|
Colonel J posted:Do you guys have credible research on the impacts of meat consumption on global warming / the environment in general? There's so much contradicting information on the internet, and it's hard to separate good from bad as everywhere I look, people who report the information have a massive vested interest one way or another. Would it really help if a massive portion of the population embraced a vegan diet? Veganism isn't necessary, which is good, because large portions of the world would probably rather die than embrace it. Also animal byproducts are of vital importance to other industries. If the cost of traditional sources of meat is pushed high enough and more efficient sources of animal protein fill in the gaps (crickets, krill, etc.) the damaging impact of the current meat industry can be attenuated without undue disruption to other industries that depend on it. People will like burgers made of processed cricket meat just fine once they get used to them. Soy also makes for good substitutes but shouldn't be overused due to the danger of causing allergies. In any case, I can understand geoengineering being scary and it should be practiced as cautiously as possible. But the alternative - that is, asking humanity to abandon an industrialized lifestyle and go back to the hellish nightmare of non-mechanized subsistence agriculture - is a complete non-starter. A hypothetical 2500 C.E. which looks like the historical 1500 C.E. is equally undesirable to a 2500 C.E. where humanity is extinct.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2015 22:13 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 22:31 |
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Veganism isn't necessary, which is good, because large portions of the world would probably rather die than embrace it. Also animal byproducts are of vital importance to other industries. If the cost of traditional sources of meat is pushed high enough and more efficient sources of animal protein fill in the gaps (crickets, krill, etc.) the damaging impact of the current meat industry can be attenuated without undue disruption to other industries that depend on it. People will like burgers made of processed cricket meat just fine once they get used to them. Soy also makes for good substitutes but shouldn't be overused due to the danger of causing allergies.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2015 22:27 |
|
Also beef is especially bad, chicken and most seafood that isn't harvested by running an already-declining fishery into the ground is less bad, and pork is somewhere in between.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2015 22:32 |
|
Actually I would like to taste a cricket burger right now.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2015 22:53 |
|
Honj Steak posted:Actually I would like to taste a cricket burger right now. they're kind of chickeny but zesty. I made cricket patties once.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2015 22:56 |
|
Liberal_L33t posted:In any case, I can understand geoengineering being scary and it should be practiced as cautiously as possible. But the alternative - that is, asking humanity to abandon an industrialized lifestyle and go back to the hellish nightmare of non-mechanized subsistence agriculture - is a complete non-starter. A hypothetical 2500 C.E. which looks like the historical 1500 C.E. is equally undesirable to a 2500 C.E. where humanity is extinct. Well that's the end state either way, isn't it? Either climate change forces us to adapt continuously to a radically different way of life, or it miraculously stops warming/has no negative consequences, allowing us to use up our fossil-fuel reserves. I can't see any way in which it is possible to continue the industrialized lifestyle for more than a century or two. People will have to accept that our free energy boom was an anomaly and go back to having a much larger portion of the populace producing food, to be consumed locally rather than refrigerated and shipped. Are you really saying that a regression to the mean is comparable to outright extinction? I'd rather humans exist as hunter-gatherers again than have that be our fate. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Nov 24, 2015 |
# ? Nov 24, 2015 23:10 |
|
The Groper posted:Well that's the end state either way, isn't it? Either climate change forces us to adapt continuously to a radically different way of life, or it miraculously stops warming/has no negative consequences, allowing us to use up our fossil-fuel reserves. I can't see any way in which it is possible to continue the industrialized lifestyle for more than a century or two. People will have to accept that our free energy boom was an anomaly and go back to having a much larger portion of the populace producing food, to be consumed locally rather than refrigerated and shipped. Are you really saying that a regression to the mean is comparable to outright extinction? I'd rather humans exist as hunter-gatherers again than have that be our fate. We still have a window of "nuclear reactors & reprocessing" option open to us.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2015 23:15 |
|
Also even at current rates of consumption it will take a really long time to exhaust non-renewable energy resources. If you include nuclear reactors in that we will have energy for millions of years. Also we will probably have fusion reactors in a few centuries or millennium depending on how long it takes society to recover. Geothermal is another option as well. As for food production we will probably have to heavily adapt our farming techniques. Also insects are an essentially limitless supply of food that are easy to grow. We can also currently grow artificial meat in labs and the process will likely become more efficient and cheaper in the future. The big issue with global warming is not mainly going to be survival after society stabilizes, it's the chaotic transition period as famines, sea level rise, political instability, extreme weather, and other factors kill and displace massive amounts of people. Developing countries will be the most vulnerable while developed countries will probably be able to maintain some stability depending their access to clean water and food. Eastern United States and Canada are especially lucky since they have massive amounts of clean water. Basically if nukes aren't launched developed countries will be able to adapt and stabilize once the initial chaos calms down. The sad part is by that point a lot of people will be dead.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2015 23:37 |
|
Claverjoe posted:We still have a window of "nuclear reactors & reprocessing" option open to us. Nuclear Reactors provide localized electrical power, not fertilizers, long-distance land shipping, and mechanized farming equipment. Yes, theoretically we could electrify the second two, or run on biofuels, but both will have us chasing our own tails in a world of diminishing returns. Cnidaria posted:Also even at current rates of consumption it will take a really long time to exhaust non-renewable energy resources. If you include nuclear reactors in that we will have energy for millions of years. Also we will probably have fusion reactors in a few centuries or millennium depending on how long it takes society to recover. Geothermal is another option as well. I was under the impression that we had at best 1-2 more centuries of oil accessible to us in any meaningful way, though? I'm less concerned about electrical power, since theoretically we could go 100% nuke if we wanted, and more about how many different ways oil is required in the industrial world, and if it's possible to construct an industrial society not built around it. Coal gasification and adaptive ways to use natural gas will keep us going longer, if we're discounting the increased environmental impact, but I would hope that we could find a way to do without them. Second point, back into the reality of climate change, how long is this "chaotic transition period"? At what point does society stabilize, and what does it actually look like when it does? I think expecting any sort of return to what we think of as normal is wishful thinking, and once the global system we've set up is strained enough, it will unravel itself. On point about NE America having all the water: All the coastal and southwestern dwellers will migrate to the Great Lakes region as flooding worsens, is it viable or ethical to do a "planned retreat" if we can construct a fossil-fuel free transportation network to serve that region, focusing our efforts on pragmatically preparing, and ignoring the rest of the planet? If so, who gets to move there? Car Hater fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Nov 25, 2015 |
# ? Nov 24, 2015 23:39 |
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:On a somewhat more constructive note, I just got a job with a political org that is focusing on doing some campaigns around climate change, environmental justice, etc. What are some solid academic journals that I can tell my bosses to purchase access to for climate research? Might be that sociology journals, or economics ones, or poli sci, or something else will be what your organization focuses on and you'll want access accordingly.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2015 23:44 |
|
Colonel J posted:Do you guys have credible research on the impacts of meat consumption on global warming / the environment in general? There's so much contradicting information on the internet, and it's hard to separate good from bad as everywhere I look, people who report the information have a massive vested interest one way or another. Would it really help if a massive portion of the population embraced a vegan diet? The EPA says US agriculture is 9% of US greenhouse gas emissions, so the impact is fairly small in the grand scheme of things. Cows are particularly bad for the environment (producing almost 1/3 of agricultural greenhouse gases, so ~3% of emissions) because they emit lots of methane and it's a potent greenhouse gas, but reducing meat consumption is only a tiny part of any solution to climate change. It is, however, a relatively easy change compared to, say, replacing energy infrastructure or transportation infrastructure. (About 1/2 of agricultural emissions is due to the way we cultivate land and use fertilizer, which would be a much harder thing to change).
|
# ? Nov 25, 2015 03:34 |
|
The Groper posted:Nuclear Reactors provide localized electrical power, not fertilizers, long-distance land shipping, and mechanized farming equipment. Yes, theoretically we could electrify the second two, or run on biofuels, but both will have us chasing our own tails in a world of diminishing returns. Fertilizers from alternative sources are much more attractive with cheap and readily available power.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2015 16:26 |
|
One thing that we don't talk much about in the US is anaerobic digestion. AD Tasha organic waste and through biological processes creates 1) biogas (methane, but not a fossil fuel - it is recycling carbon that is already in circulation, and not in sequestered sinks) 2) electricity from methane 3) CHP plants can be used to heat local buildings/greenhouses 4) creates a usable fertilizer that is not petrochemical based, and can be land applied to local farms, reducing transportation distances and energy use 5) scalable, from household size to massive The biogas can also be cleaned up and pipeline injected into natural gas lines (its all just ch4, but in this case it is not a fossil fuel) It's a form of energy generation that deals with a solid waste stream in a holistic manner, which had widespread adoption in European markets. The US market is still developing but over the past few years there has been quite a bit of movement in its development. It is a more locally scaled energy source that, due to its 'fuel source' needs to be distributed. It is a way of producing "biofuels" from plant material, but actually has a positive EROEI unlike corn ethanol. Sorry for poo poo formatting, phone posting. e: a wholistic/circular economy example of something we can do to mitigate climate change by reducing dependants on fossil fuels and petrofertilizers while generating local jobs and energy. The Slack Lagoon fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 25, 2015 |
# ? Nov 25, 2015 16:43 |
|
computer parts posted:Fertilizers from alternative sources are much more attractive with cheap and readily available power. I was mistaken anyway on a double check: it's natural gas we use for fertilizer production, and conveniently, we have a couple centuries supply left, after which we'll use coal gasification as a base. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Nov 25, 2015 |
# ? Nov 25, 2015 18:19 |
|
This thread helped me get an A!! Thanks thread. Has anyone ever read a study on how carbon footprint is calculated . I'm trying to work on a side project on the LGBT community and how it compares to the heternormative community in relation to carbon legacy.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2015 23:04 |
|
The Groper posted:Nuclear Reactors provide localized electrical power, not fertilizers, long-distance land shipping, and mechanized farming equipment. Yes, theoretically we could electrify the second two, or run on biofuels, but both will have us chasing our own tails in a world of diminishing returns. Diminished returns do not mean ever falling returns. Even then, when we go from a primary supply of electric energy of coal t radioisotopes, the EROEI doesn't change that much at all. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877 A) the haber bosch process uses natural gas, but in a world were the limitation of electric energy is ignored, you can split water and use that as your hydrogen feedstock. B) long distance land shipping is "economically unfeasible" when compared to diesel, (ignoring environmental costs), but not technically unfeasible. https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L16983 C) Farm equipment will probably need the volume efficiency of chemical fuels, but with a big enough hammer (nuclear power), we can even do the lovely stuff like Hydrogen (lol) as an energy carrier.
|
# ? Nov 26, 2015 19:01 |
|
Placid Marmot posted:The dozens of bright yellow trucks you saw from your eyrie rumbling with their loads across the valley floor take on vast proportions. Every one of this monstrous insect army is the size of a family home. Seriously what the gently caress. Are they just not attending the Paris Conference.
|
# ? Nov 26, 2015 20:04 |
|
Hollismason posted:
But they're going to reduce their emissions intensity! Just don't expect them to do it by giving up fossil fuels. Because they won't.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2015 04:53 |
|
and this is why carbon taxes are a scam and a death sentence on the poor/third world. remember when obama told africans that they will never get to own a car or have AC because that would cause the planet to overheat? we should be trying to elevate the living standards of our fellow man and pull him up to our level not the opposite
|
# ? Nov 27, 2015 05:13 |
|
Full accelerationism now! KILL EVERYONE
|
# ? Nov 27, 2015 05:20 |
|
Hollismason posted:
Hundreds of millions of Indians live in extreme poverty. Lifting them out of that is their #1 priority, not whether Earth is 1-2 C warmer a hundred years from now. On the flip side, India is also building large solar projects, and they have decent solar radiation numbers making it easier to be cost competitive. Won't be long before solar is cheaper than coal.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2015 16:37 |
|
Arkane posted:Hundreds of millions of Indians live in extreme poverty. Lifting them out of that is their #1 priority, not whether Earth is 1-2 C warmer a hundred years from now. Ahahahahahahaha! Yeah, they actually give a poo poo about their underclass. That's be a switch.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2015 17:21 |
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:we should be trying to elevate the living standards of our fellow man and pull him up to our level not the opposite Arkane posted:Hundreds of millions of Indians live in extreme poverty. Lifting them out of that is their #1 priority, not whether Earth is 1-2 C warmer a hundred years from now. Maybe we can reduce our own emissions more to accommodate, but it doesn't change the fact that developing countries like India are going to be digging their own graves if they don't commit to reducing emissions overall, not just intensity.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 00:10 |
|
Yeah, poorer countries are more likely to be affected by climate change and their less likely to adapt. Figure 27 Key risks from climate change for poor people and their livelihoods and the potential for risk reduction through adaptation Taken from here http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/sb/eng/inf01.pdf edit: Also, there's a old saying in India that politicians survive by Food Prices. The last thing you need is a country like India and Pakistan who already hate each other suddenly fighting over resources with Nuclear Weapons. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Dec 1, 2015 |
# ? Dec 1, 2015 01:21 |
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:The people who are going to get shafted the most by climate change are the poor, if reducing emissions is supposed to help anybody it's supposed to help them. The point of growing the economy (and energy usage) is that they won't be poor anymore. India has a hunger problem now. Do you think India will have a hunger problem in a few decades? There's unlikely to be many, if any, poor countries at all in a few decades, not even in Africa. There will be poorer countries, but lack of food, water, and electricity will be gone. Poor countries are able to modernize much more quickly than in the past.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 01:30 |
|
Arkane posted:The point of growing the economy (and energy usage) is that they won't be poor anymore. India has a hunger problem now. Do you think India will have a hunger problem in a few decades?
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 01:39 |
|
Arkane posted:The point of growing the economy (and energy usage) is that they won't be poor anymore. India has a hunger problem now. Do you think India will have a hunger problem in a few decades? There won't be any poor countries anymore because the people will have starved to death. Once riots and food starts becoming scarce there won't be anything to industrialize.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 05:33 |
|
Bzzt. Food production is growing faster than population, and has been for a very long time. edit: India produces around 3000 kilograms of cereal yield per hectare, roughly half of what is produced in the United States, so the potential is there for India to increase its food output by a very large amount. Here is the World Bank showing worldwide food production of cereals (wheat, rice, etc.) per hectare: As you can see, it is increasing rapidly... ...and will continue to do so: Food scarcity is a completely idiotic bogeyman. Arkane fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Dec 1, 2015 |
# ? Dec 1, 2015 05:59 |
|
Arkane posted:Food scarcity is a completely idiotic bogeyman. I like how your graph stops at the year that phosphate shortage is predicted to become a thing.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 07:28 |
|
Arkane posted:Bzzt. Food production is growing faster than population, and has been for a very long time. Surely Arkane would not cite flawed data. No way, no how.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 15:22 |
|
Hello Sailor posted:I like how your graph stops at the year that phosphate shortage is predicted to become a thing. I guess peak phosphorous is the new peak oil. Another imaginary problem.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 18:47 |
|
Arkane posted:I guess peak phosphorous is the new peak oil. Because oil will last forever, amirite?
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:01 |
|
I, err, have a question. Now, I don't come to challenge global warming or any of OP's premises but to genuinely ask why we give a poo poo about CO2. I know why we care about CO and other pollutants but CO2 is rather common - who gives a poo poo? Plant moar trees. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I'm not making an argument, I'm expressing ignorance on the CO2 as a threat subject.Liberal_L33t posted:Veganism isn't necessary, which is good, because large portions of the world would probably rather die than embrace it. Also animal byproducts are of vital importance to other industries. If the cost of traditional sources of meat is pushed high enough and more efficient sources of animal protein fill in the gaps (crickets, krill, etc.) the damaging impact of the current meat industry can be attenuated without undue disruption to other industries that depend on it. People will like burgers made of processed cricket meat just fine once they get used to them. Soy also makes for good substitutes but shouldn't be overused due to the danger of causing allergies. Thought you might be interested in vitro meat: http://www.sciencealert.com/lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drops-from-325-000-to-12 According to me, which am ignorant, they skip a lot of the energy waste in meat production. It's essentially factory grown meat. Don't take my word for it (not because the sauce is better but because I really don't fully understand it) read up on it and you may become interested. I'm very interested in it from a world efficiency standpoint.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:14 |
|
Verge posted:I, err, have a question. Now, I don't come to challenge global warming or any of OP's premises but to genuinely ask why we give a poo poo about CO2. I know why we care about CO and other pollutants but CO2 is rather common - who gives a poo poo? Plant moar trees. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I'm not making an argument, I'm expressing ignorance on the CO2 as a threat subject. You would have to plant, according to one calculation I found, 1,554,723,200,000 trees per year at 2010 emissions levels to absorb the co2 being released by man.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:17 |
|
Verge posted:Plant moar trees. The Palin Answer: "Trees love CO2!" We are outpacing the trees. The trees are not a perfectly CO2 sink, and like any filter, can be over-saturated beyond their capacity
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:18 |
|
Salt Fish posted:You would have to plant, according to one calculation I found, 1,554,723,200,000 trees per year at 2010 emissions levels to absorb the co2 being released by man. Don't....don't they autopopulate? Still, gently caress, I think that's a lot of trees. Alright, thank you. fake edit: just looked it up, that's a fuckload of trees.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:20 |
|
Salt Fish posted:You would have to plant, according to one calculation I found, 1,554,723,200,000 trees per year at 2010 emissions levels to absorb the co2 being released by man. If every human planted a tree every other day we would be able to do this! Sounds infallible, let's start!
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:22 |
|
Verge posted:Still, gently caress, I think that's a lot of trees. Alright, thank you. If the numbers are correct it would be about 50% of all trees that currently exist. And we would have to plant this amount every year.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:26 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 22:31 |
|
CommieGIR posted:The Palin Answer: "Trees love CO2!" Thank you. Also, I'm horrified for being on the same side of the fence as Palin.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 19:27 |