Greta Thunberg's speech

[Doug1029]

23 minutes ago, tmcom said:

She wants your money, to an almost empty theatre, the politics are settled, lol.

I won't post the [TYP] Greta Thunberg on the REAL crises, or the mime one, as they may not stick, but still very funny.

She just turned down an award with a sizable cash prize.  It's on the "Great Thunberg rejects environmental award thread."  You sure are up to date on these things.

Doug

 

[Jarocal]

On 9/25/2019 at 4:41 PM, Doug1o29 said:

 

BUT:  By 2050 most of them could be achieved.  And by then, we should have the technology for efficient extraction and sequestration of CO2.  We CAN beat this thing.  All it takes is a little know-how and innovation.  This is America - innovation is what we do best.

Doug

We have technology to inexpensively extract co2 from the atmosphere and sequester carbon. We just tend to pave it over or mow it too low too often...

[Jarocal]

On 9/26/2019 at 7:44 AM, tmcom said:

 

Greta will recommend a horse and cart next, (which by the way, is virtually impossible to implement, because of sanitation and the sheer numbers required).

 

I happen to live in an area where a percentage of the population(Amish) still use horse and buggy for conveyance. Where logistics require a motor vehicle they pay for a driver with an appropriate vehicle. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Jarocal

[Only_]

On 10/4/2019 at 9:38 AM, Doug1o29 said:

I completely disagree.  We CAN control global warming.  It will take a major effort, but it is doable if we have the will.

Doug

It's actually pretty easy. Changing your diet is the biggest way to reduce your impact on planet earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. Global warming could be solved in large part by dropping meat and dairy consumption.

Edited November 6, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Alchopwn]

On 10/15/2019 at 12:48 AM, Doug1o29 said:

The Dems will impeach tRUMP.  They have the votes to do it now.  But it seems unlikely that tRUMP will be removed from office because that requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate and that's a mighty high hurdle.  Is it a wasted effort?  Maybe.  This is a chance to stand up and say that criminal activites do not belong in the White House.  If that costs you your seat in Congress, so be it.  You can always find another job.  Where do you get another soul?  It seems more likely that tRUMP will survive the attempt to remove him from office, only to lose the election.  If he wins that, we can always reintriduce impeachment proceedings.

I don't see it this way.  From where I am sitting, I know that unless the Dems can produce a quality of evidence that is pretty damn unequivocal that they will not get Trump impeached.  What they can do is tally up all of his impeachable offenses, and keep the pressure on Trump.  Trump is hopeless under pressure, and simply becomes increasingly irrational.  Who knows?  He may simply die of a stroke, given his lack of exercise and atrocious diet.  In some ways I think this is more likely than getting the steaming moral trash fire that is the Republican Senate to actually follow the law.

The real danger is the uncomfortable situation if a lot of Reps from Trump era get sent to jail.  When political parties start concentrating on locking each other up, it generally ends in a civil war.  The only winner in such a case would be Putin.

[tmcom]

4 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

It's actually pretty easy. Changing your diet is the biggest way to reduce your impact on planet earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. Global warming could be solved in large part by dropping meat and dairy consumption.

No Red Meat!

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

It's actually pretty easy. Changing your diet is the biggest way to reduce your impact on planet earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. Global warming could be solved in large part by dropping meat and dairy consumption.

FRAnkly my dear, that sounds like dictatorship worthy of Nineteen Eighty-Four. You should be forbidden from eating meat. You should be forbidden from eating dairy products. You should be compelled to exist on a diet of - well, what? Mass produced food substitute nutrient products manufactured in some factory (solar powered of course)? Where would be the enjoyment in that? There'd be no enjoyment at all. It would be purely subsisting. That seems to be what the ultimate aim of these "we must give up everything to Save Planet Earth" fanatics is: to rob life of everything that that people find enjoyable and compel humanity to exist merely as drones, labouring under a perpetual weight of guilt for being a parasite on Planet Earth .

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

FRAnkly my dear, that sounds like dictatorship worthy of Nineteen Eighty-Four. You should be forbidden from eating meat. You should be forbidden from eating dairy products. You should be compelled to exist on a diet of - well, what? Mass produced food substitute nutrient products manufactured in some factory (solar powered of course)? Where would be the enjoyment in that? There'd be no enjoyment at all. It would be purely subsisting. That seems to be what the ultimate aim of these "we must give up everything to Save Planet Earth" fanatics is: to rob life of everything that that people find enjoyable and compel humanity to exist merely as drones, labouring under a perpetual weight of guilt for being a parasite on Planet Earth .

That is because the radical left - like Islamic theocracies and communist states - despise the idea of people actually ENJOYING themselves  

As for what we will eat.. well... Soylent Green anybody ?  

[Jarocal]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

No Red Meat!

I would suggest developing over time the "eat local, eat seasonal" approach to diet alteration rather than "no red meat". 

In transportation push states to allow a larger variety of low speed electric vehicles on non-interstate roads. I live in a rural area. If I am working at the shop all day I have a 7 mile commute. Why should I be required to drive a v8 gas engine work truck when the electric 4wd utility vehicle would easily do the same for less cost and lower footprint. 

Less regulation, not more is what is needed imho.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Jarocal

[Space Commander Travis]

27 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

 Why should I be required to drive a v8 gas engine work truck when the electric 4wd utility vehicle would easily do the same for less cost and lower footprint.

 

Because it's a lot more fun. You're complaining about having to drive a V8 truck?

[Space Commander Travis]

And less cost? I very much doubt that. Well, if it was heavily subsidised as electronic vehicles always are, but not in real terms it wouldn't be.

[Jarocal]

5 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

And less cost? I very much doubt that. Well, if it was heavily subsidised as electronic vehicles always are, but not in real terms it wouldn't be.

I already own it for working on the property. It is not as if it is an additional expense. It was not heavily subsidized, I bought the golf cart, changed the suspension, added lighting and an enclosed cab.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Jarocal

[tmcom]

52 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

I would suggest developing over time the "eat local, eat seasonal" approach to diet alteration rather than "no red meat". 

In transportation push states to allow a larger variety of low speed electric vehicles on non-interstate roads. I live in a rural area. If I am working at the shop all day I have a 7 mile commute. Why should I be required to drive a v8 gas engine work truck when the electric 4wd utility vehicle would easily do the same for less cost and lower footprint. 

Less regulation, not more is what is needed imho.

 

Yes, only trouble with that idea, is unless you know that the electricity is coming from wind/solar it is still using coal.

[Doug1029]

4 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

FRAnkly my dear, that sounds like dictatorship worthy of Nineteen Eighty-Four. You should be forbidden from eating meat. You should be forbidden from eating dairy products. You should be compelled to exist on a diet of - well, what? Mass produced food substitute nutrient products manufactured in some factory (solar powered of course)? Where would be the enjoyment in that? There'd be no enjoyment at all. It would be purely subsisting. That seems to be what the ultimate aim of these "we must give up everything to Save Planet Earth" fanatics is: to rob life of everything that that people find enjoyable and compel humanity to exist merely as drones, labouring under a perpetual weight of guilt for being a parasite on Planet Earth .

How about Soylent Green?

Doug

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, only trouble with that idea, is unless you know that the electricity is coming from wind/solar it is still using coal.

And I wouldn't trust one of those self-steering vehicles on a public road.  They've got a long way to go before the software can distinguish a semi from a bright sky.

 

Once it's on a powerline, an electron is an electron.  Doesn't make any difference what generated the flow of electricity.  ALL three main grids (and Texas) in the US and their subdivisions are already partly wind-powered.  It's not an either/or issue.  One has no way of knowing whether he's being powered by wind, coal or oil unless he's driving past a running windmill.

You do know that diesel locomotives are powered by electric engines, don't you?  The diesel drives a generator which provides power to the electric motors which drive the train.  That generator could easily be replaced by a catenary system that draws power from the local grid, which is already partly wind-powered.

Doug

Edited November 6, 2019 by Doug1029

[Jarocal]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, only trouble with that idea, is unless you know that the electricity is coming from wind/solar it is still using coal.

Which I have no issue using as greener technologies are implemented not only wind/solar but also micro generation via methane/ethanol/biogas/wood gasification where those applications make sense. Current regulations push for larger consolidated operations that waste energy moving the raw materials to a plant which generates power but also has to waste energy moving byproduct offsite.

Methane and ethanol can be utilized on smaller scales onsite at farms and the byproducts used directly onsite with a far lower environmental impact or resources needed. 

I power my shed/workshop with solar/wind charging a battery bank and a fossil fuel generator only as needed. It is not cost effective for me to run a power line 300 meters to tie it into the grid. The lights are all led and are on a separate battery array.

 

[RoofGardener]

5 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

How about Soylent Green?

Doug

AHEM  

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

That is because the radical left - like Islamic theocracies and communist states - despise the idea of people actually ENJOYING themselves  

As for what we will eat.. well... Soylent Green anybody ?  

 

[Doug1029]

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

AHEM  

 

I don't see any immediate need to outlaw meat.  There are a lot of ranges in the western US that are too dry or too rocky to plow and farm, but are nevertheless capable of producing perfectly good beef.  Grass fed beef has less marbling than feedlot beef, meaning you get about 20% more meat from a pound of it; there is less fat to throw away.  This is a resource that will not be used if meat is outlawed.

The reason for feedlots in the US is that we have production limits on grain.  A farmer can grow as much as he wants, but he can't sell more than a certain amount (determined by acreage and past sales history).  So, a farmer starts a feedlot and produces beef or hogs upon which there are no restrictions.  A big feedlot can also obtain "contract" grain.  It pays up front for a farmer to produce a grain crop.  When it is harvested, the feedlot merely takes possession, without buying the grain and so bypasses the grain-growing restriction.

The big problem with feedlots is all that manure.  If it is just left to decompose, the result is large methane releases.  It needs to be spread on fields and any effluent treated in a sewage system.  Liquid wastes also need to be spread on fields to keep them out of local streams.  With proper regulation and enforcement, there should be little problem with continued meat production.

Doug

 

[Only_]

6 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

There'd be no enjoyment at all. It would be purely subsisting. That seems to be what the ultimate aim of these "we must give up everything to Save Planet Earth" fanatics is: to rob life of everything that that people find enjoyable and compel humanity to exist merely as drones, labouring under a perpetual weight of guilt for being a parasite on Planet Earth .

At the end of the day, you do what you want. But let's not pretend there is no easy solution for global warming. Since animal agriculture is destroying the world that all of us live in, that is pretty much a fact at this point. There is no necessity for deforestation and depletion of ressources up in your recepies.

Quote

You should be compelled to exist on a diet of - well, what? Mass produced food substitute nutrient products manufactured in some factory (solar powered of course)? Where would be the enjoyment in that?

Vegetables, fruits, legumes, tubers, whole grains, nuts & seeds.

Real healthy food.

Edited November 6, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Space Commander Travis]

2 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

But let's not pretend there is no easy solution for global warming.

 well done, perhaps it is rather more complex than "Humanity is Killing Planet Earth"!

[Doug1029]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

That is because the radical left - like Islamic theocracies and communist states - despise the idea of people actually ENJOYING themselves  

As for what we will eat.. well... Soylent Green anybody ?  

Some people are so into politics they can't see that we're dealing with a technical issue here.  Politics won't save us from climate change.  Only advancing technology can do that.  So far, only wind, solar, hydro and a little geothermal and not all kinds of those are practical enough to implement on a wide scale.  But we will invent other ways to power the planet - ways that don't pollute or destroy it.  All politics can do is provide a favorable climate in which technology can get the job done.

Doug

[Jarocal]

2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

I don't see any immediate need to outlaw meat.  There are a lot of ranges in the western US that are too dry or too rocky to plow and farm, but are nevertheless capable of producing perfectly good beef.  Grass fed beef has less marbling than feedlot beef, meaning you get about 20% more meat from a pound of it; there is less fat to throw away.  This is a resource that will not be used if meat is outlawed.

The reason for feedlots in the US is that we have production limits on grain.  A farmer can grow as much as he wants, but he can't sell more than a certain amount (determined by acreage and past sales history).  So, a farmer starts a feedlot and produces beef or hogs upon which there are no restrictions.  A big feedlot can also obtain "contract" grain.  It pays up front for a farmer to produce a grain crop.  When it is harvested, the feedlot merely takes possession, without buying the grain and so bypasses the grain-growing restriction.

The big problem with feedlots is all that manure.  If it is just left to decompose, the result is large methane releases.  It needs to be spread on fields and any effluent treated in a sewage system.  Liquid wastes also need to be spread on fields to keep them out of local streams.  With proper regulation and enforcement, there should be little problem with continued meat production.

Doug

 

I see no need to outlaw meat at any point. Herbivores are very beneficial to any sustainable agriculture system. If they are properly managed and balanced to fit the site specific application. That may mean running goats and hogs to open an overgrown thicket for a season or two rather than a brushcutter and mechanically/manually removing the debris. As the area is cleared seeds dormant in the existing soil will gerninate eliminating the need to immediately broadcast a monoculture cover crop. During the winter months selective timber harvest opens the area further and selected crop bearing species can be incorporated and over a relatively short period of time be turned more into a Savannah environment. 

None of it is cookie cutter replication though and individual sites need evaluated to determine which species of flora and fauna are best for the initial phase, intermediate, and later stage as the modification of the environmental conditions should dictate what to plant inhow large an amount. It shouldnt be done by commodity future forecasts.

[Jarocal]

13 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Some people are so into politics they can't see that we're dealing with a technical issue here.  Politics won't save us from climate change.  Only advancing technology can do that.  So far, only wind, solar, hydro and a little geothermal and not all kinds of those are practical enough to implement on a wide scale.  But we will invent other ways to power the planet - ways that don't pollute or destroy it.  All politics can do is provide a favorable climate in which technology can get the job done.

Doug

Define your "large scale". If you mean vast wind farms and solar arrays I would disagree with that is what is needed. I believe what is needed in the climate you speak of is deconsolidation of generation to individual sites with the excess receiving proper remuneration from the corporation or utility transmitting the power.

[Jarocal]

2 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

At the end of the day, you do what you want. But let's not pretend there is no easy solution for global warming. Since animal agriculture is destroying the world that all of us live in, that is pretty much a fact at this point. There is no necessity for deforestation and depletion of ressources up in your recepies.

Vegetables, fruits, legumes, tubers, whole grains, nuts & seeds.

Real healthy food.

Agribusiness is killing the planet not the animals. That includes very large organic certified monoculture operations servicing vegetarian amd vegan consumers.

Should the typical American (western) diet be altered? Yes, but not by government regulation. Ron Finley had an excellent quote in his Ted talk years ago "Kid's who grow kale eat kale, kids who grow tomatoes eat tomatoes". Maybe less regulation on the part of municipalities prohibiting poultry and small livestock needs to be rolled back. A couple hens in the back yard will not make any more noise than a pet dog, eat kitchen scraps and supply eggs/meat in exchange. Why should someone have to sort compostable kitchen waste to be hauled off if they can feed it to a few chickens and the issue is resolved onsite?

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Jarocal said:

I see no need to outlaw meat at any point. Herbivores are very beneficial to any sustainable agriculture system. If they are properly managed and balanced to fit the site specific application. That may mean running goats and hogs to open an overgrown thicket for a season or two rather than a brushcutter and mechanically/manually removing the debris. As the area is cleared seeds dormant in the existing soil will gerninate eliminating the need to immediately broadcast a monoculture cover crop. During the winter months selective timber harvest opens the area further and selected crop bearing species can be incorporated and over a relatively short period of time be turned more into a Savannah environment. 

None of it is cookie cutter replication though and individual sites need evaluated to determine which species of flora and fauna are best for the initial phase, intermediate, and later stage as the modification of the environmental conditions should dictate what to plant inhow large an amount. It shouldnt be done by commodity future forecasts.

I'm just leaving open the possibility that we might have to outlaw meat.  I don't think it will come to that.

What you're talking about is called agroforestry.  Some crops are compatible with an overhead canopy of trees (like coffee).  In other cases we might want to include plum trees as part of a windbreak.  We can even graze pine stands if they have a rocky soil and/or a wide crown spacing.  It used to be that cattle were considered incompatible with trees because of the damage their hooves do to exposed roots.  Decay fungi enter the tree through the injury and hollow it out, leaving a worthless cull.  But that is only true of hardwoods and pines on soft, usually wet, soils.  Note that if one is growing a pine crop, one does not need to clean out brush.  Once the seedlings top the brush, they do just fine with no further care.  And in hardwood stands, cleaning out brush causes injuries that degrade the wood quality.  Better to let nature take care of itself.

3 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Define your "large scale". If you mean vast wind farms and solar arrays I would disagree with that is what is needed. I believe what is needed in the climate you speak of is deconsolidation of generation to individual sites with the excess receiving proper remuneration from the corporation or utility transmitting the power.

Yes, I do.  In the case of wind turbines, there are economies of scale that make larger operations more efficient than smaller ones.  It takes one powerline to service a thousand windmills.  Once it is built, there are no further expenses involved in increasing the number of windmills it serves.  A large (500mv) rotor costs about $4.5 million, while a 225Mv rotor costs about $3 million, but generates more than twice the power.  The newest wind turbines can generate five times as much power as the smaller ones now being decommissioned.  What you're talking about is replacing a few large wind farms with dozens, or even hundreds, of small ones.  I agree that smaller operations would help break the energy company monopolies and that we should start producing home-sized units as soon as we can make them feasible.  But know in advance that that will be a lot more expensive than large wind turbines.

The solar panels you're thinking of are not where the action is in solar.  Perovskites are now on the market.  They can be painted onto a surface exposed to sunlight and hooked up to a home power system.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_solar_cell  They can generate enough power during daylight to run and heat a home all day.  If you're interested in breaking the power company monopolies, this might be the way to go.  My daughter is planning on going to perovskites the next time she replaces her roof.  Maybe I will, too.

For those who don't like large wind farms:  Lost_Shaman, are you listening?  Switch the world to perovskites.

Doug

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Doug1029