The most pressing argument, at least from what I have seen, is how to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. Jackson's article debated whether nuclear power was the solution. I'm inclined to agree with the pro-nuclear side, as nuclear power has a pretty great track record of only 3 notable incidents, with only 2 of those being destructive, as opposed to coal, which had many notable incidents, and most of them were destructive. In addition, nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are the main reason for climate change, and as a result, this would be more climate-friendly. It's also cheaper than coal power. Dylan's article discussed whether or not eating less meat would help. I am
not inclined to agree with the pro side here, as there are several studies that show otherwise. However, there is one thing I do agree on with them: Gaseous cow emissions* should be fixed due to the high amount of methane produced when a cow unleashes them. Methane is several hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide, which means it's more of a threat than power-related carbon output. Also, the emissions* make up 51% of our greenhouse gas production. 51% of our total times several hundred equals a huge risk. To sum up: You don't look at the output of the creature's meat, you look at the output of its emissions.*
This issue does affect me personally, as I live on this planet. If something's doing damage to the planet, it is everyone's job to stop and try to reverse the damage. My personal idea for a solution is to bottle cow emissions* and use them somehow, in a way that wouldn't further damage the Earth. On the argument side, I'd say that the side with the most logical evidence and/or plan wins one hundred percent of the time.
(Preemptive apologies if my image doesn't render...)
*flatulence
No comments:
Post a Comment