In the latest issue of Wired magazine the cover story was an eye opener, essentially calling for a massive reduction in carbons in the atmosphere or else we plunge our planet into unknown environmental territory. I’m sure most of us are aware that there are environmental repercussions for not cutting our carbon emissions, but what makes this article so alarming is how we go about cutting those carbons. I’m not going to summarize the whole article just point out the parts that caught my attention.

Okay, for those who haven't read the article you might be thinking this is a call for environmentalism, but what makes environmentalists happy wont necessarily cut the carbon emissions. When focusing exclusively on cutting carbons the article states some controversial actions for the earth conscious individual. For instance certain environmentally friendly ideas, such as the use of organics, gets thrown out the window because of the increased carbon output of organics compared to genetically modified foods.

I agree with some of these ideas like buying a used car instead of a new hybrid. Making the hybrid car creates lots of emissions because of the nickel needed for the battery. The answer: buy used. I’m all for that, forgo the whole loans process, screw the dealers and credit companies and just buy outright. Personally I'd buy a manual transmission used Japanese car, some Toyota's and Honda's get great mileage from just being a stick. However, if you’re dead-set on buying a new car (or can’t drive a stick) might as well go for a hybrid.

The article also calls for urban living, stating that New Yorkers produce fewer emissions because they don’t have a lawn to mow and they use mass transportation. I don’t disagree with this, but how about forgetting about the perfectly manicured lawn and let nature run it's course. If someone is going to judge you negatively because your front yard has some dead grass and a few wild shrubs then that’s their problem. Or maybe more of a problem that someone’s yard is manicured and perfect, how many emissions is one releasing into the atmosphere from mowers and other mechanical gardening tools? According to my Wired magazine quite a bit. I say go old-school and rip those weeds out with your hands, or take out that bush with a machete (just keep the animals inside, don’t want them to get in the way).

So what are the less appealing parts of the article? The embracing nuclear technology is a little unnerving, but as long as we keep an eye on things so that we don’t have a Chernpbyl part II we should be okay.

Nope, it’s the farming of trees that makes me cringe.

Young trees absorb more carbon then older ones, so keep the trees nice and young and cut down the older trees. Unfortunately I got this thing for trees, I like them; they keep me shaded, give me fruit, make a handy swing and have saved my cat from more then one angry dog.

I’m not very fond of genetically modified foods either, but if eating a carrot that’s been genetically modified will save the planet then…I’m going to boil that mofo ‘til it’s all mushy in a vain attempt to cook the genetic modifications away. Maybe I’ll cook it in the microwave, yeah in some twisted logic I can hope that the radiation will genetically alter the genetically altered genes so that the carrot is once again be a one hundred percent carrot (or I just might end up with a radioactive killer carrot out for revenge).

Some these measures seem so dirty and wrong; going against a healthy life style in order to lose some carbons fast is just asking for trouble. There’s no such thing as a healthy crash diet.

So the way I see it this extreme cut of carbon emissions is akin to the Atkins diet; it probably will work, but at what cost? I suppose it’s a matter of urgency; like an obese man who has a year to take his weight down significantly the quickest answer is cutting the carbs, but at the risk of heart disease. Sure you’re fifty pounds lighter, but your arteries are even more clogged then they were before.

So what will genetic manipulation of our foods, farming trees, forgoing hybrid technology, and hugging nuclear silos instead of trees do? Hopefully it will cut down our carbon emissions fast enough for us to deal with the repercussions of these environmental faux pas. If we’re smart we just might start addressing the consequences of these actions before we’re all at the mercy of genetically modified radioactive killer vegetables.