Slashdot Mirror


Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?

Lasrick writes Dawn Stover looks at unrealistic expectations and the distribution of limited energy resources: 'This is a question that should move from the fringes of the energy debate to its very heart. Economists and energy experts shy away from issues of equity and morality, but climate change and environmental justice are inseparable: It's impossible to talk intelligently about climate without discussing how to distribute limited energy resources. It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now—which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living, according to a calculation by University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. The sooner policy makers accept this reality, the sooner they can get to work on a global solution that meets everyone's needs. First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.' Not something most people even think about.

3 of 652 comments (clear)

  1. Just skimming TFA gave me cancer by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If I had read the whole thing I'd probably be dead by now.

    Lot of blathering about what's "fair". Wishing for "Climate Justice". Carbon allocation according to need (presumably at the diktat of the author and his friends). The whole thing is just so far out there on the Marxist scale, it would scare even socialists like Nancy Pelosi.

  2. Re: GOP FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Most libertarians do not deny science or climate change just like most democrats are not communists. There are plenty of intelligent atheists with science backgrounds who are libertarian as well. I wish the left would stop lying about the right, equating them all as dogmatic religious nutbags.

  3. Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    " No man was involved in the decision making process."

    A man was involved. He had a decision. So technically, you're completely incorrect. Just because he was removed from the final "decision" doesn't mean he didn't have a choice to make.

    Unless you're suggesting the lesbians took his sperm by force. Which case, they should be in jail.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.