General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

[[VR] optimal_909]

Oil has been getting expensive over time and it is still predicted to rise in price...

Do you think jet engines have been getting more efficient because airlines care for the environment?

Sorry for the separate posts...

As written earlier - it makes a great business case to ship rainwater from Fiji to literally the opposite end of the world, and sell it for peanuts.

The very sad proof that oil is way too cheap, and look at the comments, consumer-idiotism at its best, not once considering the carbon footprint of that water.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

1. I know methane is a nasty thing, even though it breaks down quickly. You may be right about soil, but not taken into account innovations such as GMOs, vegetable based meat, algae, etc..
2. Wikipedia shows 71 years - that is ballpark right when I said oil will flow this century.
3. Obviously we need nuclear fusion and novel ways to build solar panels, but otherwise the only solution would be to slam the brakes on capitalism which won't happen. It is what it is.
4. The solution is to unwind the global trade - eat more or almost only locally produced food, don't travel and don't replace stuff that isn't broken. This will only happen when oil gets expensive.
5-6. I was suggesting using the produced food more efficiently to cope with decreasing yields.
7. You claim to know science, so this was an odd answer. Solar an Milankovitch cycles do affect the climate - and we may get lucky with the former winning a bit of time.

Look, you're contradicting yourself by claiming a de facto imminent oil shortage/depletion and that we will burn more of it hence +5C.
I wish you were right about oil as right now it is way too cheap, I recon we could still maintain reasonable living standards by having much more expensive oil, we'd only spend more of our disposable income on food, and less on buying a new smartphone every year, more people would use public transportation systems and there were less tourists on the Maldives.

I guess you also don't have children, so it must be quite comfortable do carpe diem and claiming we are all doomed.

As I wrote about oil:

"BP's annual report on proved global oil reserves says that as of the end of 2013, Earth has nearly 1.688 trillion barrels of crude, which will last 53.3 years at current rates of extraction."

How long will world's oil reserves last? 53 years, says BP

The world has 53.3 years left to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP. Of course, nations are finding new oil – meaning that number is rising – but new extraction methods are costly and can pose environmental threats.

www.csmonitor.com

"Current rates of extraction" wrongly assumes that the oil consumption won't increase in the future. Oil extraction, like any other nonrenewable resource follows the logistic function:

General / Off-Topic - Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

'Super funds and investors with $34tn urge leaders to speed up climate action': https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/26/super-funds-and-investors-with-34tn-urge-leaders-to-speed-up-climate-action Superannuation funds and investors representing US$34tn in assets – nearly half of the...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Fusion is (like always) still 20-30 years into the future. Also that doesn't solve the diesel problem in agriculture. You need batteries. A tractor can't drag a cable behind it.

If we stop having livestock, we will lose the manure, which currently is the only way we recycle phosphorus. Also, the soils used for pasture are used for that instead of growing wheat etc. because those soils are low on nutrients. We still add fertilizer to pasture soil, but far from the amounts you need to add to a wheat field without manure. Intensive farming enabled the population to grow, and the growing population demanded more food leading to even more intensive farming, in a positive feedback loop.

And you are also wrong about me not having kids. My own dad says: "F-word our offspring". He's a jerk, but he's my dad. I have grown up to think differently about my daughter.

Edit: Regarding the Sun, the normal solar cycle lasts 11 years, and the eccentricity is normally done in a year. I agree that the long term change of Earth's orbit does influence the climate (over 100.000 years), but the main reason the Earth is getting warmer is human activity, mostly by generating CO2 by burning fossil fuels.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

As I wrote about oil:

"BP's annual report on proved global oil reserves says that as of the end of 2013, Earth has nearly 1.688 trillion barrels of crude, which will last 53.3 years at current rates of extraction."

How long will world's oil reserves last? 53 years, says BP

The world has 53.3 years left to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP. Of course, nations are finding new oil – meaning that number is rising – but new extraction methods are costly and can pose environmental threats.

www.csmonitor.com

"Current rates of extraction" wrongly assumes that the oil consumption won't increase in the future. Oil extraction, like any other nonrenewable resource follows the logistic function:

General / Off-Topic - Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

'Super funds and investors with $34tn urge leaders to speed up climate action': https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/26/super-funds-and-investors-with-34tn-urge-leaders-to-speed-up-climate-action Superannuation funds and investors representing US$34tn in assets – nearly half of the...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Fusion is (like always) still 20-30 years into the future. Also that doesn't solve the diesel problem in agriculture. You need batteries. A tractor can't drag a cable behind it.

If we stop having livestock, we will lose the manure, which currently is the only way we recycle phosphorus. Also, the soils used for pasture are used for that instead of growing wheat etc. because those soils are low on nutrients. We still add fertilizer to pasture soil, but far from the amounts you need to add to a wheat field without manure. Intensive farming enabled the population to grow, and the growing population demanded more food leading to even more intensive farming, in a positive feedback loop.

And you are also wrong about me not having kids. My own dad says: "F-word our offspring". He's a jerk, but he's my dad. I have grown up to think differently about my daughter.

Edit: Regarding the Sun, the normal solar cycle lasts 11 years, and the eccentricity is normally done in a year. I agree that the long term change of Earth's orbit does influence the climate (over 100.000 years), but the main reason the Earth is getting warmer is human activity, mostly by generating CO2 by burning fossil fuels.

I'm not saying it is solar or orbital cycles cause climate change - rather by coincidence/luck could mitigate the effects leaving us room to do something.
Also, had we have fusion energy, households (at least int he countryside) could very much grow their own food. I wonder what will happen to the very concept of mega-cities though.

Out of curiosity: as a father, how do you help your daughter prepare for the changes?

 

[Remus]

Fusion is (like always) still 20-30 years into the future. Also that doesn't solve the diesel problem in agriculture. You need batteries. A tractor can't drag a cable behind it.

I wouldn't be so certain about it, I know its a running joke about how fusion is always 20 years away and always will be.

But as of lately, HUGE steps have been made in fusion. With big players like Generalfusion in Canada, Lookheed Martin as well as TAE Technologies in the US joining the race along with the Chinese and the British.

But right now, its here in France where fusion energy will be proven a viable source of energy, in Cadarache more precisely.

There, the biggest, baddest, most expensive scientific project ever built in the last 50 years has finally reached its final assembly phase.

ITER, which stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, is planed to be finalized by 2022, with a first plasma which is expected to reach a quotient Q of 10, which means a sustainable and power efficient energy source, by 2025.

But that doesn't mean that our houses will be powered with fusion energy by then. For that, I expect we will have to wait a good decade.


A few relevant videos on the subject.

EDIT: And concerning your concerns about electric tractors, remember how not even 10 years ago no one wanted to bet a single penny on electric cars. And see how far we have come since then!

PS: Fun fact! ITER also means THE WAY in latin! So if someone ever asks you if you know "da wae!" you can answer "sure, its in Cadarache, France!"

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I'm not saying it is solar or orbital cycles cause climate change - rather by coincidence/luck could mitigate the effects leaving us room to do something.
Also, had we have fusion energy, households (at least int he countryside) could very much grow their own food. I wonder what will happen to the very concept of mega-cities though.

Out of curiosity: as a father, how do you help your daughter prepare for the changes?

The thing about growing your own food seems good on paper, and some people owning enough land could do that. However, globally more than half the humans live in cities.

I haven't spoken to my daughter about this. I wouldn't know how to say it. I'm ashamed, and I would probably start crying, which would be pathetic.

 

[jasonbarron]

I'm not saying it is solar or orbital cycles cause climate change - rather by coincidence/luck could mitigate the effects leaving us room to do something.
Also, had we have fusion energy, households (at least int he countryside) could very much grow their own food. I wonder what will happen to the very concept of mega-cities though.

Out of curiosity: as a father, how do you help your daughter prepare for the changes?

I know you're not asking me, but I have children so I'll answer anyway: by teaching them to adapt and overcome. To be strong and resilient. To be highly educated and prepared for everything from war, to a meteorite strike to the zombie apocalypse. On a practical level there is less than nothing to be gained by all the incessant whining that permeates western culture, not to mention all the virtue signaling and victim card waving and hypocritical finger pointing; the Barron kids are being raised to deal with whatever comes down the pike the same way their Dad was; by overcoming any and all obstacles that get in the way.

Because when the feces finally hits the fan, and it's only a matter of time until it does (though I'm not talking about climate change, particularly), all the whining in the world isn't going to help anyone cope.

 

[Senzafine]

I'm not saying it is solar or orbital cycles cause climate change - rather by coincidence/luck could mitigate the effects leaving us room to do something.

Not by much. I think the cooling effect is only about 0.2C every thousand years. We're not facing a new ice age any time soon either.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An often-cited 1980 orbital model by Imbrie predicted "the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[33] More recent work suggests that orbital variations should gradually increase 65° N summer insolation over the next 25,000 years.[34] Earth's orbit will become less eccentric for about the next 100,000 years, so changes in this insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity, and should not decline enough to permit a new glacial period in the next 50,000 years.


AGW has already overcome the slight cooling of the past several thousand years and with the melting of the permafrost is set to accelerate. And that melting is happening far faster than anticipated:

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared

www.theguardian.com

There's an awful lot of carbon stored in them.

 

[Remus]

I better start investing in beach resorts and coconut plants here in France!

 

[Senzafine]

Something that isn't being addressed is so-called Insectogeddon. Even the Daily Mail has an article on it today - way, way down the front page.

German experts claim bugs are dying off at alarming rates

The Amateur Entomology Society of Krefeld, Germany, have over the years gathered as many as 80 million insects that are now floating in countless ethanol bottles.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The main drivers appeared to be habitat loss and land conversion to intensive agriculture and urbanisation — followed by pollution, mainly from pesticides and fertilisers, invasive species and climate change.
'The conclusion is clear,' they wrote.
'Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades.'

Reported on before of course but it's terrifying how something so important and frankly imminent barely gets a look in. Pessimistic as I am about AGW I think this is likely to bring us to collapse even sooner.

Maybe a super Carrington event is the only thing that could stop us wiping out most of the rest of the biosphere and with it, us. Super crap for us but we show little sign of learning how to live sustainably.

Just look what we've achieved in the past 40 years:

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF

Species across land, rivers and seas decimated as humans kill for food in unsustainable numbers and destroy habitats

www.theguardian.com

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Being slightly political for a second: Our best chance is using as little as possible of the remaining fossil fuels to build a renewable energy source and a reliable sustainable food production. We cannot build that without using energy, and once the fossil fuels become sparse it will be impossible. We simply can't save everyone, and we need to lower the population size.

To make the planet work as our home on longer timescales, it has to be sustainable. That is not tree hugging hippie B S. It's a matter of not running out of stuff that is vital to all humans. That means that the biosphere has to be able to replenish vital resources as fast as we use them. Recycling will never be 100% efficient. So how should you live to comply with that? The true and honest answer is that nobody seems to know. The only thing we can say for certain is that right now we're far from sustainability.

I know this seems as absurd as some of the other things I write, but try and google "how to live sustainable", and listen to the echo of your search in empty space. You can find carbon footprint calculators etc. but I still haven't found one single thorough recipe on how one human should live not to spend more resources than nature can provide, given the current population. Why don't we have such a guideline?

 

[jasonbarron]

Being slightly political for a second: Our best chance is using as little as possible of the remaining fossil fuels to build a renewable energy source and a reliable sustainable food production. We cannot build that without using energy, and once the fossil fuels become sparse it will be impossible. We simply can't save everyone, and we need to lower the population size.

To make the planet work as our home on longer timescales, it has to be sustainable. That is not tree hugging hippie . It's a matter of not running out of stuff that is vital to all humans. That means that the biosphere has to be able to replenish vital resources as fast as we use them. Recycling will never be 100% efficient. So how should you live to comply with that? The true and honest answer is that nobody seems to know. The only thing we can say for certain is that right now we're far from sustainability.

I know this seems as absurd as some of the other things I write, but try and google "how to live sustainable", and listen to the echo of your search in empty space. You can find carbon footprint calculators etc. but I still haven't found one single thorough recipe on how one human should live not to spend more resources than nature can provide, given the current population. Why don't we have such a guideline?

I'm just shaking my head here, for the millionth time it seems. Here's a news flash for all you guys who clearly support population control, but lack the balls to just come right out and lay out the specifics of a "population lowering method." Any civilization or group of people who supports some sort of genocide in the name of "saving the planet" or more realistically "saving their own skins" isn't worth saving in the first place!

Quit tip-toeing around the issue and tell us with some specificity how you would lower the population. People on the alt left coming into power and forcing pop control methods up society are a much bigger concern to me, much MUCH more of an existential threat to mine and my family's continued welfare than climate change by an order of magnitudes. Just have a look at pictures of Antifa over the weekend operating out of Portland and you'll have an idea of the kind of evil that lurks in the shadows, just waiting for the right lefties to hand over the controls.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I'm just shaking my head here, for the millionth time it seems. Here's a news flash for all you guys who clearly support population control, but lack the balls to just come right out and lay out the specifics of a "population lowering method." Any civilization or group of people who supports some sort of genocide in the name of "saving the planet" or more realistically "saving their own skins" isn't worth saving in the first place!

Quit tip-toeing around the issue and tell us with some specificity how you would lower the population. People on the alt left coming into power and forcing pop control methods up society are a much bigger concern to me, much MUCH more of an existential threat to mine and my family's continued welfare than climate change by an order of magnitudes. Just have a look at pictures of Antifa over the weekend operating out of Portland and you'll have an idea of the kind of evil that lurks in the shadows, just waiting for the right lefties to hand over the controls.

The point is that everybody seems to have gotten some understanding about the climate. That, however, is far from an understanding of the total amount of mess we're in. It's the product (not the sum) of all the "challenges" that is threatening us.

The only possible solution includes lowering the population. This cannot be done in any humane way. We can try to limit the birth rate, but that isn't very popular. Also it won't lower the population enough. From a utilitarian point of view, this means that to save most people in the long run, we ought to remove part of the population now. This could hypothetically be done by killing the old ones (that includes me). Strictly speaking we have had our time, we're mostly useless and we have used more than the amount of resources we could personally spend. That solution obviously won't happen. Personally I'm sort of glad that it won't, considering my current age.

Instead, the most probable scenario is business as usual until the system collapses. That takes away all the difficult descisions and the responsibility and it will still lower the population size. The only thing is that after the collapse things will be much more difficult for survivors than after using the utilitarian solution.

Utilitarianism looks good on paper until you start realizing the horrifying paradoxes it holds. Then you switch back to good old deontological ethics, which also holds major paradoxes.

I sometimes joke and propose that y'all make me emperor of the planet. However much I like democracy it has it's limitations and it is horribly inefficient. I promise to be affable and only moderately greedy.

The truth is that I don't envy those who will have to make the descisions in the future.

 

[Senzafine]

The truth is that I don't envy those who will have to make the descisions in the future.

Well, humans do have a tendency to elect and follow leaders with psychopathic traits. I think most of us would rather kill ourselves than have to make those kinds of decisions.

 

[jasonbarron]

Well, humans do have a tendency to elect and follow leaders with psychopathic traits. I think most of us would rather kill ourselves than have to make those kinds of decisions.

That's what I keep repeating: if the people who advocate for some form of population control that even it's adherents would find inhumane would all just put their money where their mouth was in regards to "we must cull the population to save the planet" and step off to help restore a balance, we'd probably come up with a few billion progressive types and instantly start receiving the planet's burden. Because say what you will, plenty of people on this thread (and thousands of others just like it around the Internet) softly advocate and tiptoe around the issue of culling humans on a daily basis, so it's not some kind of unique issue.

 

[Senzafine]

That's what I keep repeating: if the people who advocate for some form of population control that even it's adherents would find inhumane would all just put their money where their mouth was in regards to "we must cull the population to save the planet" and step off to help restore a balance, we'd probably come up with a few billion progressive types and instantly start receiving the planet's burden. Because say what you will, plenty of people on this thread (and thousands of others just like it around the Internet) softly advocate and tiptoe around the issue of culling humans on a daily basis, so it's not some kind of unique issue.

Jason, listen to what Danielle says at the beginning of this video, it was recorded in 1990 btw:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc2JTQZ_nfQ


In the comments underneath there are a few complaints about "liberals" and "well, you go first then" - just the kind of stuff you're saying.

None of them address the fact that she was right, instead they're blathering on about morals, and politics. As you are. Ultimately, this isn't about morals, it's about cold, hard facts and having the courage to at least face up to them without retreating into denial and obfuscation. The courage to see where all this is inevitably going to lead to.

 

[jasonbarron]

Jason, listen to what Danielle says at the beginning of this video, it was recorded in 1990 btw:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc2JTQZ_nfQ


In the comments underneath there are a few complaints about "liberals" and "well, you go first then" - just the kind of stuff you're saying.

None of them address the fact that she was right, instead they're blathering on about morals, and politics. As you are. Ultimately, this isn't about morals, it's about cold, hard facts and having the courage to at least face up to them without retreating into denial and obfuscation. The courage to see where all this is inevitably going to lead to.

I hate to burst your bubble, but when we talk about "the cold hard facts" and "having the courage" to start rounding people up for the mandatory slaughter, questions of morality will always rear their ugly little heads, because when you talk about state sponsored murder, "right" and "wrong" are essential questions whether little Hitler/Pol Pot wannabe's want to hear them or not. Like I said before: I'm way more scared of people like you gaining some form of state power over me then I am the climate changing and forcing me and my family to adapt our habits and life styles. And really, being honest here, so should anybody else with even half a brain in their skulls.

Edit: yeah...no. The song sucks, she's a vapid twit, and clearly she and anyone else who shares the sentiment she smirkingly delivered at the intro should put their money where their mouth is and practice what they preach.

 

[Senzafine]

I hate to burst your bubble, but when we talk about "the cold hard facts" and "having the courage" to start rounding people up for the mandatory slaughter, questions of morality will always rear their ugly little heads, because when you talk about state sponsored murder, "right" and "wrong" are essential questions whether little Hitler/Pol Pot wannabe's want to hear them or not. Like I said before: I'm way more scared of people like you gaining some form of state power over me then I am the climate changing and forcing me and my family to adapt our habits and life styles.

I was referring to the courage to face up to the reality of how we're destroying the biosphere - which includes us ultimately as we are part of it.
I did say that most of us would rather die than have to make those kinds of decisions - that includes me.

Did you read those links I provided earlier, regarding the rate of loss of wildlife? How long do you think that can be sustained before insects and other fauna are completely wiped out? Do you understand what that would mean for us?

 

[jasonbarron]

I was referring to the courage to face up to the reality of how we're destroying the biosphere - which includes us ultimately as we are part of it.
I did say that most of us would rather die than have to make those kinds of decisions - that includes me.

Did you read those links I provided earlier, regarding the rate of loss of wildlife? How long do you think that can be sustained before insects and other fauna are completely wiped out? Do you understand what that would mean for us?

Just scrolled up to look. The Guardian is a leftist, propaganda spewing rag, which I wouldn't believe if they published about the sky being blue or water being wet. And after having the misfortune to watch the video that you linked beforehand, I think it's safe to say I'm getting where you're coming from, ideologically and intellectually.

And the reason I keep hammering on the population control aspect of this conversation where state controlled murder is implied if not outright recommended, is because you guys keep bringing it up, then backing off as soon as your called on it. If you want to quit talking about feeding people into the grinder for the good of the planet...then just quit talking about it and stick with your guardian quotes as if they're the end all be all of interpreting everything science.

 

[Senzafine]

Just scrolled up to look. The Guardian is a leftist, propaganda spewing rag, which I wouldn't believe if they published about the sky being blue or water being wet. And after having the misfortune to watch the video that you linked beforehand, I think it's safe to say I'm getting where you're coming from, ideologically and intellectually.

And the reason I keep hammering on the population control aspect of this conversation where state controlled murder is implied if not outright recommended, is because you guys keep bringing it up, then backing off as soon as your called on it. If you want to quit talking about feeding people into the grinder for the good of the planet...then just quit talking about it and stick with your guardian quotes as if they're the end all be all of interpreting everything science.

Try the Daily Mail link, it's nearer your political biases

 

[jasonbarron]

Try the Daily Mail link, it's nearer your political biases

What political biases would those be? I thought it was pretty clear that talking about that was strictly forbidden here, which is why I never do it