Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,530
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    northernriwx
    Newest Member
    northernriwx
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

 

O,  I C ...

No I don't actually...  what the in hell do all these abbreviations mean in that product's context?   What's "PV" ... does that mean polar vortex. What in the f are "WEO" ... "IEA" and NPS... 

Oh, I see ... some of those are expanded in the subheading.. .But what is PV again?

PV = photovoltaic i.e. solar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned PVs and renewables allow additional and faster exploitation of the environment and thus I am opposed to anything but the complete replacement of global industrial civilization with locally based sustenance communities.

Ecologists have known about the problems associated with renewables for some time. The Jevons Paradox cannot be discounted on this matter as is commonly cited by pro-renewable proponents. We will be reaching peak oil shortly (circa 2035) and thus you will come to understand why governments push and subsidize renewables. Same game different circumstances. The land use of solar PV will occupy regions better utilized for farming and forestry. (Most installations will not be rooftop solar)

This is how they operate by driving up the cost of living for everyone else they intend to depopulate the world while the rich reap all the rewards on a dieing planet.

Plunder the world until there is nothing left

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

As far as I am concerned PVs and renewables allow additional and faster exploitation of the environment and thus I am opposed to anything but the complete replacement of global industrial civilization with locally based sustenance communities.

Ecologists have known about the problems associated with renewables for some time. The Jevons Paradox cannot be discounted on this matter as is commonly cited by pro-renewable proponents. We will be reaching peak oil shortly (circa 2035) and thus you will come to understand why governments push and subsidize renewables. Same game different circumstances. The land use of solar PV will occupy regions better utilized for farming and forestry. (Most installations will not be rooftop solar)

This is how they operate by driving up the cost of living for everyone else they intend to depopulate the world while the rich reap all the rewards on a dieing planet.

Plunder the world until there is nothing left

I don't believe that assumption logically follows ... ( bold )

If one employs technologies that do not profligate resource consumption, than there's no problem - that's just math.  The paradox you mentioned is an economics theorem; not sure I see the logic of why that means we should not supplant fossil fuels with green/renewable energy sourcing, when the latter drops the "exhaust" of humanity below the thresholds that adversely affects/effects the vitality and eventual gestalt of the total environment. The theorem defaults to non-detrimental. That's what this is all about - can the background absorb without forcing -  

The complete "commune" vision of Humanity has zero plausibility and/or logistically managed reality to it.   There's too much power for ingenuity and wonder for advancing discovery as part of our evolutionary gift to withstand these motivations, which requires capacity that far exceeds the bucket and lever society paradigm.  What I'm saying is... tech is part of our evolution as the true tool manipulator species - you can't remove that any more than you can ask someone to ... remove a hand or a foot. You can't do it.

The solution is harmony - it's just that right now... we generate more din and discord, when we gear resource acquisition straight into the machinery greed-based economics. That much I agree with in principle/over-tones to some of what you imply.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am willing to genetically manipulate the species to make us compatible with a commune-like existence. Most people are unwilling to explore outside of a certain boundary and the disasters of the World Wars were sure to lock in a profligate and greed-based society and prior to that the rampant colonialism throughout the world and profligate exploitation.

The lack of trust among people and in institutions is astounding to the point of psychotic breaks from reality. The trauma flowing like blood from the soul of humanity and into the machine. Fueling it's short-term ephemeral existence and destroying an incalculable number of species in the process. Including our own.

What you are implying here is that humans have no chance of ever being a viable species (due to the tool manipulator factor and Jevons Paradox) but I am not sure that you understand the outcome of your own thoughts. The perils of exceptionally high levels of IQ and greatly diminished or equal EQ (Emotional Intelligence). Remember the psychopath has the highest survival to death ratio in civilization. Civilization is an invention of psychopathic humans. There are a plethora of additional traits that come to the fore such as lethargy and depression which are considered as natural adaptations to civilization. This is a perfect combination for exploitation of the many by the few.

Most species are not self-terminating. They simply succumb to scarcity limits and die out and they fail to adapt fast enough to changing conditions. Humans are very unique in this regard and to just give up when alternatives exist is very unacceptable. I am familiar with your kind - fatalistically hopeless.

"The world's in a bad way, my man,
And bound to be worse before it mends;
Better lie up in the mountain here
Four or five centuries,
While the stars go over the lonely ocean,
Said the old father of wild pigs,
Plowing the fallow on Mal Paso Mountain."

"Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy
And the dogs that talk revolution,
Drunk with talk, liars and believers.
I believe in my tusks.
Long live freedom and damn the ideologies,
Said the gamey black-maned boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

I am willing to genetically manipulate the species to make us compatible with a commune-like existence. Most people are unwilling to explore outside of a certain boundary and the disasters of the World Wars were sure to lock in a profligate and greed-based society and prior to that the rampant colonialism throughout the world and profligate exploitation.

The lack of trust among people and in institutions is astounding to the point of psychotic breaks from reality. The trauma flowing like blood from the soul of humanity and into the machine. Fueling it's short-term ephemeral existence and destroying an incalculable number of species in the process. Including our own.

What you are implying here is that humans have no chance of ever being a viable species (due to the tool manipulator factor and Jevons Paradox) but I am not sure that you understand the outcome of your own thoughts. The perils of exceptionally high levels of IQ and greatly diminished or equal EQ (Emotional Intelligence). Remember the psychopath has the highest survival to death ratio in civilization. Civilization is an invention of psychopathic humans. There are a plethora of additional traits that come to the fore such as lethargy and depression which are considered as natural adaptations to civilization. This is a perfect combination for exploitation of the many by the few.

Most species are not self-terminating. They simply succumb to scarcity limits and die out and they fail to adapt fast enough to changing conditions. Humans are very unique in this regard and to just give up when alternatives exist is very unacceptable. I am familiar with your kind - fatalistically hopeless.

"The world's in a bad way, my man,
And bound to be worse before it mends;
Better lie up in the mountain here
Four or five centuries,
While the stars go over the lonely ocean,
Said the old father of wild pigs,
Plowing the fallow on Mal Paso Mountain."

"Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy
And the dogs that talk revolution,
Drunk with talk, liars and believers.
I believe in my tusks.
Long live freedom and damn the ideologies,
Said the gamey black-maned boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain"

 

Wow ...so ur kinda sorta out there, huh  :) 

Not me... no one f's with my DNA thank you.

I think you'll find that is the consistent position among most human beings whom are proposition with the idea of having their innate sense of wonder chromosomely castrated.  Yeeeah

just sayn' 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Wow ...so ur kinda sorta out there, huh  :) 

Not me... no one f's with my DNA thank you.

I think you'll find that is the consistent position among most human beings whom are proposition with the idea of having their innate sense of wonder chromosomely castrated.  Yeeeah

just sayn' 

Not even. Just as much can be accomplished by removing the platform from which bad genes sustain and profligate. This is where I differ from my early 20th century brethren.

Believe me we have been doing that for a long time. It just didn't arrive into most people's awareness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Not even. Just as much can be accomplished by removing the platform from which bad genes sustain and profligate. This is where I differ from my early 20th century brethren.

Believe me we have been doing that for a long time. It just didn't arrive into most people's awareness.

Uh, "yes even" 

You'd be a sociopath if you altered peoples genetic construct without complete transparency and mutual concurrence ...  I mean, this is silly at this point.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2019 at 1:07 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Nah... I was referencing a prior context - that statement you are responding to is not that context.  

The prior context did thematically portray Gaia as some sort of agent of intelligence that was strategizing the demise of Humanity - almost as a hand-throwing acquiescence to the notion that Humanity cannot be reasoned with, so blind extermination is the only recourse... Muah hahaha. Something along those lines was implicit - 

That would be fodder for science fiction/fantasy.   

But Gaia "self- regulating" - I'm not sure I agree with that either. I've heard other's sort of crutch on Gaia in principle, like it'll "protect" and "save" Earth from us... Mmm.  No.  

It's not regulating shit when there's a mass-extinction already underway.  I understand the modern definition contains that terminology, self-regulation, but that is being conflated with self-protecting. Even Gaia theory would have its break point... Think of it this way ( logically ):  if the organic life that is supposed to be working WITH the inorganic Earth to produce a synergy-related positive feed-back that supports life, what does it mean if the life part of that formula ceases to exist?  No Gaia, that's what -

It's failing is what that is. And just like all the major mass-extinction events, regardless of whether they are causally related to geology, extra-terrestrial bombardment, or ... fascinatingly, the biology of the planet its self, these effectively wiped out their "Gaias" in lieu of new Gaias.  

As far as Gaia its self... upon deeper reflection ... I find it just as equatable to processes of ecological-balance.  There are direct interdependent requirements of life within any given domain, and that domain then has indirect but still important dependencies upon adjacent ecology(s).  Gaia really just a whimsical way of artfully describing the same thing in a poetic refrain of awe and wonder.  But it's no different than ecology processes of various life components working unwittingly in support of one another. 

 

 

ahh I see, FWIW I sometimes wonder what sentience really is..... and can be forms of intelligence other than biological?  Consider the fossilized record of the planet a form of "memory".  Perhaps in our search for ET we have to consider entities that are not biological.  Not hunks of rocks per se, but things we would never consider as being "alive."  Because by many definitions, something like fire can even be considered alive.

I believe that the planet maintains ecological balance at any cost because that's the first law of thermodynamics and also because if it didn't life would have ceased to exist long ago.  About the Gaia vs humanity thing, that cant be true either, because human beings are part of the system not against it.  Mass extinctions being cases in point, have you noted how evolution explodes after a mass extinction event?  The series on PBS/Nature showing how mammals started to evolve rapidly a scant 300,000 years after the Cretaceous mass extinction is a case in point.   But nothing exists forever.   The humanity caused mass extinction may lead to such an explosion in evolution, or it might destroy all life on the planet forever.  It's too early to say which.  Those of us who aren't tainted by greed and want sustainable renewables to become the new norm fight for the existence of the entire planet, but humanity's own short-sighted nature gets in the way.  I do see a turning point though, where many many more voices have risen up against the status quo and perhaps a difference has been made there that will counteract all the dark money lined up against us.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Uh, "yes even" 

You'd be a sociopath if you altered peoples genetic construct without complete transparency and mutual concurrence ...  I mean, this is silly at this point.

well the history of doing this did begin in the "good ole" US of A.... after all, that is where Hitler got his ideas from.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Supreme Court declined to block Michael Mann’s defamation case from proceeding to trial. IMO, this is good news, as the defendants made harsh allegations for which they had no evidence. Debate is undermined when parties fabricate allegations aimed at diverting discussion from the merits, especially when character is attacked to intimidate others into silence. This latest legal development is good news, both from a legal and debate perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2019 at 3:41 AM, LibertyBell said:

ahh I see, FWIW I sometimes wonder what sentience really is..... and can be forms of intelligence other than biological?  Consider the fossilized record of the planet a form of "memory".  Perhaps in our search for ET we have to consider entities that are not biological.  Not hunks of rocks per se, but things we would never consider as being "alive."  Because by many definitions, something like fire can even be considered alive.

I believe that the planet maintains ecological balance at any cost because that's the first law of thermodynamics and also because if it didn't life would have ceased to exist long ago.  About the Gaia vs humanity thing, that cant be true either, because human beings are part of the system not against it.  Mass extinctions being cases in point, have you noted how evolution explodes after a mass extinction event?  The series on PBS/Nature showing how mammals started to evolve rapidly a scant 300,000 years after the Cretaceous mass extinction is a case in point.   But nothing exists forever.   The humanity caused mass extinction may lead to such an explosion in evolution, or it might destroy all life on the planet forever.  It's too early to say which.  Those of us who aren't tainted by greed and want sustainable renewables to become the new norm fight for the existence of the entire planet, but humanity's own short-sighted nature gets in the way.  I do see a turning point though, where many many more voices have risen up against the status quo and perhaps a difference has been made there that will counteract all the dark money lined up against us.

 

 

Life throughout the universe, at least at a base level is probably not uncommon. The discovery of Intelligent life which evolves to a point where it can survive its own self importance remains remote. To discover it means to attain it. The odds are much higher that I will wake up tomorrow young, handsome, functional and holding both a mega and power ticket with the correct five plus one numbers. Another comparison on the odds and a close second would be consistent accurate snow measurement in CPK. As always. .....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The Supreme Court declined to block Michael Mann’s defamation case from proceeding to trial. IMO, this is good news, as the defendants made harsh allegations for which they had no evidence. Debate is undermined when parties fabricate allegations aimed at diverting discussion from the merits, especially when character is attacked to intimidate others into silence. This latest legal development is good news, both from a legal and debate perspective.

what allegations, Don? we are suing the fossil fuel industry in NY, they deserve to be bankrupted after all their lies and coverups.  They are a cartel that bribes politicians to curry favor with them and seizes land from people to build dangerous pipelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

what allegations, Don? we are suing the fossil fuel industry in NY, they deserve to be bankrupted after all their lies and coverups.  They are a cartel that bribes politicians to curry favor with them and seizes land from people to build dangerous pipelines.

Mann was accused of manipulating data in an attack on his professional and personal integrity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the new Meet the Press episode, they talked to John Kerry and Arnold Schwartzeneggar who joined together to make a bipartisan group about climate change and Arnold mentioned that California has the strongest environmental regulations and yet has the fastest growing economy too.  They mentioned that job growth is fastest in the solar panel and wind power industry over everything else and people are leaving the oil fields to go work there.  He also said he got many conservatives to join by framing the discussion in terms of pollution and disease (like higher asthma rates) rather than solely focusing on climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Looks like the Florida Keys will be permanently underwater within a few decades- ditto parts of the Louisiana coast.

https://t.co/HWaooJD5ek?amp=1

 

Include your's truly in the list of the condemned. Is all of this really worth losing these beautiful places forever? (for all intents and purposes)

This is why I compare capitalism to a modern form of slavery. If people had freewill they would have already walked away. It's that simple. Stop debating and go to war with these assclowns. We needed a sense of cohesion for 50+ years now. There is absolutely zero cohesion in society and we have this ridiculous form of identity politics.

Shall I continue to explain why we are so ****ed? I think not. Everyone knows that they are willing participants in this system but remember when it finally stops working for you that nobody will be there to bail you out. You will be alone in this hell that you created for yourself.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Include your's truly in the list of the condemned. Is all of this really worth losing these beautiful places forever? (for all intents and purposes)

This is why I compare capitalism to a modern form of slavery. If people had freewill they would of already walked away. It's that simple. Stop debating and go to war with these assclowns. We needed a sense of cohesion for 50+ years now. There is absolutely zero cohesion in society and we have this ridiculous form of identity politics.

Shall I continue to explain why we are so ****ed? I think not. Everyone knows that they are willing participants in this system but remember when it finally stops working for you that nobody will be there to bail you out. You will be alone in this hell that you created for yourself.

 

One of the reasons we have seen such a high usage of antianxiety pills, antidepressants, sleep meds, etc., and yet stress levels go higher and higher is because Western society is so toxic.  It's every person for themselves and it can be isolating and drugs seem to be the only way to get away from the stress.  Of course thats a wonderful plus for the pharma industry, which feeds off the misery of others.  Most of these industries do.

The rat race indeed- and we are the rats!  It's a very clever way for those who built the maze to "divide and conquer!"

Watch the movie Dark Waters- it's about DuPont dumping toxic waste in the waterways and ignoring when their own employees complained of high rate of birth defects.  It took a class action lawsuit to uncover what DuPont had been hiding for over 50 years!  They have a strong lobby, as does the rest of the chemical industry, which is why pesticides that cause brain damage in children like chlorpyrifos have been unbanned.  PFOA and chlorpyrifos have been found in our blood and PFOA has been found in the blood of 99% of animals including polar bears and eagles.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Cross-posted from my reddit account...

Quote

Let me explain a few things regarding CO2 forcing. Most of the radiative forcing for the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have not attained maximum effect. We are experiencing the transient climate sensitivity of current emissions and the full loading of 1980s emissions and so on. As a result, the radiative forcing debt is growing and not keeping up with emissions. There is a danger that by 2050 we will have already committed enough GHGs to the atmosphere to deplete the Ocean's of all oxygen and life (and with no ability to extract carbon out of the atmosphere using natural sinks). This is contrasted by the non-geoengineered/status quo scenario where we don't reduce our net emissions before 2050 but our carbon footprint is lower. Why is this the case? This is because the related climatic changes cause the disruption of worldwide agriculture which is the lifeblood of civilization and a result all net-positive GHG emissions end around 2030 along with global industrial civilization.

There is also the caveat of termination shock. A phenomenon in which geoengineering must be increased and sustained indefinitely at huge cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that a significant number of countries that came to the COP25 conference on climate change likely did so for cosmetic appearances rather than serious decisions. Barring last minute developments, inaction and the status quo will likely prevail. One can't rule out a last-ditch flurring of non-binding commitments, but non-binding commitments lack credibility. Hopefully, I am incorrect about this, but the latest news out of Madrid suggests what would, in practical terms, be a failed conference.

The BBC reported:

The pact's intention is to keep the global average temperature rise to well below 2C. This was regarded at the time as the threshold for dangerous global warming, though scientists subsequently shifted the definition of the "safe" limit to a rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

But Mr Meyer commented: "The latest version of the Paris Agreement decision text put forward by the Chilean presidency is totally unacceptable. It has no call for countries to enhance the ambition of their emissions reduction commitments.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50795294

That's a ratification of the status quo. The status quo path is not enough.

Excerpts from the 2019 Emissions Gap Report:

There is no sign of GHG emissions peaking in the next few years; every year of postponed peaking means that deeper and faster cuts will be required. By 2030, emissions would need to be 25 per cent and 55 per cent lower than in 2018 to put the world on the least-cost pathway to limiting global warming to below 2˚C and 1.5°C respectively...

Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts required per year to meet the projected emissions levels for 2°C and 1.5°C would only have been 0.7 per cent and 3.3 per cent per year on average. However, since this did not happen, the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal. Evidently, greater cuts will be required the longer that action is delayed.

Further delaying the reductions needed to meet the goals would imply future emission reductions and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere at such a magnitude that it would result in a serious deviation from current available pathways. This, together with necessary adaptation actions, risks seriously damaging the global economy and undermining food security and biodiversity.

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/EGR2019.pdf

Tragically, the policy path of choice is to delay credible steps, shift the burden to today's youth, and hope that they will possess the courage, foresight, and leadership capacity that the current generation of leaders at the conference lacks.

The idea that nothing can be done, market-based approaches are impossible, or credible measures would be economically disruptive are fallacies aimed at preserving the status quo. They are not reality. Even without new technologies, a number of policy tools are available. Those tools include increased reliance on wind, solar, and nuclear power for supply and increases in efficiency to deal with the demand side. The latter may be less costly than scaling up the former, but only at present.

Estimated costs of various investments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/images/122019/Gillingham-tbl-lg2.jpg

For comparison, the true cost of carbon emissions per ton is an estimated (median) figure of $477 per ton.

http://www.cobham-erc.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/preprint_Ricke2018_country_level_scc.pdf

Phasing out production of the dirtiest carbon-based fuels early on, namely coal, should be prioritized. Tax expenditures and other policies that favor carbon-based fuels are not market-oriented. Instead, they skew market function via externalities (cost-shifting to taxpayers, shielding producers from the full costs of their products, etc.). They also prop up a false scenario that makes it appear that the status quo is more beneficial than a transition based on cost-benefit analysis. If the costs associated with the consequences of climate change--ranging from increased storm damage to the impact of rising sea level--were added to the cost of carbon-based fuels responsible for anthropogenic climate change, the cost picture would be quite different. When the full costs of climate change are considered, the status quo is more costly than the transition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick note: The COP25 conference was, for all intents and purposes (when credible outcomes are considered) a failure. In effect, the colllective choice was to punt to next year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/un-climate-talks-end-with-hard-feelings-few-results-and-new-doubts-about-global-unity/2019/12/15/38918278-1ec7-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1987, humanity was confronted with a growing ozone hole over the Southern Hemisphere and the implication of an inevitable and dramatic rise in skin cancer cases. The world's leaders at that time, even while taking on an existential Cold War struggle, came together in Montreal to adopt a solution to address the problem. A binding commitment to completely phase out the use of CFCs and halons was agreed. That treaty was universally ratified. Since then, much progress has been made.

NASA recently revealed:

Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery

Then, science carried the day. Political leaders made the kind of decisions that fall with responsible leadership. They made no excuses. They did not embrace defeatist conclusions that acting would be economically harmful, much less that nothing could be done. They did not descend into "denialism" or conspiracy theories aimed at alleviating accountability from their shoulders. They acted with conviction. They put the world on a better path.

Just three decades later, when confronted by another global challenge--that of anthropogenic climate change--the world's leaders abdicated their responsibility in Madrid. They proved unable to summon the courage, foresight, and leadership to tackle the global challenge of the contemporary era. They chose timidity at a time when no great struggle comparable to the Cold War is raging.

Put simply, they failed the test of leadership. They demonstrated that although they hold positions of authority, they lack the capacity and qualities necessary to lead. Instead, they chose to remain passive bystanders to history.

They failed as leaders. They failed as people.

In their enormous failure to lead, they have substantially magnified the burden they have already left to today's youth and future generations to come. In doing so, they have defined their generation as arguably the most short-sighted one in modern history.

They chose to leave the world a worse place than they inherited. Given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and range of tools available to launch a credible effort to curb then reverse greenhouse gas emissions, their fateful choice is a deliberate one. Ignorance is not a valid defense. At the same time, they have unequivocally made clear to today's youth that the concerns and futures of those youth are to be sacrificed for the preservation of the short-sighted status quo.

Given the urgency and gravity of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, this is a most sad outcome. Urgent problems aren't punted to the future year after year. Great problems are not routinely ignored, much less cloaked in the packaging of brave words disconnected from concrete and credible measures to evade responsibility.

Fortunately, as time passes, those who occupy today's positions of leadership will gradually depart those positions. In their wake, future generations will be left with a tremendous mess.

The passage of time will determine whether leadership capacity on the global stage merely skipped today's generation of global leaders or whether the absence of leadership capacity is a new and persistent problem. Considering that human nature has changed remarkably little since the emergence of Homo Sapiens, the odds are still high that the contemporary leadership deficit is merely a temporary phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scale of the problem is completely different. You are talking about phasing out a few industries which utilized CFCs and now we are talking about phasing out civilization as we know it. The moral of the story is if the problem can be solved it will be solved within reason.

Climate change is a predicament with no solutions. Civilization is fundamentally incompatible with the biosphere. The science of steady-state civilizations is rather interesting but it is my belief that as long as capitalism is our model they will all fail in the end.

Ultimately we may need to go to war with capitalism particularly because it's consuming resources better utilized for steady-state civilizations and the urgency of climate change and the global biosphere. Large areas of agricultural and urban lands must return to nature as we attempt to re-stabilize the carbon cycle.

People don't want steady-state because it places restrictions on the individual's freedom but you can counter this by limiting the population to the planet's natural carrying capacity of 1 billion humans or 250 million humans with a 1950s per capita usage of resources.

Think about the beauty of a stable world. One or two children for each applicable couple. There's nothing wrong with limiting population especially as infant mortality has markedly decreased. Maybe with the passing of the generations we can move into a better future. I am not sold on the idea of the species being fundamentally untenable.

The challenge of our time is collapse and how to manage collapse in the least damaging manner. The secondary challenge is ending all emissions before 2035 by all means necessary including up to accelerationism (the process of accelerating economic collapse) and warfare on a global scale.

I sincerely doubt we can continue emitting GHGs beyond 2050. It's simply not possible (because civilization will be destroyed by climate destabilization) but the additional 15 years of silenced emissions would help us recover faster in the future.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

The scale of the problem is completely different. You are talking about phasing out a few industries which utilized CFCs and now we are talking about phasing out civilization as we know it. The moral of the story is if the problem can be solved it will be solved within reason.

Climate change is a predicament with no solutions. Civilization is fundamentally incompatible with the biosphere. The science of steady-state civilizations is rather interesting but it is my belief that as long as capitalism is our model they will all fail in the end.

Ultimately we may need to go to war with capitalism particularly because it's consuming resources better utilized for steady-state civilizations and the urgency of climate change and the global biosphere. Large areas of agricultural and urban lands must return to nature as we attempt to re-stabilize the carbon cycle.

People don't want steady-state because it places restrictions on the individual's freedom but you can counter this by limiting the population to the planet's natural carrying capacity of 1 billion humans or 250 million humans with a 1950s per capita usage of resources.

Think about the beauty of a stable world. One or two children for each applicable couple. There's nothing wrong with limiting population especially as infant mortality has markedly decreased. Maybe with the passing of the generations we can move into a better future. I am not sold on the idea of the species being fundamentally untenable.

Transitions are not so easy. Just ask the Federal Reserve, trying to unblow the current zero interest bubble. That said, I think you overestimate the difficulties.

I think that populations are already under control in the industrialized world, with Europe, China, Japan and the US all under replacement fertility, leaving immigration to offset the decline.

Only Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia still have high birth rates, largely driven by poverty. That can be cured within a generation, as China demonstrated.

Separately, I do not think CO2 capture is a serious problem. The experiments in seeding the southern oceans with iron sulfate were hugely successful and underscore the late John Martins claim 'give me a half tanker of iron sulfate and I'll give you an ice age'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, etudiant said:

Transitions are not so easy. Just ask the Federal Reserve, trying to unblow the current zero interest bubble. That said, I think you overestimate the difficulties.

I think that populations are already under control in the industrialized world, with Europe, China, Japan and the US all under replacement fertility, leaving immigration to offset the decline.

Only Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia still have high birth rates, largely driven by poverty. That can be cured within a generation, as China demonstrated.

Separately, I do not think CO2 capture is a serious problem. The experiments in seeding the southern oceans with iron sulfate were hugely successful and underscore the late John Martins claim 'give me a half tanker of iron sulfate and I'll give you an ice age'.

By the time populations stabilize the damage will already be inflicted and there will be a mass die-off. That would be a failure to transition.

Dangerous mentality. Climate change will save us from capitalism. it's the consumption per person that is killing us right now. I only want to reduce it so we can keep our current standard of living without adverse effects. It's not enough to stabilize where we are and we are far from that holding steady on population.

The population will infact never stabilize. It will rapidly collapse. It will look like a bell-curve on population charts. So i'm not sure if it matters at this point what we do in first-world nations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerns about Iron Fertilization
Biological concerns
Chemical concerns
Ocean circulation
Climate
“Natural” fertilization
Ethical Issues

Because so few experiments on iron fertilization have been conducted, there are still many uncertainties associated with the long-term effects. While the short term effects on phytoplankton growth and carbon sequestration seem positive, little is known about how the entire ecosystem would be affected by iron fertilization. Many hypotheses seem to overlook the true complexity of the ecosystem. Before large-scale iron fertilization projects can be pursued, many questions about the long term chemical and biological impacts must be answered and details of the actual cost effectiveness should be investigated.

Biological concerns

  • Effects of increased iron concentrations (and the associated decrease in pH) on other organisms
  • We cannot say with any certainty what the effects of increased iron concentrations (and the associated decrease in pH) would have on other organisms. Some organisms are highly intolerant of such changes in their environment and therefore would not be able to survive. This would also effect the overall biodiversity and continuity of the food chain.
  • Decreased productivity of deeper algal growth
  • Increased phytoplankton mass in the surface waters would decrease the depth to which light penetrates, upsetting deeper algal growth and productivity.
  • Inhibition of zooplankton productivity
  • During Iron Ex II it was observed that zooplankton feeding was inhibited because iron fertilization caused larger species of phytoplankton to become dominant. This effect would therefore alter the food chain by promoting the growth of larger phytoplankton and inhibiting zooplankton production.
  •  Decreased overall biodiversity
  • It has been observed in the past that there is a correlation between algal blooms and decreased biodiversity, and it has been hypothesized that prolonged increased phytoplankton growth may have the same effects. Many of the above factors could contribute to decreased biodiversity by selecting for the stronger species.
  •  Impact on the food web
  • Any changes to biodiversity or species abundance will have tremendous effects on the food web. Iron fertilization will most likely cause changes in phytoplankton species composition. By decreasing the  availability of some organisms, other organisms that use them as a food resource will also suffer.


Chemical concerns

  • Depletion of other nutrients
  • Increased phytoplankton productivity may deplete other essential nutrients and cause them to become limiting to phytoplankton growth. This in turn would cause a decline in the rate of Carbon Dioxide sequestration
  • Changes in elemental cycling
  • As more nutrients are consumed, large quantities of them will enter into circulation, possibly overwhelming other aspects of the cycle. For example, there might be an increased cycling of nitrogen and evolution of N2O (a byproduct of denitrification) because of increased microbial activity in the deep ocean.
  • Anoxic deep ocean/Methane production
  • There are concerns about the added biomass in the deep ocean consuming all available oxygen and creating anoxic conditions in the deep ocean. This would also stimulate the production of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.
  • Dimethyl Sulfide
  • Another concern is increased atmospheric concentrations of dimethyl sulfide, which is released from phytoplankton growth. In the atmosphere, dimethyl sulfide oxidizes to form sulfate aerosols, which after the greenhouse gases, exert the next largest influence on climate. The sulfate aerosols can cause an increase in cloud cover when present in significant quantities in the atmosphere. This in turn affects the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and can cause a cooling in the earth’s mean temperature.


Ocean Circulation

  • Carbon possibly only temporarily sequestered
  • It is possible that the observed sequestration during the Iron Ex. experiments was only temporary, because long-term observations were not made. The carbon may not have been effectively removed, but only absorbed temporarily and the re-released later. Therefore, as dissolved carbon levels increased in the ocean mixed layer, the carbon would largely be returned to the atmosphere.
  • Upwelling of stored carbon
  • Carbon stored in the deep ocean will eventually re-circulate and, through upwelling to the surface, be released to the atmosphere.
  • Upwelling/Downwelling of patch
  • Ocean circulation patterns may affect the size and integrity of the fertilized patch, as up-and down-welling cause mixing and sinking.


Climate

  • Change in planetary albedo
  • An increase in phytoplankton biomass could affect the planetary albedo, because phytoplankton have a different reflectivity than water. This could cause additional effects on climate by causing more or less reflection the sun’s rays.
  • Change in mean oceanic temperatures
  • Changes in mean oceanic temperature could also affect the effectiveness of fertilization. The ocean-atmosphere interface is highly temperature dependent for absorbing Co2. A rise in mean ocean temperature might offset the effectiveness of fertilization because it would decrease the amount of CO2 that could be dissolved.
  • Changes in net flux of greenhouse gases
  • Because iron fertilization would only be effective in certain regions, other parts of the ocean may experience different changes in the flux of greenhouse gases. Possibly, this could also lead to anoxia in some regions.


“Natural” fertilization

  • Deep Sea Volcanic activity
  • There are also potential natural sources of iron fertilization.  One of these is undersea volcanic activity. Deep ocean hydrothermal vents pump large quantities of iron rich water into the ocean. If shifts in hydrothermal activity deep within the ocean occur, this iron may be introduced into the portions of the ocean that are iron deficient and a natural bloom may take place.
  • Changes to desert area
  • If significant changes occur to the area of earth’s deserts they could contribute a higher concentration of iron dust to the atmosphere, which would similarly act to naturally fertilize the ocean.
  • Deep ocean iron beds
  • There is also concern about the natural feedback mechanisms by which the effects of iron fertilization may be amplified. Altering phytoplankton growth might also alter algae growth, which might in turn affect deep ocean iron beds, causing an increase in  concentrations of iron and further amplifying phytoplankton growth. Such a unstable scenario could possibly send us back to an ice age.


Ethical Issues
Finally there are also ethical issues surrounding the topic of iron fertilization. Much of the damage that has been done to our environment is a result of numerous technological advances and industrial expansion in the last century. It was inevitable that at some point man would try and counteract some of the damage we have inflicted on our environment via more technology. Whether or not iron fertilization is ethically correct is an important question for scientists and policymakers alike to consider. Hopefully the answer will become clearer as the true risks of this technology are revealed.
 

Policy Issues
Need for Policy
Experiment Evaluation
Current Policy
Policy Evaluation Criteria

The rate of technological advances in iron fertilization exceeds the rate of policy development. Because of this,  it is necessary for the current issues and uncertainties to be evaluated so that regulations on iron fertilization practices can be put into effect. Without some kind of regulations from government, independent research and experimentation has free reign over the oceans, which are a common resource for all.

Need for Policy
Iron fertilization is a proposal with very high economic risks. If the long-term effects of iron fertilization were bad, it could have a horrible impact on the global economy. Many concerns have been raised about:

  • Intergenerational rights and stakeholder equity with respect to common marine resources.
  • Who is legally liable? Because the oceans are a common resource (outside of each country’s exclusive economic zone), who (individual, country, etc.) is legally responsible for protecting the oceans or for prosecuting those who abuse it?
  • Potential costs and benefits are possibly not accurately represented in proposals, because of insufficient data to make such estimates.
  • Media represents the prospect as overly optimistic and selectively reports peer-reviewed facts, contributing to premature legitimization of iron fertilization
  • Governments of poorer countries are unaware or willfully ignorant of the potential negative impacts.

Experiment evaluation
There is also a need to develop evaluation criteria for proposed iron fertilization experiments in order to determine if such experiments are appropriate and necessary. This would avoid further experimentation that could adversely alter the ecosystem. Among the questions to be considered are:

  • Is the experiment designed with full and appropriate consideration of existing scientific knowledge?
  • Is the scale, both in regards to area and duration, appropriate for the experiment?
  • Does the experiment lend itself to “life cycle” accounting of all the components involved in the fertilization?
  • What should be measured and how well?

Current Policy
There is currently very little policy that can be applied to iron fertilization. At the international level, the United Nations “Law of the Sea” and the London Dumping Convention both do not pose serious regulations on iron fertilization. “Dumping” is defined as: “Any deliberate disposal of wastes or other material matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea,” unless “the placement of the matter (is) for a purpose other than the disposal thereof.” Under this definition, Iron fertilization would not be classified as waste. However, it is unclear if the facilitation of the transfer of “waste” CO2 could be classified as dumping.

In the future, it is possible that International governments will establish a system of Carbon taxes and credits in order to regulate worldwide CO2 emissions. Therefore, the question arises of whether or not sequestration could count against a country’s used credits. The Lazio Bill, under legislative review in the U.S., could set a precedent for such domestic carbon management guidelines and standards. This bill supports actions that lead to “actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or actual increase in net carbon sequestration.” This bill would also grant a reduction in the amount of carbon credits claimed equal to the amount of CO2 sequestered. However, in order to qualify for such reductions, adequate scientific monitoring must be completed to prove the amount of carbon sequestered. Much more scientific research on the effectiveness of iron fertilization would be needed in order to meet these criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

The scale of the problem is completely different. You are talking about phasing out a few industries which utilized CFCs and now we are talking about phasing out civilization as we know it. The moral of the story is if the problem can be solved it will be solved within reason.

Climate change is a predicament with no solutions. Civilization is fundamentally incompatible with the biosphere. The science of steady-state civilizations is rather interesting but it is my belief that as long as capitalism is our model they will all fail in the end.

Ultimately we may need to go to war with capitalism particularly because it's consuming resources better utilized for steady-state civilizations and the urgency of climate change and the global biosphere. Large areas of agricultural and urban lands must return to nature as we attempt to re-stabilize the carbon cycle.

People don't want steady-state because it places restrictions on the individual's freedom but you can counter this by limiting the population to the planet's natural carrying capacity of 1 billion humans or 250 million humans with a 1950s per capita usage of resources.

Think about the beauty of a stable world. One or two children for each applicable couple. There's nothing wrong with limiting population especially as infant mortality has markedly decreased. Maybe with the passing of the generations we can move into a better future. I am not sold on the idea of the species being fundamentally untenable.

The challenge of our time is collapse and how to manage collapse in the least damaging manner. The secondary challenge is ending all emissions before 2035 by all means necessary including up to accelerationism (the process of accelerating economic collapse) and warfare on a global scale.

I sincerely doubt we can continue emitting GHGs beyond 2050. It's simply not possible (because civilization will be destroyed by climate destabilization) but the additional 15 years of silenced emissions would help us recover faster in the future.

I'm not as pessimistic, though I have worries given how impotent and unwilling today's generation of leaders (political and business) are in addressing the challenge of anthropogenic climate change.

Addressing climate change should not require "phasing out civilization." It does entail some significant changes. Among those changes are a transition to cleaner fuels, increased energy efficiency, a carbon tax/elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, etc. In my view, were the same leaders involved in tackling the problem of anthropogenic climate change today, credible, binding, and concrete commitments would have been undertaken. They understood what today's leaders don't, namely that today's choices have consequences for tomorrow. Consequently, they were not paralyzed by the suffocating short-term thinking that defines today's leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, etudiant said:

Transitions are not so easy. Just ask the Federal Reserve, trying to unblow the current zero interest bubble. That said, I think you overestimate the difficulties.

I think that populations are already under control in the industrialized world, with Europe, China, Japan and the US all under replacement fertility, leaving immigration to offset the decline.

Only Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia still have high birth rates, largely driven by poverty. That can be cured within a generation, as China demonstrated.

Separately, I do not think CO2 capture is a serious problem. The experiments in seeding the southern oceans with iron sulfate were hugely successful and underscore the late John Martins claim 'give me a half tanker of iron sulfate and I'll give you an ice age'.

Such a geoengineering approach, not withstanding other risks that may or may not be known, would only capture a fraction of the annual CO2 emissions per year (around one-eighth). That assumes one could produce enough iron sulfate for maximum effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no expertise on the topic, but the uncertainties are indeed massive. Consequently it is questionable whether the researcher quoted in The Guardian can credibly assert that the oceans cannot absorb the needed amount of CO2. Of course, this also reinforces your other point, about the known and unknown risks inherent in any geoengineering effort.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...