Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts

"Could beetles, dragonfly larvae and water bug caviar be the meat of the future?"

"As the global population booms and demand strains the world's supply of meat, there's a growing need for alternate animal proteins. Insects are high in protein, B vitamins and minerals like iron and zinc, and they're low in fat. Insects are easier to raise than livestock, and they produce less waste. Insects are abundant. Of all the known animal species, 80% walk on six legs; over 1,000 edible species have been identified. And the taste? It's often described as 'nutty.'"

Nutty, indeed!

One thing about insects for food — beyond the benefits cited in the article — is you don't have to bone them. Instead of bones, they have an exoskeleton, and you know how we humans love crunchy outer shells on our food.
Insect outer skeleton, the cuticle, is made up of two layers: the epicuticle, which is a thin and waxy water resistant outer layer and contains no chitin, and a lower layer called the procuticle. The procuticle is chitinous and much thicker than the epicuticle and has two layers: an outer layer known as the exocuticle and an inner layer known as the endocuticle. The tough and flexible endocuticle is built from numerous layers of fibrous chitin and proteins, criss-crossing each others in a sandwich pattern....
Sandwich! Mmmm.... sandwich....

Why, oh, why did the "green" roof collapse? You'd think it would have been "sustainable."

Isn't nature sympathetic to our efforts to be good people?
A 700-by-50 foot section of a roof over a parking area buckled on Feb. 13 at a garden pond construction and supply company in St. Charles, Ill., west of Chicago. No one was injured in the collapse, which occurred on a Sunday afternoon when few people were working at the company, Aquascape Inc.

Nearly a week later, investigators were still waiting to try to determine why the roof collapsed,  said Ed Beaulieu, a company vice president...

“The collapse happened right at the beginning of the thaw,” he said, leading to speculation that ice on the roof might have prevented meltwater from draining off. “But right now no one really knows.”
If you don't know the answer to a question like that, you shouldn't be putting tons of water absorbing dirt on top of a gigantic roof.

"Just remember, amid all these new calls for civility, no one on the left thought this ad was over the top — even though it advocated murdering global warming skeptics."



Bryan Preston (via Instapundit).

I remember a lot of criticism of that ad though, and I'm skeptical of the assertion that "no one on the left thought this ad was over the top." Anyone who liked the ad, I assume, would say that because it's so exaggerated, everyone understands that it's a joke. If that's true, then it's wrong to assert that it "advocated murdering" anybody. But I think some people on the left did criticize it:
[The ad] elicited a furious reaction from some environmentalists. Bill McKibben of 350.org felt moved to write on the popular Climate Progress blog that the film was "noxious":
The climate skeptics can crow. It's the kind of stupidity that hurts our side, reinforcing in people's minds a series of preconceived notions, not the least of which is that we're out-of-control and out of touch — not to mention off the wall, and also with completely misplaced sense of humor.
Under a blogpost titled 'That 10:10 video... not in my name', Rob Hopkins of the Transition Town movement for more sustainble communities, wrote:
I have to say I am shocked, and appalled by this, and I'm on their side!...
More at the link.
Nevertheless, it's still fair to say that there are a lot of extreme and uncivil graphic depictions and statements that come from the left. The existence of that ad shows that it was believed — by people with the resources to make a very high-quality short film — that they could reach the general public with communication like that. I don't think a right-wing group with a serious intention to reach ordinary people would concoct such a thing.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. I don't like to see the power of violence exploited to sell political messages, but it is an easy way to get people's attention. That ad became viral — and I'm carrying the virus now — because it was so extreme. At some point, extremism backfires, but it's natural for the manufacturers of advertising to push it as far as they can.

What are the other ways to get our attention? Sex? It's hard to get that just right in a political setting. You'll irritate too many women before you do anything interesting. So, you can see why they go for violence. It's a psychological button just waiting to be pushed, and they've got to push something.

Try making ads that sell candidates or policies using the "civility" theme. I mean... try convincing your political opponents that they ought to try to sell their candidates and policies using the "civility" theme.

About that Christmas tree.

I said it's okay — and green enough — to get an artificial Christmas tree. Then Professor Yin came in with some scary stuff about lead, and Professor Bainbridge says don't get a tree at all, and don't even get presents — give it all to charity.

What's the best solution to the Christmas tree problem?
A real tree, a cut tree. Follow tradition!
A nice new artificial tree. The lead problem is solved, right?
Some sort of potted tree, that you reuse or replant or something.
No tree at all!
  
pollcode.com free polls

The rent-a-Christmas-tree business.

A live, potted tree is delivered to your house and, later, removed, to be kept, potted, on a lot, and tagged with your name, so you can be sure to get the same tree year after year.

We're told this arrangement appeals to "eco-minded consumers seek a natural tree without the possible guilt of dumping it curbside later." But — hello! — trucks have to drive around delivering and picking up these things, and growing them and preserving them in pots takes some doing. Possible guilt. What nonsense! Why not buy a cut tree and have it ground up into mulch in the end?

But "eco-minded consumers" are people with money to spend on their own good feelings about themselves. It doesn't matter what's really "green," only what they think is green. These people pay $100 a year for the scrawny tree. And how does said tree feel? Permanently pot-bound.

Here's a clue: Buy a nice artificial tree. It's totally eco-friendly, in an honest and non-self-indulgent way. You'll save hours of trouble every year. I wouldn't have done this myself. I thought you had to buy a real tree. Oh, the many years when I put up the real tree — often by myself, which is not easy — and once I got a husband who could help me, he — my horticulturist husband — pushed me into getting an artificial tree!

You can have your possible guilt. I've got my possible irony.

The Supreme Court takes a global warming case....

... with Justice Sonia Sotomayor recusing herself. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut involves the use of a common law theory of nuisance:
[Five companies] that were claimed to be the largest sources of greenhouse gases — four electric power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority — were sued by eight states, New York City, and three land conservation groups...

Calling the potential impact of the nuisance theory “staggering,” the companies’ petition said that virtually every entity and industry in the world can be found to be partly responsible for some emissions of carbon dioxide, so they are potentially liable to be sued in climate changed nuisance lawsuits.
When it comes to carbon dioxide, we're all a damned nuisance.

"How Bad Are Bananas?"

"The Carbon Footprint of Everything."

Oh, the carbon footprint... What a diverse range of possibilities ran through my head when I saw the question "How Bad Are Bananas?" And how dreary the reality: The carbon footprint. Of everything.

U.S. Treasury unfair to Thomas Jefferson.



ADDED: I finally got an in-sync video to embed. Watching it, I see I called Andrew Jackson "Alexander Hamilton." I do know the difference!

AND: I said "Pocahontas" for Sacajawea. This post, originally intended as an amusing trifle, turned into a big snafu.

Obama's post-election escape to Mumbai: "Obama’s contingent is huge. There are two jumbo jets coming along with Air Force One, which will be flanked by security jets."

"There will be 30 to 40 secret service agents, who will arrive before him. The President’s convoy has 45 cars, including the Lincoln Continental in which the President travels."

Can someone do a quick calculation of the carbon footprint? And please — everyone join in — explain why behavior like this shouldn't make global warming skeptics out of us all. If the emergency were really what it's claimed to be when we little people are urged to drive tin-can cars, no moral leader would travel this way. As it is, I can't understand why Obama and his group are willing to look like such hypocrites.
To ensure fool-proof security, the President’s team has booked the entire the Taj Mahal Hotel, including 570 rooms, all banquets and restaurants. Since his security contingent and staff will comprise a huge number, 125 rooms at Taj President have also been booked, apart from 80 to 90 rooms each in Grand Hyatt and The Oberoi hotels. The NCPA, where the President is expected to meet representatives from the business community, has also been entirely booked. 
"Fool-proof" — "fool" is a fabulous euphemism, considering that the Taj Mahal Hotel was the scene of a horrific terrorist attack 2 years ago.

"My friends, don't ever try to hug a polar bear."

"You will die."
A polar bear will rip your head off. If a polar bear shows up in your driveway, run for the hills -- or don't leave your house. Do not go out there and let it hug you. Headline: "Polar Bear Attacks Woman in Berlin Zoo -- April 11, 2009. A polar bear attacked a woman in Berlin Zoo Friday afternoon after she climbed a fence and jumped into its habitat during feeding time." She wanted to show the polar bear that she felt sorry for it, that she understood and supported efforts to make its habitat safer. 
Nissan is making the world unsafe for people who take things literally.



You decide:
It's delightful, charming, well-made.
It's dangerously stupid.
A bit piano-tinklingly sentimental, but okay.
  
pollcode.com free polls

The war against swimming pools?

Signs:

1. "If we are going to pour such a carbon intensive material into the ground doesn't it make environmental sense to reserve it for public pools that we can all use?"

2. "[S]ubstances form in pool water from reactions between disinfectants such as chlorine and organic matter that is present naturally in the water or is introduced by swimmers from sweat, skin cells and urine. Long-term exposure to the substances has been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer...."

3. ???!!!

"Red meat, white meat, blue meat, meat-o-f**king-rama. You will eat it. Because not eating meat is a decision."

"Eating meat is an instinct! Yeah! And I know what it’s about. 'I don’t want to eat the meat because I love the animals. I love the animals.' Hey, I love the animals too. I love my doggy. He’s so cute. My fluffy little dog... He’s so cute — There’s the problem. We only want to save the cute animals, don’t we? Yeah. Why don’t we just have animal auditions. Line ‘em up one by one and interview them individually. 'What are you?' 'I’m an otter.' 'And what do you do?' 'I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands.' 'You’re free to go.' 'And what are you?' 'I’m a cow.' 'Get in the f**king truck, ok pal!' 'But I’m an animal.' 'You’re a baseball glove! Get on that truck!'"

Denis Leary, quoted a propos of the James Lee, the now-dead manifesto guy.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...