the hydrogen in the fuel cells? Don't forget, you didn't mine the methane hydrates in the eco-sensitive offshore shallows, and you also helped the enviros ban genetic engineering, so you can't grow acres of sugar cane in the desert for ethanol, or genetically-engineer a batch of superbugs to crack water :-)
"In my opinion listening to the environmentalists causes no harm; but if they are right we're fucked."
No, We're not fucked. We will adapt. Things will be different, but there is nothing in the models, even the worst case scenarious, that destroys our civilization. We will have to move as the coast lines alter. We will have wars over shifitng agricultural lands, people and animals will move in vast numbers to other parts of the globe, but ultimately we and most of the life on the planet will survive and thrive.
What is threatened is the current geo-political structure of the world. What would be the ramifications of the Sahara desert becomming fertile land again while the US and Europe are covered in Ice? Furthermore, rising global temperatures have been followed by an ICE AGE almost every time. (National Geographic, forget which issue) We are not talking about a rock falling from the sky and wiping life out down to the microbes. We're talking about burying Canada and the northern US in ICE and making other parts of the world have different coast lines. Some winners some losers, but to ASSUME that we can do much about it is to ASSUME that the world weather wasn't going to heat up anyway. We've not deviated from the range of previously measured global temperatures, yet. (IF we all suddenly quit poluting today, would the rising temperature continue? For CErtain? How about statistically certain, 95% sure? I've not gotten consistent odds out of the global weather folks.)
There must be a rational risk assessment here; not conjecture and conflicting models. What we have now are warnings from scientist who want funding to continue arguably valuable research. But to make lasting and lingering decisions based upon incomplete models is risky. The only thing that is clear in the conflict is that WE really DON'T know what is going to happen to the climate in the future. We've asked at lot of the guys doing the research--long term climate modeling is hard, and we've not got measuring devices in all of the needed spots, the currents in the oceans are not all well understood. The climate is a large, non-linear, poorly understood system, so if you're off a little, the results can be drastically different. Therefore, making policy decisions one way or the other is not much better than rolling dice.
"...listening to the environmentalists causes no harm..."
Which environmentalists do you listen to? Many different groups each with their own subset of extremists. Each has a different and often conflicting demands. Can't satisfy them all, so who's right?
Stear clear of GM foods? Not much biology in your background is there? Humans have been modifying animals and plants for agricultural reasons for centuries. It was originally call breeding. Now we use better and more reliable techniques. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. You don't trust the scientists who've produced the GM foods and the piles of technology that you use EVERY day, but you will trust the other scientists who tell you that it's all bad for you? HAve you been immunized? You've had GM modifications to microbes that have been directly injected into your body. Know any diabetics taking insulin shots? GM technology. Scared of the pesticides on food? Read about what nasty surprises mother natures has given plants; where do you think most of our poisons have come from? Humans are at BEST poor imitators of mother nature's chemical works. GM modifications that arrise naturally can be terrifying (AIDS?). But at least in human made GM we have a good idea of the very structure of the molecules and are in a much better position to do something if GM begins to cause harm. Unlike nature's surprises which take decades to understand, if we every understands them.
So lets ask the really important question: Can we have our high technology and a clean, functioning environment? Sure. But we've got to be reasonable about it. And remember, that most of the environmental organizations have a POLITCAL agenda...which sometimes gets in the way of solving the polution problems that we have.
The blanket statement that environmentalist cause no harm is untrue. In the city where I live, there was an outcry about a chemical plant expansion from several environmental groups. Bad. Bad. But, looking at the actual documents the company filed with the regulators, they were asking for permission to increase the production of a far safer and more enviromentally friendly process while reducing their polution output overall. Net effect of expansion was a reduction in total polutants and a reduction in some of the worst cases. Yet, the Evirolobby fought this tooth and nail. Listening to the environmental people without looking at both sides of the issue and decide for yourself is stupid.
It is possible to have a completely self contained system that recycles everything but energy. Look at our planetary environment. We've got a lot to learn.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons