Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Contribute to Greenhouse Gas Emissions
dus writes "Many of the 10,000 scientists attending this week's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) study climate change. Collecting them all in San Francisco undoubtedly increases our understanding of global warming, but it releases more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, pointed out one of this year's delegates."
SARS researchers contribute to the SARS epidemic
"Contribute to Greenhouse Gas Emissions"
One scientist flatly denied emitting greenhouse gasses, suggesting that maybe the dog did it.
"Derp de derp."
Ya gotta breathe somewhere..
Other scientists are lobbying for increased virtual conferencing.
I would have preferred that the scientists lobby for increased funding in virtual conferencing technlogies instead. I have yet to be part of a videoconference that could hold a candle to face-to-face meetings. No, I don't work in sales: I'm a scientist. I just feel that you lose an awful lot when you try to replace a meeting with a virtual one. A lot of the excited interchange that occurs in a face-to-face meething becomes a jumbled "who said that?" or "wait, did someone say something?" puzzle. I think the idea of virtual conferencing is a nice idea but still needs a lot more work before we can expect widespread adoption from scientists or businessmen. And that requires money.
The rewards of a well-developed virtual conferencing technology would go far beyond environmental concerns. By not having to spend so much time enroute to the destination (or back to your home), standing in airports, etc., people could gain back some of those "lost hours" that invariable occur during business travel. Not to mention it would save a lot of us the stress and hastle of breaking up our normal routine and enduring the growing hell of airport quagmire.
GMD
watch this
well hell, we should just kill all scientists. i mean, they all contribute to most environmental problems in one way or another. they put out waste, drive cars, live in buildings, use computer which were manufactured with very dangerous methods, etc etc.
they must pay for their crimes!
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
While at the conference, be sure to attend:
ExxonMobil Morning Mixer for Students: Wednesday, 10 December, Yerba Buena Ballroom Salon 9, San Francisco Marriott, 6:30-8:00 A.M
A complimentary breakfast will be held in honor of all graduate and undergraduate students registered for the meeting. Students will have the opportunity to hear an overview of AGU programs that serve its student members, meet with AGU leadership and representatives from ExxonMobil, and network with other students and future colleagues attending the meeting.
(don't believe me?)
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
...if we just started mulching our hippies.
This type of ironic "look who is polluting" statement brings up the issue of how to allocate scare resources on a global basis . In this case we are assuming that the scientists' right to emit greenhouse gases (primarily C02 from all the airplane flights and maybe methane from the cows that went into the steak dinners) is a scarce resource. Personally, I argue for a market solution, such asgreenhousegas emissions credits, that let people or organizations with the most economically valuable applications of CO2/methane production to prevail.
The notion of any government agency ajudicating this allocation decision is appalling to me because the history of goverment is the history of undue influence by special interests. Whether that influence is the oil industry in the current U.S. government, the tyranny of the majority in all democracies, the king's cousin in an aristocracy, trade unions in communist countries, friends in high places, or Japanese farmers, I would argue that every government is subject to unfair, subjective, corruptible political influences.
By contrast I would argue that money, as evil as it seems, is purest way of "keeping score" of what a society values. Perhaps it is the fact that money is so much harder to create than the usual social-network forms of political influence that makes so many people abhor it so much.
With regard to scientists polluting to get to a conference, the price of getting to that conference should reflect the value of all the other activities that must be forgone on CO2 emissions limits. Thus, the scientists should "buy" the right to pollute from people who would sell their right to pollute. If too many other people have more valuable applications that emit CO2, then the scientists would give up their right to meet (more likely their right to fly in an airplane).
Publically traded greenhouse gas emissions credits may not be a perfect way to allocate this scarce resource, but it is better than all the other ways.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
These guys don't breathe (etc) when they are at home.
Slashdot: News from Tabloids, stuff that ignorant fools care about.
Please, a little thought here. The results from that meeting could decrease pollution by hundreds or millions of tons per year... They are not hippies arguing wether it is OK to eat an apple you got off a tree, or you have to wait until it falls, or else you'll disturb the fragile balance of nature.
Did you check the link? You think that's a tabloid?!
Oh, I forgot, there's a more reliable source for scienctific news - slashdot comments.
But I think people would take your confession on the part of Exxon more seriously were you to sign with your name, job title, and an address at exxon where you can actually be reached.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Teleconference...
- all of the formal presentation / sessions -and-
- as many informal BoF's as people may wish
to conduct, in groups or person to person
I'd suggest:
If / when scientists (and / or managers)
begin to utilise such systems...
We'll all be much closer to being able
to use them, ourselves.
Does that number take into the account the amount of hot air the delegate might spew out
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I was at the AGU - it's an extremely broad-ranging conference covering geophysics of all sorts and space and solar physics...
I'm in the space and solar side so we spend our time launching things into space with sodding great rockets. That can't the greenhouse problem much either.
These scientists... look, people in their class take jets at least two times a year up to twice a week. Sorry, but they aren't average americans, they are from a much smaller percentile class.
Meanwhile, I a fellow human don't take jets ever. I am making up for one scientist's transgression. There are enough like me to cover their little trist so fine. I support their conference, though I agree it could be tried by telepresence next time.
What I don't support is anybody using any excuse to peddel communism on me. Even if it's 'green', I don't agree to any method of allocating me rights I haven't earned fairly, or disallocating me any rights that I have.
This junk about the 'common good' is misleading, nobody in history has ever even proved that the common good exists. For that matter, the pre-existance of society is an inflicted myth. You make society in any given moment, not in the past. In other words, the world is what we make of it. Abstracts in the past no longer exist.
I don't like scientific myths and I don't like stupid scientists wasting grants to ritually gather. And I don't like bad math propaganda, and I don't like shock science. And I also don't like conferences, the idea itself is wasteful which is what they are actually battling, whether they realize it or not.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Yes, they are responsible for releasing carbon dioxide in their trips to get to the conference - just as we're responsible for releasing tons of CO2 every day. My response is: so what? This group of scientists is working together to effect global change, which will hopefully result in millions of tonnes of CO2 less, and will prevent catastrophic ecological consequences in the long run. If releasing a few tonnes now ultimately leads to major changes in our society, I say go for it. The long term benefits clearly outweigh the short term damage.
Pretty senseless to say gathering scientists in one spot increases their contribution to pollution. They would pollute in their respective cities anyway if they didnt travel.
Its fine to invest in gathering scientists despite their pollution for the purpose of deciding how to reduce pollution. Their solutions might be implemented on a global scale to reduce pollution on a much wider scale.
Better yet invite all scientists to arrive in San Francisco on bycicles. All those scientists losing weight will also fit more of them in the meeting room.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
we give other peoples' babies rights because we need to ensure our own babies rights so they have a better chance at surviving.
OK, what rights should be granted to pre-puberty children in order to assure the comfortable survival of Homo sapiens?
they might eat a lot of low fiber foods in San Fran as well...
who thought Greenhouse Emissions was some kind of open-source project.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
So not only do the cars they drive to get to the conference emit ozone depleting gasses, but can you imagine 10,000 scientists rabbiting on?? That's way more hot air!
I couldn't think of a sig.
this michael guy sounds like a real bastard.
Oh dear, I just contributed to Global Warming (breathe) oops, again (breathe) oops, I did it again (pun not intended (stupid Britney Spears song...))