Greta Thunberg's speech

[Jarocal]

23 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

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.

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.  Then we won't need those big turbines, except for industrial uses and even then, we could cut down on the amount of electricity used by industry.

Doug

 

I'm well aware of agroforestry but on a typical farm it will only be a part of the overall system for the entire site. Hogs used judiciously will aerate the soil allowing for better drainage as the environment evolves. I personally prefer goat milk/cheese so I have never evolved my system beyond them when I could increase herd size and sell sell weathers (for $175 each this year).

[Only_]

5 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

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

Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk generates 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the second highest source of emissions and greater than all transportation combined. It also uses about 70% of agricultural land, and is one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution.

Anyone serious about ''fighting climate change'' would start by changing what's on his plate.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

I'm well aware of agroforestry but on a typical farm it will only be a part of the overall system for the entire site.

Correct.  I was a farm forester for 30 years and have worked with hundreds of landowners on things related to farming.  Of course, being a forester, I concentrated on trees.  My wife and I buy goat milk from an environmentally-friendly goat farmer.  My wife makes her own goat milk cheese and ice cream.

Doug

[Jarocal]

21 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk generates 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the second highest source of emissions and greater than all transportation combined. It also uses about 70% of agricultural land, and is one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution.

Anyone serious about ''fighting climate change'' would start by changing what's on his plate.

 

How the livestock is raised has more to do with the environmental impact. Part of that "70% of agricultural land" is only suitable for livestock. Another larger part are the cereal grains raised to feed CAFO operations where the animals diet actually adversely effects the dietary system of herbivores/omnivores who would normally have more diversity in their feedstock.

 

[Only_]

51 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

 Part of that "70% of agricultural land" is only suitable for livestock. Another larger part are the cereal grains raised to feed CAFO operations where the animals diet actually adversely effects the dietary system of herbivores/omnivores who would normally have more diversity in their feedstock.

 

While it is true that much semi-arid and arid zone grazing land is not suitable for plant agriculture, these areas already have a very low yield and their return to a natural state would not cause a significant reduction in food production.  Other areas used in animal agriculture are suitable for cropping for human use, especially land that is currently producing fodder and animal feed.

The reality is that we can't keep eating that much meat, dairy and eggs and pretend to ''fight climate change''. It just isn't sustainable or realistic. Most people in developped countries will have to eat a plant-based diet with some organic animal products from time to time.

Edited November 6, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Jarocal]

5 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

While it is true that much semi-arid and arid zone grazing land is not suitable for plant agriculture, these areas already have a very low yield and their return to a natural state would not cause a significant reduction in food production.  Other areas used in animal agriculture are suitable for cropping for human use, especially land that is currently producing fodder and animal feed.

Except a lot of thosearid/semi-arid lot areas are the local source of food for that region? Are you proposing it is better to ship monoculture agribusiness grain halfway atound the world than for a region to supply food to itself because mammals fart? It is better for than region to suffer economically and in food security so your idea of a "natural state" for that place occurs.

Recent LIDAR images show more anthropomorphic alteration of the Amazon jungle by PreColumbian inhabitants than was ever thought possible before. The "Pristine wilderness" Europeans thought they found in the Americas was actually an actively managed environment by the various indigenous populations.

P.S. they were not vegetarians and while maize was a prized cereal crop as it is in agribusiness today their diet was far more seasonal and diverse.

[tmcom]

Stops breathing air, (we wish).

And plastic straws are evil.

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

Stops breathing air, (we wish).

And plastic straws are evil.

Both you and she missed the solution:  Paper technology is such that we can invent a paper straw that will do most anything we want it to.  In this case, all we do is invent one that can't be swallowed by a turtle.

 

That whole paper/plastic thing started because somebody found a turtle with a plastic straw stuck in its mouth so it couldn't eat and was starving.  That's it:  one turtle and one straw.  Not exactly worth starting a war over.

Doug

[Guest]

On 11/5/2019 at 5:57 PM, Jarocal said:

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...

I'm not aware that technology to efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere exists.  Emphasize "efficiently."  Besides, what's the point when you're still dumping tons of it into the atmosphere every day?  We would have to require industries to remove it from their emissions, or raise a lot of tax money to run the program through the govt.  First, let's get emissions under control, then terraform the earth's atmosphere.  Try to get CO2 below 300 ppm.

Doug

[Guest]

On 11/6/2019 at 2:52 PM, Doug1029 said:

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.

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

 

I am thinking that wind may soon be obsolete.  Perovskites can already power homes and smaller businesses.  Large-scale application of perovskites could be cheaper than wind, which is already the cheapest source of electricity.

Perovskites use a lead-based compound to convert solar energy to power.  Windmills require some rare earths that are expensive and in short supply with China being the major source.  A large number of windmills could leave the US at China's mercy.  Perovskites might be the solution.

Sounds like I need to read up on perovskites.

Doug

[Jarocal]

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I'm not aware that technology to efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere exists.  Emphasize "efficiently."  Besides, what's the point when you're still dumping tons of it into the atmosphere every day?  We would have to require industries to remove it from their emissions, or raise a lot of tax money to run the program through the govt.  First, let's get emissions under control, then terraform the earth's atmosphere.  Try to get CO2 below 300 ppm.

Doug

The technology is plants. Fast growing perennials and Annual grasses that trap carbon. I have a 1/4 acre in front of my place I have to trim to municipal standards.  The back 14 acres I lease are allowed to grow. 

I know Alan Savory has been contested with hus work but when you add in Joel Salatin's work at polyface farms and Mark Shepherds work on his farm (both 500+ acres) holistic management seems q better course of action tHan the current agribusiness model.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Jarocal said:

The technology is plants. Fast growing perennials and Annual grasses that trap carbon. I have a 1/4 acre in front of my place I have to trim to municipal standards.  The back 14 acres I lease are allowed to grow. 

I know Alan Savory has been contested with hus work but when you add in Joel Salatin's work at polyface farms and Mark Shepherds work on his farm (both 500+ acres) holistic management seems q better course of action tHan the current agribusiness model.

 

Farms and soils have finite capacity.  Using them will help, but what we need is to stop putting more CO2 into the air.

Doug

[Alchopwn]

7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Farms and soils have finite capacity.  Using them will help, but what we need is to stop putting more CO2 into the air.

Doug

Humanity is in an increasingly bad situation.  We put more CO2 in the air, and the weather gets warmer and the air holds more energy i.e heat, and that causes moisture to evaporate leaving the soil and vegetation drier, then we get lightning strikes that start forest fires that produce thousands of tons more C02.  There are huge forest fires taking off all over the world this year.  We need those trees as they capture CO2, and attract the rainfall that stops droughts.  How long before the greenhouse effect plus our misuse of the oceans starts to negatively impact the phytoplankton in the oceans and destroy what is left of our ability to renew the world's oxygen supply?  Decades?  A decade?  I dread what the next report on global CO2 levels will tell us.

Global Warming is putting phytoplankton in danger

The role of phytoplankton in renewing the world's breathable air

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Humanity is in an increasingly bad situation.  We put more CO2 in the air, and the weather gets warmer and the air holds more energy i.e heat, and that causes moisture to evaporate leaving the soil and vegetation drier, then we get lightning strikes that start forest fires that produce thousands of tons more C02.  There are huge forest fires taking off all over the world this year.  We need those trees as they capture CO2, and attract the rainfall that stops droughts.  How long before the greenhouse effect plus our misuse of the oceans starts to negatively impact the phytoplankton in the oceans and destroy what is left of our ability to renew the world's oxygen supply?  Decades?  A decade?  I dread what the next report on global CO2 levels will tell us.

Global Warming is putting phytoplankton in danger

The role of phytoplankton in renewing the world's breathable air

Actually, when moisture evaporates it goes into the air, then falls as rain somewhere else.  Global warming produces more rain in most places.  It takes a water molecule about six  evaporation/precipitation cycles to get across the continent.

But that's all averages.  Some places (like southern California) are getting dryer.  The models predict that Oklahoma should be dryer, but that is not what is being observed.  So we still have some things to learn about how the system works.

Doug

[Alchopwn]

16 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Actually, when moisture evaporates it goes into the air, then falls as rain somewhere else.  Global warming produces more rain in most places.  It takes a water molecule about six  evaporation/precipitation cycles to get across the continent.

But that's all averages.  Some places (like southern California) are getting dryer.  The models predict that Oklahoma should be dryer, but that is not what is being observed.  So we still have some things to learn about how the system works.

Well, perhaps, but looking at the number of places that have had droughts this year, there is a point where that proves no longer true, and the water simply stays in the air rather than falling.  The number of droughts around the world is pretty extreme at the moment,  and the number of forest fires that have resulted is very high.  I fear we may have passed a threshold towards runaway greenhouse without realizing it, as the signs are there.

[Doug1029]

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Well, perhaps, but looking at the number of places that have had droughts this year, there is a point where that proves no longer true, and the water simply stays in the air rather than falling.  The number of droughts around the world is pretty extreme at the moment,  and the number of forest fires that have resulted is very high.  I fear we may have passed a threshold towards runaway greenhouse without realizing it, as the signs are there.

Number of droughts is only one metric.  There's also duration, frequency and intensity.  Storminess is another metric.  I would want to look at all of them before I made such a bold statement.

In Oklahoma the climate is getting warmer:  2F since 1975.  It has been getting wetter:  +1.12 on the Palmer Drought Severity Index since 1919 and it has been getting stormier in terms of barometric pressure since 1965.

In Oklahoma, ouir last big drought was the 1950s Drought.  Before that it was the Dust Bowl.  Before that 1910/1911, the Gay Nineties Drought and the Civil War Drought.  And before that they weren't as bad.

That is the big fear:  that we will cross a threshold without knowing it and not be able to get back.  Entraining our own destruction.

Doug

Edited November 11, 2019 by Doug1029

[Alchopwn]

On 11/7/2019 at 8:25 AM, crookedspiral said:

Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk generates 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the second highest source of emissions and greater than all transportation combined. It also uses about 70% of agricultural land, and is one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution.

Anyone serious about ''fighting climate change'' would start by changing what's on his plate.

Except that then we run into a fresh problem.  Humans have evolved to eat meat.  We need it, and our large brains only grew because of meat consumption.  Going back to a plant based diet would run all sorts of fresh problems, such as an increasingly anaemic female population who can't carry a fetus to term, for example, as well as unhealthy people with poor bone density and multiple vitamin deficiencies (yes, taking complex B tablets won't help as the molecule chains are too long for the body to get any benefit from them).  I would certainly agree that we don't need meat with every meal, but regular meat consumption is necessary for our physical wellbeing as a species.  On the other hand, some animals, like pigs, are far more efficient for meat production.  We eat 80% of a pig, for example but far less of cattle, perhaps only 50% by weight.  We can also use pig waste as a means of producing methane for fuel, which is actually comparatively clean if burned in this way, and far preferable to most other fuels.

[Dark_Grey]

On 11/7/2019 at 9:25 AM, tmcom said:

Stops breathing air, (we wish).

And plastic straws are evil.

lol that Soros picture on the wall

[Dark_Grey]

Rising food prices have historically been one of the triggers of peasant revolts.

Slowly convincing the populace that eating bugs is in their best interests is another form of subversion. Keep floating that idea long enough and eventually people won't care that the wealthy are still eating steak because they will have long forgotten what beef tastes like. "Climate change" is being used as a system of control to take us back to serfdom.

[Jarocal]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

Except that then we run into a fresh problem.  Humans have evolved to eat meat.  We need it, and our large brains only grew because of meat consumption.  Going back to a plant based diet would run all sorts of fresh problems, such as an increasingly anaemic female population who can't carry a fetus to term, for example, as well as unhealthy people with poor bone density and multiple vitamin deficiencies (yes, taking complex B tablets won't help as the molecule chains are too long for the body to get any benefit from them).  I would certainly agree that we don't need meat with every meal, but regular meat consumption is necessary for our physical wellbeing as a species.  On the other hand, some animals, like pigs, are far more efficient for meat production.  We eat 80% of a pig, for example but far less of cattle, perhaps only 50% by weight.  We can also use pig waste as a means of producing methane for fuel, which is actually comparatively clean if burned in this way, and far preferable to most other fuels.

Slurry pits for cattle can be converted to generate/capture methane.

Vitamin B deficiency? Surely Monsanto or someone will just figure out a way to genetically add it to rice. The previous attempt with a different vitamin flopped in the intended Asian markets but hey why not toss the dice again.

Rabbits would be even better than hogs as it could divert a lot of lawn waste currently going to landfills or composting operations into feedstock. A few properly designed hutches moved daily on a 1 acre suburban lot keeps the entire yard trimmed and fertilized. May take around 2 minutes with a rake to spread the fertilizer over the freshly mowed area each day. Just make sure your neighbor doesn't play a practical joke by dropping a buck in with your half dozen does so they end up kindling when you were only wanting to overwinter the does.

 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

Rising food prices have historically been one of the triggers of peasant revolts.

Slowly convincing the populace that eating bugs is in their best interests is another form of subversion. Keep floating that idea long enough and eventually people won't care that the wealthy are still eating steak because they will have long forgotten what beef tastes like. "Climate change" is being used as a system of control to take us back to serfdom.

Well that is an interesting conclusion.

Consider that the top 1% of the population now own just about 40% of the nations wealth and the bottom 80% own 7%.  That has been trending for longer than we have been talking about climate change

Not to make anybody the bad guy. Capitalism is a very effective system for producing wealth, and  it has never claimed to distribute it equally. 

Climate change did not cause the problem of unequal wealth distribution, but it may make people aware that the pie is not growing as fast as the population, and some people's share of the pie actually increases faster than the pie is growing.

I seriously doubt that people will forget the taste of meat very quickly.  Its been how long since the Irish potato famine, 175 years or so?  Even today an Irishman and an Englishman rarely sit down to have a pint and a chuckle over the fact that the Irishman's family was starving and emigrating while the Englishman's family of landlords was exporting grain from Ireland.

 

 

[Doc Socks Junior]

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

Rising food prices have historically been one of the triggers of peasant revolts.

Slowly convincing the populace that eating bugs is in their best interests is another form of subversion. Keep floating that idea long enough and eventually people won't care that the wealthy are still eating steak because they will have long forgotten what beef tastes like. "Climate change" is being used as a system of control to take us back to serfdom.

Lobster is viewed as a pretty high-class dish.

People in Nawlins seem pretty happy eating crawdads.

Serfdom! Control! Stop eating lobster everyone, you're letting 'them' win.

[tmcom]

10 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

lol that Soros picture on the wall

I thought it was Grumpy Cat?

9 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Rising food prices have historically been one of the triggers of peasant revolts.

Slowly convincing the populace that eating bugs is in their best interests is another form of subversion. Keep floating that idea long enough and eventually people won't care that the wealthy are still eating steak because they will have long forgotten what beef tastes like. "Climate change" is being used as a system of control to take us back to serfdom.

Yes, Thankfully investment in new solar/wind projects is stalling globally, why,...because it increases electricity costs, kills the poor in wintertime, sends heavy industry off shore, kills wage growth, and generally puts the state or country into a recession.

Politicians may be brain dead enough to keep flogging this, but corporations seeing the blood on its hands, is starting to think twice.

And Germany was in a recession last quarter, so the Green party really f....up that country.

Once we add "Climate Emergency" to the mix then Lemmings headed for the oceans cliff, takes over.

[Only_]

15 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Except that then we run into a fresh problem.  Humans have evolved to eat meat.  We need it, and our large brains only grew because of meat consumption. 

Meat was clearly pivotal in the evolution of the human brain, but that doesn’t mean that meat is still an irreplaceable part of the modern human diet. Any calorie-dense food would have had the same effect on our ancient evolving brain. It could have been peanut butter but it's meat that happened to be available.

Quote

Going back to a plant based diet would run all sorts of fresh problems, such as an increasingly anaemic female population who can't carry a fetus to term, for example, as well as unhealthy people with poor bone density and multiple vitamin deficiencies (yes, taking complex B tablets won't help as the molecule chains are too long for the body to get any benefit from them). 

B12 is the only vitamin that is not recognised as being reliably supplied from a varied wholefood, plant-based diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, together with exposure to sun.

Quote

On the other hand, some animals, like pigs, are far more efficient for meat production.  We eat 80% of a pig, for example but far less of cattle, perhaps only 50% by weight.  We can also use pig waste as a means of producing methane for fuel, which is actually comparatively clean if burned in this way, and far preferable to most other fuels.

Is an increase in pig production really sustainable?

Especially as the world fills up with more humans demanding more protein while our planet keeps getting hotter.

Edited November 12, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Only_]

*snip*

Edited November 12, 2019 by crookedspiral