These issues are widely debated in the latest book of Greta Thunberg. Again, it’s basically a combination of very interesting articles on climate change that were all written by leading experts.
 
As far as I know, climate change means that more water is now stored in the atmosphere. And this is why all monsoon, flood and hurricane events seem to be on steroid (at least since the end of the 90’s).
 
And this is different from the rise of sea levels. That is set to happen starting from 2050 with the melting of sea ice in the North and South Pole.
 
My conclusion is: As long as we depend on agriculture for our very survival, we cannot let these thing happen.
 
Also new tools will probably be necessary in the Anthropocene. Maui is on fire now and since 2015 or so, there is always some place that is on fire in the summer. Just before the pandemic, Australia was struggling with enormous fires that were simply impossible to control with ordinary methods. So my idea is, how about building huge land based water cannons that will be ready to use in the case of a wildfire at least in coastal areas like this for instance:  

Amazonian nations are also asking for funds to protect and maintain their rain forest. I think there could be such models that would be extended to all the large forests of the world (including boreal forest in North America and Northern Europe + temperate forests in other forests of the world) whenever that is possible (meaning wherever there is the presence of a strong government that will use these funds to prevent illegal logging, transformation of forest into meat production or soy-bean production areas and reforests areas that have been cut illegally in the past).
 
This type of funding is very important because people see value in deforested areas, in the clearing of forests for logging, mining or farming activities, but most people do not really understand the value of even the shade of a tree. Because the amazons are purifying the air we breathe freely, some people are tempted to think that the whole process is happening magically, without any need for us to grant the trees, the biodiversity, the oceans the very basic right to exist. So funding, as suggested by President Lula could be the right type of approach here.
 
Also these forest destructions are not limited to developing countries. They also happen in North European countries, the US and even Germany were ancient villages are being levelled to allow the expansion of coal mines. If trees had a price tag on them, the market would quickly realize that they are worth more alive than dead.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tropical-fore...28975.html

This is about the issue the increases of the earth’s temperature in the past (Dimitry’s Post).
 
In Chapter 2.24 of the Climate Book Tamsin Edwards (Climatologist - City College London) the last time global temperatures were 2,5 Degree warmer that the pre-industrial times in our era was 3 million years ago. That’s the time of early bipeds like the famous Australopithecus. 2 million year before the Homo-Habilis (First tool making man-like creatures).
 
Edwards does not believe the 1,5 Target of the Paris Agreement can be reached. But he does not believe in the apocalyptic 4 C increase by the end of the century either. He thinks rapid action will probably put us to a climate that is around 2 C hotter than pre-industrial times. With serious challenges awaiting us, but not entirely pessimistic and hopeless like the 3 to 4 C hotter than pre-industrial time scenario.
 
By the way: Our hearts are with the people of Maui. Best of luck if you happen to be on that island. 

(August 10, 2023 at 3:39 pm)Leonardo17 Wrote: Edwards does not believe the 1,5 Target of the Paris Agreement can be reached. But he does not believe in the apocalyptic 4 C increase by the end of the century either. He thinks rapid action will probably put us to a climate that is around 2 C hotter than pre-industrial times. With serious challenges awaiting us, but not entirely pessimistic and hopeless like the 3 to 4 C hotter than pre-industrial time scenario.

   There is also a new economy that is about to emerge that includes the combination of modern methods of growing crops with more traditional methods of Agriculture. Chadian environmentalist Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim has a wonderful article on that in “The Climate Book”. Ancient methods of growing crops are a technology that is superior to mechanized agriculture in so many ways. Many people in the Sahel region are now relying on this technology to practice heat and drought resistant agriculture that will allow them to survive in the era of climate change.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-devel...ou-ibrahim
 
   A strange analogy is that, the Guru and climate activist Jaggadish Vassudev is also emphasizing this phenomenon. He believes (meaning he has proved in many instances) that the return to some elements of traditional agriculture that allow agricultural soil to have a 2-5% lager of organic material will allow farmer to cultivate healthier crops that require less water and much less chemicals on them.
 
   My vision for the future is of an evolving way of doing things. Practically in all areas of our lives. But whether we are going to be able to do that on time, that a completely different issue

(August 12, 2023 at 6:45 am)Leonardo17 Wrote:    There is also a new economy that is about to emerge that includes the combination of modern methods of growing crops with more traditional methods of Agriculture. Chadian environmentalist Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim has a wonderful article on that in “The Climate Book”. Ancient methods of growing crops are a technology that is superior to mechanized agriculture in so many ways. Many people in the Sahel region are now relying on this technology to practice heat and drought resistant agriculture that will allow them to survive in the era of climate change.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-devel...ou-ibrahim
 
   A strange analogy is that, the Guru and climate activist Jaggadish Vassudev is also emphasizing this phenomenon. He believes (meaning he has proved in many instances) that the return to some elements of traditional agriculture that allow agricultural soil to have a 2-5% lager of organic material will allow farmer to cultivate healthier crops that require less water and much less chemicals on them.
 
   My vision for the future is of an evolving way of doing things. Practically in all areas of our lives. But whether we are going to be able to do that on time, that a completely different issue

One of the chief advantages to traditional agriculture is the reduced reliance on fossil fuels (synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are produced from natural gas/methane).

The downside is likely to be reduced yield/ha, with a concomitant rise in the price of foodstuffs.

Boru

In the larger picture of a carbon free future, I think there’s a version of the future where overproduction and low(er) price to producer are the downsides.

There is a question of whether traditional agriculture without reliance on synthetic fertilizers has the capacity to support the current world population

The more credible worry isn’t productive capacity, it’s the same problem we have now. Distribution. We produce more food than would be required…not by a little, by a lot. We produced more food than we needed before the uniformity of petrochemical agriculture, too. We’d need to reverse the declining numbers in our livestock industry, but making food has never been the problem. It’s an issue of central crop planning and delivery.

Ironically, a lot of the efficiencies built into the standard model will block the path to greener ag- petrochemical fertilizer is one of those things but by no means the most pressing. Definitely the most marketable, though.

   Less production does not have to be a bad thing. If you have a friend who is cultivating marrows with real seed in his/her garden, you can see how these are superior to the products you may find in ordinary markets. In India doctors are advising to the population to try consume more meat products. That’s because vegetables no longer contain the amount of nutrients they used to. This trend is also followed in meat production. For me there is “real chicken” and there is “mass produced chicken”. So in many cases less is actually more. But no one is advocating a complete return to the past. There is a whole science on how to be more sustainable and more eco-friendly without throwing away all the benefits of industrialized agriculture that has allowed society to come to where it is now.

   One of the things Sadhguru is mentioning all the time is that our generation is the most gifted generation that has ever lived on this planet. Meaning we have huge resources at our disposal, most of us don’t know famine or even war. So maybe our challenge is to try to find a balance between that and a more sustainable future