I regards to your meat article and the methane from cows, burning methane produces less carbon dioxide compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, and the techonology to exctract it from cow manure already exsist, so there is no reason to stop eating meat we just have to process the methane from the cows and use it to generate electricity wich brings me to your first question, even if enviromentalism is a political movement how can it be bad to promote greener and cleaner energy????
It's not bad at all, that's why I began by saying "I'm 100% pro efficiency". I just used a random article out of Drudge to begin this thread and probe your minds. In the specific case of bovine methane (I remember this idea but for humans in a Dilbert strip. He granted the tubes might be a lil unconfortable) I felt like it was more of a fad story than a science one. For instance I believe that in India they've been using cow fart for decades to cook. They just carry the manure to a big hole with a tap, and wait for the gas to emanate and lift the cap, then you've got methane on one side, and solid fertilizer on the bottom.
There're many ideas for clean fuel, my favorite is OTEC, w
hich's been around for a long time as well. And even that guy Lovejoy who came up with the Gtheaia Living Earth concept stated that Nuclear Energy was mankind's only chance.
My point is that there seems to be a breach between science+technology and a new religion+political movement.
But it goes further: There's a lot of talk 'bout "good" and "bad" science. Well how can that be?
Well a similar thing happened from the late XIXc to the late XXc and it revolved around Economics: On one majority side, people tried to make a hard science of it and pretended to control it: In America through a crippling beaurocracy and in Germany and Russia through outright Dictates. Remember most of those who enacted those controls were NOT Economists. On the other side a minority of Economists (the Austrian School and specifically Ludwig von Mises) came to the conclusion that their discipline was not exactly a science. Mises used the neologism "Praxeology
", the study of practice. He considered that every little "Human Action
" could not be counted, predicted, or directed but through spontaneous organization.
It's not surprising that it was that disenfranchised minority that History would prove right -
Now I contend that Meteorology or other Earth Sciences are facing a similar treatment. Again, it's not the scientists, but the politicians and activists that (ab)use them.
Or in XXc terms: It was not Genius Keynes who stiffled, starved and killed millions; it was Adolf, Attlee, and Stalin.