The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[fas42]

We humans are clever enough to always invent solutions or resolve issues, but a combination of (normally male) pigheadessness and ego, laziness, and an instinct to follow the herd does its damnedest to sabotage, or severely cripple the best intentions - I suspect mankind will keep stumbling along, in the same as one sees exhausted athletes collapsing, and staggering to the line from sheer determination; extremely painful to watch, to experience happening besides one - but ultimately the wanted result  is achieved.

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

2000 watt society?

 

https://phys.org/news/2013-05-road-watt-society.html

 

Not adequate.

 

If ALL CO2 and CH4 emissions stopped today, there is still ~~40 years of global warming built in.

 

The only solution is to remove carbon (CO2) from the atmosphere and sequester it.  There is currently no way to do that.

 

So, things will get worse (even as some areas of technological prowess increase).  

 

Expect impacts to food supplies, fires (ecosystem conversion), wars, chaos, and other forms of hell.  It is unclear what the impacts to civilization will be.

[Paul R]

High levels of CO2 encourage plant growth, which actually does sequester carbon.    

 

Also, there are other ways to cut back on global warming,  -> if <- that is what we should do.  I am not utterly convinced we want to reverse global warming, at least not completely. The planet has been warmer (and cooler) than this within historical memory.  If I had to choose, I would choose warmer over cooler. 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Not adequate.

 

If ALL CO2 and CH4 emissions stopped today, there is still ~~40 years of global warming built in.

 

The only solution is to remove carbon (CO2) from the atmosphere and sequester it.  There is currently no way to do that.

 

So, things will get worse (even as some areas of technological prowess increase).  

 

Expect impacts to food supplies, fires (ecosystem conversion), wars, chaos, and other forms of hell.  It is unclear what the impacts to civilization will be.

One reason I posted that link.  It hasn't proven doable.  Not that it would be impossible just that they haven't gotten people to manage it in a 1st world country.  And it wouldn't be enough if had been accomplished.  

 

So despite what others seem to think my opinion is, I'm not saying it isn't a problem.  I am saying I've not seen a solution that looks like it would work and that you could get people to do.  Nor am I saying it is an excuse to do nothing.  I don't like some of the not well examined solutions that some believe will do the trick.  As I think they'll do harm of others types and not fix or ameliorate the problem. 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

am saying I've not seen a solution that looks like it would work and that you could get people to do. 

 

You are right. The developed countries talking about carbon footprint, plastics, car emissions, habitats destruction without asking themselves how much they have contributed to this throughout the human history. 

 

They have forgotten that that they have raped their forest, killed the animals, undergone far more pollution than what the developing world is facing now during the industrial revolution. They have made their money and now able to live in comfort. 

 

For developing countries, they are more concerned about getting their first car before worrying about pollution. The need land to cultivate so that they could eat before worrying about wild animals going extinct. They need food before worrying about the container. 

 

You want fresh air, exotics trees, Non disturbed nature, wild life roaming freely, clean green energy...well that’s so easy. Share your wealth. No one is really interested to toil under the tropical sun harvesting the palm oil for about $300 monthly salary. This too was the creation of the westerners for their own benefit. 

 

Now I am seeing the second wave of the war of soy vs palm. The first round was about health and when that did not kill the palm industry now they are talking about the loss of habitat. This is not really about our earth. It is about the rich preserving their wealth and lifestyle for their benefits. 

 

 

[semente]

8 hours ago, Paul R said:

For example, we do not want to accidentally trigger a new ice age with blind climate engineering. We already have 100 years or more of that experience behind us. You can grow food pretty much anywhere it is warm, but not on glaciers. 

 

That is absurd... What is the chance of creating a new ice age with the rate at which the planet has been warming and knowing that the causes are not likely to disapeer?

I agree that this requires political intervention. It requires fact/science-based decisions. It requires a change in paradigm from a growth-driven consumerism-oriented society to a sustainable and more egalitarian society. It requires responsible, scrupulous business. It requires abstinence and change of habits from developped nations. It requires the end of economic colonialism and exploitation. I requires the end of tax havens and the prosecution of fraudsters and corrupt politicians. It requires the end of financial speculation. Not feasible but a reasonable target.

 

The massive cost of the reunification of Germany is a good example that people will make an effort for a good cause...

But we won't be going anywhere unless the gap between rich and poor is reduced first.

 

Here in the UK wages have dropped by almost 30% since 2008. There's a homeless person in every corner of every street.

15% of the US population is considered impoverished...

Banks were bailed out with public money.

Far-right/nationalist movements are pretty much on the rise everywhere.

 

[Paul R]

33 minutes ago, semente said:

 

That is absurd... What is the chance of creating a new ice age with the rate at which the planet has been warming and knowing that the causes are not likely to disapeer?

 

It would appear much much larger than flooding the seaboards. But that is actually the point, nobody knows. Fooling around with the climate is very dangerous business because of that. And yes, there is little doubt that we, humans that is, have been fooling about with the climate in dangerous ways for a long time. But we do not know exactly what we have done, nor the consequences. 

 

A ton ton of money should be spent on climate research - now. But like any good project, you also need to fund research into the non-consensus. Why? Because the consensus - in many subjects - has been wrong time and time and time before. We may need to pump more heat into the atmosphere to balance the climate. Are we currently in a natural warming cycle, or are we in a cooling cycle and delaying that? What the heck is going on with the magnetic poles? Where are in the 16k year orbit cycle? The one that turned the Sahara from a vibrant life filled water environment to a dessert? 

 

So so many questions. So few answers. So many calls to put draconian restrictions in first world countries and give other countries a free pass.  What would the wars that would generate affect in the climate change? Many many more factors, not enough research. Too much call to do something, even if that something may eventually doom us? 

 

There ain’t no superhero’s out there to save the day. Until humanity spreads beyond this one planet, way too much chance of killing us all off, and nobody to save us. The “Snap” that ends half the life on the planet may be a greedy politician’s tweet.  Man, you have got me effing depressed now!  

 

Music, don’t fail me now! 🤪

Quote

I agree that this requires political intervention. It requires fact/science-based decisions. It requires a change in paradigm from a growth-driven consumerism-oriented society to a sustainable and more egalitarian society. It requires responsible, scrupulous business. It requires abstinence and change of habits from developped nations. It requires the end of economic colonialism and exploitation. I requires the end of tax havens and the prosecution of fraudsters and corrupt politicians. It requires the end of financial speculation. Not feasible but a reasonable target.

 

The massive cost of the reunification of Germany is a good example that people will make an effort for a good cause...

But we won't be going anywhere unless the gap between rich and poor is reduced first.

 

Here in the UK wages have dropped by almost 30% since 2008. There's a homeless person in every corner of every street.

15% of the US population is considered impoverished...

Banks were bailed out with public money.

Far-right/nationalist movements are pretty much on the rise everywhere.

 

 

[semente]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

So so many questions. So few answers. So many calls to put draconian restrictions in first world countries and give other countries a free pass.  What would the wars that would generate affect in the climate change? Many many more factors, not enough research. Too much call to do something, even if that something may eventually doom us? 

 

What proof do you have that there'll be (more) wars and doom?

Isn't that what liberalism, in the form of economic colonialism and exploitation, has been doing?

Who put Pinochet in power? Who made the Taliban? Who supported Hussein in the 80s? Who created the space for ISIS? Who is responsible for the expansion of heroin trade? Et cetera.

 

Europe, Russia, China and the US support African dictators in exchange for good deals on goods and dumping ground for waste. Help make those societies more egalitarian, more just, provide the tools for sustainable development.

 

But governments in "free" countries are on the payroll of large corporations, of business...

[esldude]

The data on UK income seems wrong.  

 

The poverty rate in the USA is around 12.5% and has fluctuated a percent or so either way for more than 30 years.  

 

Nationalist movements do seem to be on the rise.  Probably because most people don't want more government intervention which is what is prescribed for fixing climate change and other social matters by certain kinds of people.  And those people seem unable to accept that someone can understand climate change and its dangers, but disagree with letting the gov't take over more decisions and force actions onto citizens that citizens don't want.  

[semente]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

High levels of CO2 encourage plant growth, which actually does sequester carbon.

 

But forests are being destroyed to make room for large intensive cultivation land. That's what multinationals do best. Then they grow GM crops and flood the ecosystem with noxious chemicals.

Western societies eat too much food and too much meat. This makes multinationals richer. Multinationals are happier. Politicians get more money. All this whilst whole populations in developing nations are displaced and thrown into unenployment and poverty, and the ecosystem which sustains life on Earth is damaged.

Fortunately this is not always irreversible, as has been proven by Sebastião Salgado's project:

 

http://www.institutoterra.org/eng/conteudosLinks.php?id=23&tl=V2hhdCB3ZSBkbw==&sb=MTI=#.XPI1bXvTXOQ

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

But forests are being destroyed to make room for large intensive cultivation land. That's what multinationals do best. Then they grow GM crops and flood the ecosystem with noxious chemicals.

Western societies eat too much food and too much meat. This makes multinationals richer. Multinationals are happier. Politicians get more money. All this whilst whole populations in developing nations are displaced and thrown into unenployment and poverty, and the ecosystem which sustains life on Earth is damaged.

Fortunately this is not always irreversible, as has been proven by Sebastião Salgado's project:

 

http://www.institutoterra.org/eng/conteudosLinks.php?id=23&tl=V2hhdCB3ZSBkbw==&sb=MTI=#.XPI1bXvTXOQ

So growing more food is bad if it is GMO? Chemicals are bad if they significantly increase crop yield?  You mainly sound anti-capitalist.  That is okay, but would be nice if you can give us an outline of what you think is a good replacement that would be better.

[semente]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

The data on UK income seems wrong.  

 

The poverty rate in the USA is around 12.5% and has fluctuated a percent or so either way for more than 30 years.  

 

Nationalist movements do seem to be on the rise.  Probably because most people don't want more government intervention which is what is prescribed for fixing climate change and other social matters by certain kinds of people.  And those people seem unable to accept that someone can understand climate change and its dangers, but disagree with letting the gov't take over more decisions and force actions onto citizens that citizens don't want.  

 

That is so ironic... I can't see how you can have less intervention with a dictatorship. I was born into the end of a 40 year old dictatorship and can assure that there's nothing good about it.
Ignorance and expectation bias is what leas to te rise of the far right.

And if people in the US "disagree with letting the gov't take over" then why did they elect a dotard in the first place? Perhaps they're just as unfit to make decisions as governments. This particularly bad in systems where political parties are completely in the hands of business...

Europe has somewhat different values, but for how long?

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/europe/un-poverty-uk-austerity.html

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

Chemicals are bad if they significantly increase crop yield? 

 

Maybe you missed the fact that these days a crazy amount of insects are dying. This includes bees.

Now I don't know whether you ever heard the story of the Birds and the Bees, but it doesn't seem right to me that the bee is disappearing. It really is, and it is because of that nice crop yield thing.

[semente]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

So growing more food is bad if it is GMO? Chemicals are bad if they significantly increase crop yield?

 

Yes. The first thing that comes to mind is how it affects the ecosystem. Don't you agree?

 

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

You mainly sound anti-capitalist.  That is okay, but would be nice if you can give us an outline of what you think is a good replacement that would be better.

 

Have you watched the documentary?

 

[semente]

This one is also worth watching:

 

 

[PeterSt]

And the front page of this is worth reading:

 

http://bees-decline.org

 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

This one is also worth watching:

 

Just for fun ... It could be against ethics, but what if you'd change the title of this thread ...

[PeterSt]

@sandyk, you are the last of The Wild.

[semente]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Just for fun ... It could be against ethics, but what if you'd change the title of this thread ...

 

I was just thinking about that. 😄

[Paul R]

37 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What proof do you have that there'll be (more) wars and doom?

Isn't that what liberalism, in the form of economic colonialism and exploitation, has been doing?

Who put Pinochet in power? Who made the Taliban? Who supported Hussein in the 80s? Who created the space for ISIS? Who is responsible for the expansion of heroin trade? Et cetera.

 

Europe, Russia, China and the US support African dictators in exchange for good deals on goods and dumping ground for waste. Help make those societies more egalitarian, more just, provide the tools for sustainable development.

 

But governments in "free" countries are on the payroll of large corporations, of business...

 

Well that again is the point. Nobody *knows* - why are you blind to that my friend?

 

As for the other load of guilt you are trying to assign - purest poppycock! 

 

You should be able to answer that for yourself. Blaming the very bad acts of a group of evil people on anyone but themselves is simply blind foolishness. Who paid, in treasure and blood to stop the Taliban? Who do you think is trying to feed the people over there being used like puppets? Who puts women and children in buildings to protect the political leaders? 

 

You are looking to assign blame on people with no guilt. And looking for simple answers to very complex questions. Questions that do not have simple answers. 

[PeterSt]

The US has too many babies. 18b dipers per year. That really is too much.

[Summit]

9 hours ago, Paul R said:

Oi - not head in the sand, but more caution about what is being missed. 

 

For example, we do not want to accidentally trigger a new ice age with blind climate engineering. We already have 100 years or more of that experience behind us. You can grow food pretty much anywhere it is warm, but not on glaciers. 

 

Also, separating the politics from the science is difficult. But you really don't want a bunch of grubbing politicians deciding climate issues based upon whatever the most benefit to them would be, do you? 

 

It is difficult to answer why simple actions are not being taken. Seriously, paint your roof and driveway white. That will do more to alleviate current global warming trends that people in first world countries taking pains with plastic. 

 

Do realize our entire civilization is based upon high-density energy sources. Three-quarters of the world - or more - would starve without those energy sources. 

 

Cultural sensitive food?  If people are starving, they don't get to be picky about the nutrition available to them. Be that wheat vs rice or pigs vs chicken. Cultural sensitivity is a *luxury* - reserved for times when people are not starving. 

 

 

 

The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the greater the greenhouse effect. There is no doubt about that, none. Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at present rate it will cause severe negative effects on all from economy, ecosystems and biodiversity to human livelihood.

 

It’s true that a higher levels of CO2 can result in increased plant growth, but only up to a point after that there will be no positive effects. The main problem for plants is not the level of CO2 its water and climate.

[PeterSt]

Paul, come on now. This is where you live ?

 

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, semente said:

 

That is so ironic... I can't see how you can have less intervention with a dictatorship. I was born into the end of a 40 year old dictatorship and can assure that there's nothing good about it.
Ignorance and expectation bias is what leas to te rise of the far right.

And if people in the US "disagree with letting the gov't take over" then why did they elect a dotard in the first place? Perhaps they're just as unfit to make decisions as governments. This particularly bad in systems where political parties are completely in the hands of business...

Europe has somewhat different values, but for how long?

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/europe/un-poverty-uk-austerity.html

 

Please don't use the NYT as a source.  They openly decided to become opposition to the elected president of the US.  They've thrown away their credibility.  You are doing the same with your claiming a dictatorship.  Don't be so ridiculous, and melodramatic.  Elections don't go how you want at all times.  It still how the system works.  I'd also like less influence from corporations, but that doesn't make it a dictatorship. 

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Yes. The first thing that comes to mind is how it affects the ecosystem. Don't you agree?

 

 

Have you watched the documentary?

 

How do GMO's effect the ecosystem?  No I don't agree.  If you are raising natural corn or you are raising GMO corn, you aren't letting other plants there in either case.