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?"
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 :-)