Politicians love their Ford Escape hybrids, sure, but does that mean they have to pick a fight with those whose taste in cars runs a bit more toward the old-school? That’s been the question buzzing around various classic-car blogs ever since Diane Feinstein, Susan Collins, and Chuck Schumer introduced a bill to establish a federal “cash for clunkers” program, in which the government would offer to buy up older fuel-inefficient cars and melt them down for scrap.
Before lolcats—long before, actually—there were the Chick-fil-A cows, who took agricultural reform into their own hooves with their orthographically challenged admonitions to “EAT MOR CHIKIN.” And nowadays, hardly a week goes by without some new reminder that, from a climate perspective at least, those cows actually had it right. The latest issue of Scientific American has an article calculating that a pound of beef produces 13 times as many greenhouse-gas emissions as a pound of chicken.
Are we doomed already? It’s hard not to get that impression reading Brad’s post on the recent NOAA study suggesting that even the level of carbon dioxide currently present in the earth’s atmosphere is enough to cause droughts, melting ice caps, and ocean acidification for, oh, the next 1,000 years.
The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change divides the world into Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing) countries, with the idea being that the richer countries should be doing more to cut their emissions, since their economies are better able to absorb the cost of reductions and because they produce more emissions per capita. One problem with this division, though, is that developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases, all told, than their rich counterparts—and they're increasing their emissions at an alarming rate.