We already know that they only like certain kinds of science that fit their agenda, but apparently they also pick and choose results when it comes to math. Or maybe schoolin' ain't their first priority.
In my last post, I pointed out how badly the traceless day reduced the number of people at Collins dining hall that evening. I was actually using the very numbers that the Environmental Crusaders were reporting.
I also noted that the reduction per person was about 5%, while they report a reduction of 15% (so they inflated the data by 3 times). I'm not surprised to tell you that I am right.
They say that 113 lbs. of food were leftover for 656 people the first night. If you convert this to ounces, then the average "waste per person" is 2.76 oz. They were close, reporting 2.7 oz., but I would have rounded up.
But on the second number they were way off. They report 81.6 lbs. for 501 people, which gives us an average "waste per person" of about 2.61 oz.--even though they report it to be 2.3 oz.
So this means the difference was only 1.5 oz., not 4 oz. as they said--and yes, this means the percentage jump was about 5%.
Now 5% is hardly a number to write home about, in fact it could very easily reflect natural fluctuations in how much waste people generate daily. This is why you'd need to do the experiment over many evenings to report anything of substance (and for the love of God, don't do that).
And of course, the difference could have been made up because all the people who actually wanted to eat a lot of food decided to stay away from Collins that evening.
You can't but help feel a little bit of pity for the Crusaders. The apocalypse is near, and nobody cares.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Environmentalists Can't Do Math
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe in a reader
5 comments:
Mr. O'Toole,
You may be quite correct in proving the mathematical error made by the Environmental Crusaders. If you are right, then it was wrong of the club to do this. Having talked with Emily Meinhardt about this, I know the club did not do this intentionally. But regardless, WHO CARES?
If you had even bothered to inquire, the point of the activity was hardly about the actual waste measured. Although not mentioned in your post, the activity was part of the nation-wide celebration of Earth Day (note: Non-partisan, started in 1970 under Nixon). Collecting the waste was not an empirical experiment so that the Environmental Crusaders could lament the "waste of mother nature" etc., as some around campus seem to believe. The most important part of collecting the waste and removing the trays was merely to get people to think, even if just for a moment, about how much food they consume. The problem is that the U.S. is a consuming culture where we eat vastly more per capita than anyone else (Wasting valuable resources, degrading land and water, and a large reason why 60% of us are overweight). Reducing waste is just a good first start in this campaign.
So was it a little annoying to have to actually stand up again and go get more food once you finished what was on your plate? Sure, a little. Was it a bit embarrassing to have people scrape your waste? I for one certainly was. But this was exactly it. Was it really too hard to actually go back 30 feet for more when you really needed it (ensuring no waste and reduced consumption)?
Please don't distort and distract from the real intention and success of Earth Day, simply because of inconvenience. I know as a libertarian/conservative you all love your freedom to do and eat as much as you want. Shoot, I'm liberal and of course love that freedom too. But the tragedy of the commons is an accurate analogy; care-free consuming is seriously harming the overcrowded world we depend on. You say "The apocalypse is near, and nobody cares" with sarcasm. And sure, in reality even climate change is no apocalypse. But apathy is NO virtue, even for libertarians. So please don't get all hot and bothered and blow smoke over a wrong punch on the calculator in order to belittle a group of students doing a small gesture of social/environmental responsibility (which Collins was more than happy to participate in). It's bad journalism and, in my opinion, counterproductive for everyone.
- Matt
(at least one person who cares)
Nice try, Matt.
Had we not called Ms. Meinhardt on her fuzzy math, she probably would have used it to lend support to her radical environmentalist position.
I'm glad to see that you actually concede that the point was not about the actual waste measured, but in forcing us to comply with your politics.
I'm curious as to why you think you have a right to get people to think about how much food they consume. You make the point about how the 60% of us are overweight, but what you don't realize is that much of the world would love to have the choice to be overweight or not and their your critique of capitalist waste. (By the way, the Fat statistic is a bogus statistic, but we'll run with it for the point of the argument.)
As for your argument about water resources, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the entire world only uses 8 percent of the available water resources. (See other posts.) As for the land degradation, a big reason for that degradation has been the collectivist attempts at "democratized" farming in so much of the world and the erosion of property rights for the world's huddled masses. When someone has property ownership and we eliminate the corn subsidies, the market can provide more than enough to feed us all.
If you want to discuss how to best reduce waste, we can talk about market mechanisms, which, by the way, actually reduce waste. (read: we don't need to cook the books to get the answers we want.)
Earth Day isn't a success at all, but an exercise in collective guilt, which you elucidate for us.
Whose distorting? Us or you?
You bring up the tragedy of the commons, but again, the proper means to stop that is to have a "pay-as-you-go" system and not to force all of his incoming freshmen to be a part of the meal plan. Of course, you don't bring up that issue because its more important for you to be doing something rather than doing something intelligent.
You write "apathy" is no virtue for libertarians. You misunderstand all of libertarianism. We aren't apathetic. We're pro-liberty and we'll call you out if you try and force your views on us.
As for your view that Collins was happy to participate in this, you clearly haven't spoken to any of the women I talked to. All of them said that the no trays ended up leading to more waste because a lot of the food was already prepared. Kevin also wasn't too thrilled about taking down all of the containers.
You try to make "caring" a virtue, but you fail to understand that "caring" isn't good in and of itself. What you care about is always subject to questioning. How you come to your conclusions is an essential process in leading to reason. You'd know that, if for a moment you stopped believing the updated Malthusian tales. You might find that its far more fun coming up with solutions for problems than in fighting against windmills. Just a thought.
P.S.
Nixon, by the way, was a Democrat in Republican clothes, insofar as economic policy is concerned. Price controls much?
By the way, it should read "your critique" instead of "their your"
Thanks.
And one more thing, if Emily were so sorry for a simple math error (not so simple, really given that it was 5% of waste, not 25%), why doesn't she change the poster that is hanging up?
Matt,
Charles basically said everything I could have and more on the substance of the argument. But to reiterate, I do think that making property distinctions is the best way to handle the tragedy of the commons and reduce waste. Though you should know that food is really not a common good. Liberals often try to make private goods public (or common) and then scratch their heads when people use way too much (healthcare come to mind).
I'm conservative, not libertarian, but I think that the libertarians are mostly right on stuff like this. If people had a financial interest in the food or water they produced, they would be much more responsible. Charles's response shows you why most of these collective efforts are disasters.
I hope you don't suffer any illusions thinking that what we in the industrial world eat has a negative impact on the global poor. On the opposite, it's our huge demand that has driven the revolutions in agricultural technology that makes food production more plentiful, efficient, and cheaper.
If you really cared about the starving, you would be most enraged by the environmental activists who've gotten us into the ethanol mess, which subsidizes farmers to divert their resources from corn, causing corn and world food prices to rise.
But even if the problem is that we eat too much, people will not stop doing it ever. EVER--until it costs them. "Raising awareness" does squat, and you should know this. That's why I was keen to point out that if you tracked the results yearly--even in a highly politicized college environment--you'd see no difference.
Now about my post...you should understand that the numbers were a big part of their campaign. If they weren't, why did the measurements matter so much? Why did they keep a big poster? After all, they could have just passed out flyers if they wanted people to be better with how much they eat.
You're right that people can try to make arguments to you in public, but you're also permitted to argue back. And yes, often those people are very irritating as you acknowledge. To me, they are self-righteous and overbearing. They often do what they do because they have a huge need to feel important. They want to be part of the change. But I wonder, do they have an idea of when "change" is enough?
Anyways, you know that my gripe is not with the minor inconvenience, but with the principle. I did after all pay for my food and my tray, and I paid to use a dining hall that wasn't tainted with some gaudy, in-your-face pyramid of smug. Furthermore, it's one thing for someone to stand outside the grocery store and tell you what you should not buy. It's another thing for them to follow you in and remove things from your cart they don't approve of. Even if they're trying to teach you a lesson.
Now you're just wrong to assert I'm both apathetic and "hot and bothered" (those two things contradict each other, by the way). In reality, I just want to make sure that I get the services I pay for--a basic principle of liberty that ought not to be infringed.
I don't think compassion is a virtue, because compassion applies to all people, regardless of how deserving they are. Compassion claims to supersede justice. Instead, I prefer liberality, which is the virtue of giving well. This means giving to those who will do good things with what you've given them. It also means you're free to give. If you are compelled to do good, you are not acting with excellence or virtue. So I don't like compassion because it ignores these distinctions. Liberalism embraces compassion in the form of an all-encompassing state that becomes the sole provider and denier of rights.
Last thing I'd like to point out is that I disagree with Charles that you can't impose your views on another. Obviously, some people's views must lose to those of the regime. But those views we impose or teach (like citizenship to school children) ought to be agreed upon through the consent of the governed. They also must fill a pressing need of the state, which the people define through their constitution. If it does not do this, then I believe it is an illegitimate violation of their freedom--it is an illiberal imposition of views. And yes, I think taking our trays away to teach us all a lesson we learned when we were four counts as a great example.
Dan
(Oh, PS - the crusaders actually reported 15%, not 25%, Charles.)
Post a Comment