Reading this article at Coyote Blog got me to thinking…
I’ve been skeptical of man-made global warming in large part because of the convenient way the suggested responses match up with the usual solutions offered for whatever the ill of the day may be. (More regulation, less freedom, less affluence, less choice…) It looks like a solution in search of a problem.
Well, I should be able to play that game too.
Since, from this tiny piece of anecdotal evidence (as posted at Coyote Blog), it’s clear that global warming is indeed man made, and furthermore is a direct result of urban heat island effects, I propose we strike right at the source of the problem…
More specifically I suggest that we use whatever invasive global regulatory regimen is being constructed to limit carbon dioxide emissions, to instead limit population densities. No more high population densities, no more urban heat islands, no more global warming.
I think 2000 square feet per person should be a good number, that gives us 21 people per acre. It might sound like a lot if you imagine sharing a 2000 square foot house with a couple of friends or family members, but remember this number has to include each person’s share of lawn, street, sidewalk, power line right of way, etc. It should come out to about 14,000 people per square mile, or 5000 per square kilometer. (Somebody correct me if my math is wrong…) It would be important to maintain granularity in the measurements, down to the square mile or kilometer, or even smaller, to prevent some sweltering slum somewhere from annexing a portion of Antarctica as an "offset". The problem being one of concentration after all.
Well, that’s what I think anyway… But I won’t be holding my (carbon dioxide containing) breath…
Here’s a link where, in the US at least, you can see how your neighborhood compares.-- Ringo
|Pre-Owned Macintosh Computers, Parts, & Service
iMac G4s & G5s
10% off on all PPC imacs in stock during February.