Ecology topic

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC I'm a "nature guy"...but I'm also a realist.  

The benefits of fossil fuel consumption are undeniable.  There is at least some of that benefit that's non negotiable, yes.  It is ludicrous to imagine that the majority of the worlds population, which hasn't fully availed itself of those benefits, won't.  It's similarly ludicrous to imagine a government so high minded and selfless as to just pass on those benefits, waiting for some other solution which doesn't exist and will still need to be deployed whenever we come up with it, if ever. While other governments gleefully plow through whatever fossil fuel they can hoover up, ofc.

In the developed world (I hope) fossil fuel consumption is going to be drastically reduced. It will increase in the developing world - partly because of it's utility, and partly because of the greater availability of the resource as we consume a smaller share of it. Unless we can offer them some way to reach those development milestones that we burned through oil for - this will all be well meaning hypocrisy in the face of real human need. I think we need to understand that. To temper our expectations to reality. All we have planned now, is shuffling patterns of consumption around. I suppose, in our dreams, of being able to say "Wasn't us, we didn't do it, we stopped!".

[Fake Messiah]

It's similarly ludicrous to imagine a government so high minded and selfless as to just pass on those benefits,

Well, maybe that government doesn't have the money to pay for oil subsidies. The thing is that oil is not so beneficial, I mean on page 2 of this topic you have an article how oil subsidies cost $5.2 trillion in just one year and then add all the wars for oil, and that gas and oil enrich and give power to countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Plus it may be beneficial to you but what about all the people who get dumped on by your plastic garbage? Shouldn't you be at least actively advocating for the solution?

waiting for some other solution which doesn't exist and will still need to be deployed whenever we come up with it, if ever. 

And is the right way what Trump's administration is doing by actively going against the progress?

I'm not saying that everything should stop until 'that new thing arrives' but rather that governments suffice or meet with the progress. Like perhaps how China made a deal with Gates, why couldn't someone else do it too? Or I guess in ideal world government would develop TWR technology like they did the atom bomb and radar invisible technology and similar.

I mean if innovation is left to private sector and these kind of technologies cost a lot to develop and then they need someone to sell it to, then it rather seems like a vicious circle, especially with oil lobbies going around that even gas emissions regulations seem "controversial".

[The Grand Nudger]

An ideal world would do many things differently than this one.  Are we discussing how an ideal world would handle climate change, or how this world will handle climate change?

(I'd love to advocate for a solution, just as soon as what I'm working on is a credible solution rather than a niche marketing program. You'll never hear the end of it, lol. )

[Fake Messiah]

Are we discussing how an ideal world would handle climate change, or how this world will handle climate change?

You first start with ideal so that you know what to shoot for.

I'd love to advocate for a solution, just as soon as what I'm working on is a credible solution rather than a niche marketing program.

You would be surprised how much can be done with existing technology.

Recently Al Gore wrote in New York Times

we still retain the ability to avoid truly catastrophic, civilization-ending consequences if we act quickly.

This is our generation’s life-or-death challenge. It is Thermopylae, Agincourt, Trafalgar, Lexington and Concord, Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, the Battle of the Bulge, Midway and Sept. 11. At moments of such crisis, the United States and the world have to be mobilized, and before we can be mobilized, we have to be inspired to believe the battle can be won. Is it really too much to ask now that politicians summon the courage to do what most all of them already know is necessary?

We have the technology we need.
[...]

a year before the Paris climate agreement was reached — electricity from solar and wind was cheaper than new coal and gas plants in probably 1 percent of the world. Today, only five years later, solar and wind provide the cheapest sources of new electricity in two-thirds of the world. Within five more years, these sources are expected to provide the cheapest new electricity in the entire world. And in 10 years, solar and wind electricity will be cheaper nearly everywhere than the electricity that existing fossil fuel plants will be able to provide.

But he also says that that's not enough, he also mentions that carbon needs to be removed

And so far, the best available technology for pulling carbon dioxide from the air is something called a tree.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/opini...hange.html

So here's an idea for a solution that we already have the technology: how about turning Sahara into the rainforest. Using solar mirror heating there's so much energy there that it could be irrigated and then also create synthetic fuel for cars, and even build plasma arc gasification devices to destroy the garbage (that's when you put garbage through very strong and hot electricity discharge).
I mean that would solve gas for cars problem, problems with hurricanes, garbage.

Now who would be needed to be pushed so that comes to life?

But then again maybe the reality is that this is a corporate world so maybe some guy should do it. Heck maybe I could buy Sahara and start irrigation, start making fuel for cars and also by plasma arc gasification of plastics I would brake it into elements which I could then sell (like sulfur, hydrogen, carbon). Heck most of the garbage is already dumped in Africa.

I would quickly become not only the richest mothafucka in the world but also the most beloved one. They would call me "the good trillionare".

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure we're having the same conversation.  I'm talking about addressing climate change, not just shifting patterns of consumption in the first world, and turning the sahara into a rain forest explodes into your mind as a credible thing that we could get anyone to do? If we irrigated the sahara (we wont), we would turn it into cropland. Even more probably livestock.

In any case, by all means, get into a business based on the tech that you think is cool. That's how this gets fixed. That's the takeaway, for me, about our less than serious response to climate change.

[Anomalocaris]

Are we discussing how an ideal world would handle climate change, or how this world will handle climate change?

You first start with ideal so that you know what to shoot for.

I'd love to advocate for a solution, just as soon as what I'm working on is a credible solution rather than a niche marketing program.

You would be surprised how much can be done with existing technology.

Recently Al Gore wrote in New York Times

we still retain the ability to avoid truly catastrophic, civilization-ending consequences if we act quickly.

This is our generation’s life-or-death challenge. It is Thermopylae, Agincourt, Trafalgar, Lexington and Concord, Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, the Battle of the Bulge, Midway and Sept. 11. At moments of such crisis, the United States and the world have to be mobilized, and before we can be mobilized, we have to be inspired to believe the battle can be won. Is it really too much to ask now that politicians summon the courage to do what most all of them already know is necessary?

We have the technology we need.
[...]

a year before the Paris climate agreement was reached — electricity from solar and wind was cheaper than new coal and gas plants in probably 1 percent of the world. Today, only five years later, solar and wind provide the cheapest sources of new electricity in two-thirds of the world. Within five more years, these sources are expected to provide the cheapest new electricity in the entire world. And in 10 years, solar and wind electricity will be cheaper nearly everywhere than the electricity that existing fossil fuel plants will be able to provide.

But he also says that that's not enough, he also mentions that carbon needs to be removed

And so far, the best available technology for pulling carbon dioxide from the air is something called a tree.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/opini...hange.html

So here's an idea for a solution that we already have the technology: how about turning Sahara into the rainforest. Using solar mirror heating there's so much energy there that it could be irrigated and then also create synthetic fuel for cars, and even build plasma arc gasification devices to destroy the garbage (that's when you put garbage through very strong and hot electricity discharge).
I mean that would solve gas for cars problem, problems with hurricanes, garbage.

Now who would be needed to be pushed so that comes to life?

But then again maybe the reality is that this is a corporate world so maybe some guy should do it. Heck maybe I could buy Sahara and start irrigation, start making fuel for cars and also by plasma arc gasification of plastics I would brake it into elements which I could then sell (like sulfur, hydrogen, carbon). Heck most of the garbage is already dumped in Africa.

I would quickly become not only the richest mothafucka in the world but also the most beloved one. They would call me "the good trillionare".

Powerful people know their self-interests better than hoi polloi, and have far more tools at their disposal and far greater determination and dexterity in using them to serve their self-interests.


If you make it clear from the beginning what you are shooting for steps on their self-interests, your idea is a nonstarter.

[Succubus]

Recently Al Gore wrote in New York Times...

From the linked article:
Planting 1.2 Trillion Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions, Scientists Find

A decade of emissions cancelled out? And how many decades does it take a tree to grow to a reasonable size? It's about 3-4 decades.

The world Ent population is ~3 trillion, where are we going to put an additional 1.2 trillion? Look at a world map. Where trees can grow, they already do.

So here's an idea for a solution that we already have the technology: how about turning Sahara into the rainforest...

Green the Sahara? It would be a brave bastard to gamble on that roll of the dice. Something, something unintended consequences. ie, climate change. 

I would quickly become not only the richest mothafucka in the world but also the most beloved one. They would call me "the good trillionare"

No doubt Thomas Midgley. thought the same. :o)

[Fake Messiah]

Scientists Discover Record Methane Emission in the Russian Arctic

The scientists found concentrations of the greenhouse gas —  which can significantly influence the planet’s climate — up to nine times the global average.

“This is the most powerful gas fountain I've ever seen,” said Igor Semiletov, the head of the expedition and a TPU professor. “No one has ever recorded anything like this before.”

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/10/0...tic-a67621

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Believing in climate change doesn't mean you are preparing for climate change
Date: October 8, 2019
Source: University of Notre Dame
Summary: Researchers found that although coastal homeowners may perceive a worsening of climate change-related hazards, these attitudes are largely unrelated to a homeowner's expectations of actual home damage.

[Fake Messiah]

Since forests are burning down maybe this is our only hope