advertisement


We are basically pissing in the wind

Joe P said:
Chris,

Whatever, man, but I think you mean to say that Chris comes first -- or maybe second, right after Steven.

I'd write more but I'm really quite busy today, but here's some questions to ponder -- has it occurred that diverse ecosystems are necessary (a) for a source of genes for disease-resistance in the crops we eat, (b) for efficient nutrient cycling, and (c) to maintain the ecological relationships between species such that biological systems are resilient?

Are natural ecosystems biologically diverse because they're stable or stable because they're biologically diverse?

Joe
Click to expand...

Joe, it doesn't matter, because if they get in the way, they're toast.

Chris
 
Greg said:
well, yes I suspect Joe might agree with the bit in bold, but you appear to have missed Joe's actual point about the inefficiency of meat production. Fortunately your point about priorities means that you recognise the logic of eating less meat.

Somehow I anticipate you will tell us you like meat and you don't care.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Chris
 
Greg said:
Adapting in ways such as: scientific progress in the area of clean-energy; policies to reduce waste of resources (including oil which we need for plastics rather that to burn); etc, etc.

I would expect these modes of adaptation beats continuing "as is" on the basis of "what's the point?".

Humans have an excellent track record of solving complex problems. What we don't have is a great track record of efficient, peaceful collaboration, though progress can be made in that area.
Click to expand...


I think this thread seems to be heading away from the theme....

To refer to this post, we do have methods to create 'clean-energy' or more a case of cleaner energy, but we're not going with them and that's part of the problem we have. Germany has taken a political decision to close it's existing nuclear (clean) power stations and replace them with lignite coal ones (about as un-clean a coal as you can get). Why? It appears to be political/corporate/economically driven rather than environmental as their carbon reduction targets aren't going to be met. But they have industry they are concerned about and energy prices have been rising beyond what is economically viable.

As mentioned before, China and India are commissioning/building in excess of 1000+ coal stations. Why coal? Because it's cheap. Will it help the environment? No. Will these stations only affect the environment/climate of India and China? No. So the political/economical considerations and decisions made by China and India for example will affect all of us as their capacity is so large. So the coming together under a joint initiative like the Kyoto Protocol is only getting lip service.

You're right in that humans have an excellent track record of solving complex problems.....but how many have to suffer or die before humans put the environment before their domestic economies? The UK pretty much started the industrial revolution and we polluted the planet ourselves.... but we didn't know the effects back then. We were oblivious and ignorant at the time. But we, as a human race, understand more now so why are we still building coal stations when we know they throw out carbon emissions, create smog and are detrimental to health?
 
I'm talking about proper clean-energy solutions, whatever they turn out to be (<- note my tone of optimism).
 
kcdionysus said:
I think this thread seems to be heading away from the theme....

To refer to this post, we do have methods to create 'clean-energy' or more a case of cleaner energy, but we're not going with them and that's part of the problem we have. Germany has taken a political decision to close it's existing nuclear (clean) power stations and replace them with lignite coal ones (about as un-clean a coal as you can get). Why? It appears to be political/corporate/economically driven rather than environmental as their carbon reduction targets aren't going to be met. But they have industry they are concerned about and energy prices have been rising beyond what is economically viable.

As mentioned before, China and India are commissioning/building in excess of 1000+ coal stations. Why coal? Because it's cheap. Will it help the environment? No. Will these stations only affect the environment/climate of India and China? No. So the political/economical considerations and decisions made by China and India for example will affect all of us as their capacity is so large. So the coming together under a joint initiative like the Kyoto Protocol is only getting lip service.

You're right in that humans have an excellent track record of solving complex problems.....but how many have to suffer or die before humans put the environment before their domestic economies? The UK pretty much started the industrial revolution and we polluted the planet ourselves.... but we didn't know the effects back then. We were oblivious and ignorant at the time. But we, as a human race, understand more now so why are we still building coal stations when we know they throw out carbon emissions, create smog and are detrimental to health?
Click to expand...

Because there will pretty soon be 7.5 billion of us.

If 2 or 3 billion are killed in an environmental catastrophe, so what? No danger of species extinction.

Chris
 
Mescalito said:
Because there will pretty soon be 7.5 billion of us.



If 2 or 3 billion are killed in an environmental catastrophe, so what? No danger of species extinction.



Chris
Click to expand...


Predictions are that the planet will be heading towards 11bn by the end of the century. And you're right in that pretty much whatever we do, other than a global nuclear war, will be survivable for some but it's the billions who will die because of our stupidity.
 
Mick P said:
I live in Andalucía of Spain, the place where spaghetti westerns are made.

Over the last three years, thousand of acres have been converted into farmland and crops are being grown 52 weeks a year where there was once just gravel.

The least you could do is apologise for that joke, it was appalling.
Click to expand...

Mick, the EU is a bit different to sub-Saharan Africa. Have you ever been there? It's no bread basket, it's another sort of basket.
 
Greg said:
I'm talking about proper clean-energy solutions, whatever they turn out to be (<- note my tone of optimism).
Click to expand...


Fine.....so we have to use some existing technology in the meantime and if it was me, I'd throw some alternate and developing technologies into the mix as well as until we build some test sites, we won't know what will work.

But if this is the case, why are we, as a race, choosing the worst option? Out of wind, thermal, tidal, solar, nuclear, biomass, gas and coal..... we're going for easily the worst polluting one..... and committing the world to go down this path for the next 30-50 years.
 
Mescalito said:
Ah, but the others may not have seen my argument, Joe:)

We live in a real environment, not a bloody theme park. If diverse ecosystems have to be sacrificed to feed people, so be it. People come first.

And, increasingly, those people are going to demand an increasing amount of meat in their diet. So goodbye little ecosystem.

Chris
Click to expand...
If your brave new world involves the honey bee becoming extinct then agriculture is finished. So goodbye little ecosystem, goodbye pollinator, goodbye food.

That's just one example of why diversity may be necessary. Monoculture in the USA between wars didn't work, remember?

People may indeed come first but if there's no food then the only survivors will be the cockroaches eating our rotting corpses. The planet won't care but resourceful as I am I suspect my ability to adapt will have run out some while before then. I reckon I could do a few weeks of Papillon-style dining on cockroaches but even he failed at that after a while.
 
stevec67 said:
If your brave new world involves the honey bee becoming extinct then agriculture is finished. So goodbye little ecosystem, goodbye pollinator, goodbye food.

That's just one example of why diversity may be necessary. Monoculture in the USA between wars didn't work, remember?

People may indeed come first but if there's no food then the only survivors will be the cockroaches eating our rotting corpses. The planet won't care but resourceful as I am I suspect my ability to adapt will have run out some while before then. I reckon I could do a few weeks of Papillon-style dining on cockroaches but even he failed at that after a while.
Click to expand...

You have it in one in that the planet won't care. New ecosystems will establish themselves soon enough.

Chris
 
Yes, of course the reason is in your question - economics overrides environment.

However, if molten-salt reactors progress as rapidly as they might, solar technology continues to rapidly improve, plus wave power and who knows maybe even fusion someday, then the horizon of patterns of generation may shift considerably.

Consider the question about Africans and CO2 - sub-saharan Africa being notoriously sunny, then consider:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/feb/22/3d-printing-solar-energy-industry
 
Derry, the evidence is clear - improvements to health and education eventually lead to reduced birth rates.

The biggest issue with giving aid is not whether it's right to save lives, but the corruption..
 
Greg said:
Yes, of course the reason is in your question - economics overrides environment.

However, if molten-salt reactors progress as rapidly as they might, solar technology continues to rapidly improve, plus wave power and who knows maybe even fusion someday, then the horizon of patterns of generation may shift considerably.

Consider the question about Africans and CO2 - sub-saharan Africa being notoriously sunny, then consider:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/feb/22/3d-printing-solar-energy-industry
Click to expand...


Yes...molten salt (thorium) reactors....I've been banging on about these for years. Why aren't we building these instead of coal? Hot countries in places like Africa should be the place for solar....of course it makes sense. So why aren't we doing these things? Because we are all living in paranoid and inward looking sovereign countries that place their own wants and needs and economies above the collective good. And where we are now with the projections of what climate change could do to us all, if ever there was a time when we all need to club together and think of the collective good, it's now.

But it's not happening and now the bigger countries have decided on their course of action, it's unlikely we can change that. My fear going forward is that other developing nations will do the same and the problem will escalate at a frightening rate.
 
Still said:
Because they don't produce nuclear materials for weapons.
Click to expand...


Thorium reactors can use nuclear waste for fuel as well so can help use the piles of nuclear waste we have already built up. One of the reasons Thorium reactors weren't adopted in the 50's and 60's was because the ability to produce nuclear weapons grade material wasn't as effective as the currently used methods. It was too unstable and unreliable.
 
Cheer up guys, 20% of electrical generation in 2014 is green. And best of all, it's GROWING at its fastest rate EVER!

Good news.
 
darrenyeats said:
Cheer up guys, 22% of electrical generation capacity and 20% of actual generation in 2014 is green. And best of all, these measures are GROWING at their fastest rate EVER!

Good news.
Click to expand...

This has been covered twice up-thread. Despite this CO2 emissions hit record levels last year. We really are pissing in the wind!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top