>The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view. I want to know how many of those emissions are from superfluous javascript, ads, and tracking.
should be easy to calculate if you measure the full site size vs plaintext content.
Size isn't everything. How should 100kb of PNG compare with 100kb of JS? How about 100 bytes of JS that loop endlessly? What about 10kb of text that ultimately convince you to buy solar panels, or a boat, or anything else?
These environmentalists come off as quite selfish if I might say so. They take public land who belongs to all and redevelop it into their "dream" whatever it may be, and they do not care at all how it impact other people who previously used that public land or people who live nearby.
I am not a big fan of these rewilding policies. There are only a few open spaces left where one could previously take a relaxing hike (in Germany). I do not want to have to worry about wolves and bears and bison when I go for a hike in these places.
I really don't see how the benefits outweigh the costs.
Most people live in cities, which makes them think of wolves as a cute, awesome, protect-at-all-cost animal with no downsides. The farmers are in the minority, which means the problem has to become pretty bad to get the majority of the public on their side.
Wolves will eat your children if they feel bold enough, it's not just about livestock. There's a reason they feature so prominently in folklore.
So will people. And they too have their place in folklore:
Compare it with 1,494 child homicides in the United States alone just in 2008 and decide for yourself which species is a bigger threat to your children.
These environmentalists come off as quite selfish if I might say so. They take public land who belongs to all and redevelop it into their "dream" whatever it may be, and they do not care at all how it impact other people who previously used that public land or people who live nearby. I am not a big fan of these rewilding policies. There are only a few open spaces left where one could previously take a relaxing hike (…
Sorry, but if you are worried about wolves, bears and bison while hiking in Germany that's your fault for worrying about something that basically poses no risk to you.
If this interests you, I strongly recommend watching Seven Worlds, One Planet episode 5 [0], which features grey wolves hunting in a village in Italy at night [1], filmed with thermal cameras. It is pretty incredible.
If interested in the Earth before humans exploded onto the scene, I recommend The Once and Future Earth by JB MacKinnon. http://www.jbmackinnon.com/books.html I had no idea what we'd lost -- about 90%. North America had more large animals than Africa. Sailing ships in the middle of the Atlantic would grind to a halt from the density of fish. Whales as far as the eye could see all day. Beautifully written.
Sorry, ships would grind to a halt? I find it very difficult to imagine the physics that would make that possible as opposed to the fish simply shifting apart, and I googled for a while and was not able to find any corroboration. Do you have some links on that?
I believe its probably like this quote:
> and around 1600 English fishing captains still reported cod shoals
"so thick by the shore that we hardly have been able to row a boat through them."
The article mentions the need for "habitat corridors" so wild animals can move "freely" to find new mating/hunting grounds. Apparently, Poland has relatively well developed network of corridors across the entire country:
http://mapa.korytarze.pl/index_en.html
European (especially British) "rewilding" "politics" is still in pretty early stages of maturity. Some of the language in this article is kind of demonstrative of this. "* This method of conservation aims to let large areas of land return to wilderness – in other words, a state of zero human intervention.*" This is quite clearly hopelessly idealistic. Robust ecosystems that sustain macrofauna are achievable (and nece…
Most people live in cities, which makes them think of wolves as a cute, awesome, protect-at-all-cost animal with no downsides. The farmers are in the minority, which means the problem has to become pretty bad to get the majority of the public on their side.
The majority of the public might not be enough in a democracy, depending on the political structure. A passionate and engaged minority can stop something that a majority passively approves of, plus there are issues of regional control that might make it difficult for an urban majority to dictate policy in rural areas.
>The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view. I want to know how many of those emissions are from superfluous javascript, ads, and tracking.
Some time back there was an article posted here about those calculations, and the majority of those emissions accounted not for the serving part but for running the reader's device while they read it. I hate the javascript deluge as much as the next guy but probably the most energy is spent in keeping the screen on.
These environmentalists come off as quite selfish if I might say so. They take public land who belongs to all and redevelop it into their "dream" whatever it may be, and they do not care at all how it impact other people who previously used that public land or people who live nearby. I am not a big fan of these rewilding policies. There are only a few open spaces left where one could previously take a relaxing hike (…
You don't have to worry about them. We have bears over much of the US (brown bears/grizzlies in the West, black bears in the East). It's not a big deal. Keep the dog on leash in areas with bear activity. Put food in a canister overnight. That's pretty much it.