|
StabbinHobo posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_qt2TG6h_Y&t=210s A self-sufficient permaculture settlement that's deliberately involved in regenerative farming and soil sequestration techniques is part of the solution. It isn't the entire solution and isn't intended to be. When you get sick, you're supposed to do several things in order to get well. You don't ignore them all because your first reaction won't instantly cure your disease.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
TildeATH posted:[USA's] enormous agricultural potential You realize agriculture is dependent on climate in a major, major way right? What do you think is going to happen to that "enormous" potential when all the fertile farmlands start experiencing prolonged, severe droughts? And when average temperatures rise a few degrees? Don't get me wrong, American farmlands are fertile as gently caress, but let's not forget how easy it is for that to get hosed up. Remember the Dust Bowl? That was caused by humans. Now imagine what kind of havoc Mother Nature can cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
I don't understand how anyone can really think that North America will be fine, considering that this entire continent has never experienced an internal refugee crisis on the scale of which is coming soon. Even if America does close its borders and shoot anyone trying to come in by Mexico or boat, and even if America doesn't decide to annex Canada, I don't see any way of dealing with something of that magnitude without an incredible amount of violence and hunger and poverty and huge loss of quality of life to everyone living here who isn't a multimillionaire who prepared ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
That poor polar bear, that doesn't look like the most stable ice. https://twitter.com/KristinLaidre/status/845409801261780992
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That poor polar bear, that doesn't look like the most stable ice. bold move posting something to do with climate change in this, the cynicism and dumb survivalist scenarios thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:bold move posting something to do with climate change in this, the cynicism and dumb survivalist scenarios thread Actually, that polar bear dying is just "weather'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Rime posted:Meanwhile, in Siberia: Video from that article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Xc3LtZRWo
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:A self-sufficient permaculture settlement that's deliberately involved in regenerative farming and soil sequestration techniques is part of the solution. It isn't the entire solution and isn't intended to be. sure, this is like drinking ginger-ale when you're sick. feels good. does nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
maybe after 150 pages we could band together and craft some kind of effort post that somehow wraps peoples brains around the size of the problem, so they stop talking about their herb garden or bicyling to work like it matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
I don't see how that would be helpful. I'm certainly not optimistic about the future but reveling in feeling bad just stinks, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:maybe after 150 pages we could band together and craft some kind of effort post that somehow wraps peoples brains around the size of the problem, so they stop talking about their herb garden or bicyling to work like it matters. Little things like not eating meat or having kids makes a big difference if enough people do it shrike82 posted:Instead of doing anything, let's turn off our lights for an hour to show solidarity with mother earth. #earthour I did that but I knocked over my rice barrels in the dark
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:maybe after 150 pages we could band together and craft some kind of effort post that somehow wraps peoples brains around the size of the problem, so they stop talking about their herb garden or bicyling to work like it matters. Definitely, it would be much better if these dumb dumbs just chose to not give a poo poo about climate change at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_qt2TG6h_Y&t=210s We agree that sequestration of carbon is good an necessary, and the basis of permaculture is soil formation and (re)forestation, both of which are forms of carbon sequestration, while simultaneously providing food, employment, flood prevention, drought prevention, increased biodiversity and increased habitats for wildlife, all the while with minimal use of fossil fuels, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Widescale adoption of permaculture (i.e. government-led expansion) is one of the best paths toward a climate solution. StabbinHobo posted:maybe after 150 pages we could band together and craft some kind of effort post that somehow wraps peoples brains around the size of the problem, so they stop talking about their herb garden or bicyling to work like it matters. There are over 7 billion people on the planet, and everyone "having a herb garden and bicycling to work" really would matter. People all make individual contributions to climate change, ecological destruction and resource depletion, and the catastrophe that we see approaching is the sum of these individual contributions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
if X% of farming & agriculture was switched from the median carbon cost it has now to the median carbon cost of a well run permaculture farm over the course of say the next decade(s) what would the net carbon impact be? lets see what it takes to get to a even gigaton edit: and re-model it however you can make it work, doesn't have to be switching, maybe its all new farms going forward, whatever scenario you can cook up just use real numbers from *any* source you can find that isn't made up feel good rounding error stuff StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
I'm trying to piece together how permaculture brings us to carbon neutrality and negative carbon emission by 2040 / 2050 and beyond. (edit - ^^^ ) It may make sense to create a "What is to be done" thread and a "Science: climate change is real" thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Does anyone even still post here denying climate change? The whole reason this thread was rebooted was because it had just turned into a nihilist sanctuary for people like Stabbinhobo here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
math is not nihilst
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
and really, getting lost in a delusional fantasy hobby while continuing to live a >1T/year lifestyle is a form of denial
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:bold move posting something to do with climate change in this, the cynicism and dumb survivalist scenarios thread Yeah if we only we acted on the well thought out solutions you posted 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Eveyrone should be reveling in ignorance instead of bad feelings, I say!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
here, some actual numbers for context from the nihilists at the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=57 (5th Assessment, 2014)quote:Some simple calculations can help illustrate the nature of the global mitigation challenge. Current per capita carbon emissions are slightly more than 3 tonnes per year in Annex I countries and slightly less than 0.5 tonnes per year in non-Annex I countries. With about 1.3 billion people living in Annex I countries and about 4.7 billion in non-Annex I countries, total carbon emissions are in the range of (3.1)(1.3) + (0.48)(4.7) = 6.29 billion tonnes. Thus carbon emissions at a global scale average about 1 tonne per capita per year. The stabilization of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at 450, 550, 650, and 750ppmv will require steep declines in the aggregate emissions as well emissions per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) as illustrated in the IPCC SAR Synthesis Report (IPCC, 1996). For example, based on the SAR Synthesis Report and a recent set of calculations by Bolin and Kheshgi (2000), stabilization of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at 450, 550, 650, and 750ppmv would require limiting fossil-fuel carbon emissions at about 3, 6, 9 and 12 billion tonnes, respectively, by 2100 and further reductions thereafter to less than half current global emissions. If, for example, the world population stabilized at about 10 billion people by then, an average carbon emissions per capita of 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 tonnes of carbon would be required to achieve the 450, 550, 650, and 750ppmv limits, respectively. We make no assumption here about how these emissions would or should be allocated globally, but simply report that the average by 2100 must work out to these levels to achieve the stabilization objectives. Thus, to achieve a 450ppmv concentration target, average carbon emissions per capita globally need to drop from about 1 tonne today to about 0.3 tons in 2100; to achieve a 650ppmv target they need to drop to 0.9 tonnes (about one-quarter of current emissions per capita in the Annex I countries) by 2100 and further thereafter. Finally, with a global economy currently producing about 25 trillion dollars of output, carbon emissions per million dollars of output are currently about 240 tonnes. If, for example, the global economy grows to 200 trillion dollars of output by 2100, the emissions per million dollars (in year 2000 dollars) would need to be limited to about 10, 25, 40, and 55 tonnes of carbon in order to achieve the 450, 550, 650, and 750ppmv CO2 limits, respectively. If further population and economic growth continues beyond 2100 additional reductions in average emissions per capita and per unit of economic output would be required.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Leaving this world is not as scary as it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Little things like not eating meat or having kids makes a big difference if enough people do it People seem to have a fatalistic attitude about climate change and maybe they are right. Maybe we are past the point of no return, but I always thought it was strange that people dismiss individual attempts to reduce their carbon footprint considering our collective individual decisions got us here. Of course one person biking to work or stopping beef consumption won't make a difference, but the same could be said for people who DO eat beef. One guy eating steak didn't get us in this mess, but our collective car-driving beef-loving asses did. I think people want to say they care and want to stop climate change, but they also want to preserve their carbon-producing lifestyle by saying, 'well my individual actions don't matter so I'm going to keep driving my car and eating meat.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
There's no such thing as a point of no return, the earth isn't going to turn into venus. It's simply drought and desertification and sea level rise as far as the eye can see. The sooner we address it the less bad it'll be. It'll still be bad, since the time to stop it completely was the turn of the century. The real issue is humans are utter poo poo at forecasting and future planning and generally refuse to believe something they don't experience personally. This is coupled with active misintent by people positioned to take advantage of the situation or those who want to hide the drop in future profits Unfortunately they control the media and thus get to dictate the discussion. We'll be arguing about climate change well up through installing seawalls around major cities. Bhodi fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:People seem to have a fatalistic attitude about climate change and maybe they are right. Maybe we are past the point of no return, but I always thought it was strange that people dismiss individual attempts to reduce their carbon footprint considering our collective individual decisions got us here. Of course one person biking to work or stopping beef consumption won't make a difference, but the same could be said for people who DO eat beef. One guy eating steak didn't get us in this mess, but our collective car-driving beef-loving asses did. No, it's because the scale of the problem makes changes like these unimportant in the face of, say, continued coal plant development in India, or methane bubbles in Siberia. Seeing this, people wonder the utility of becoming a monk when it won't count for anything and then folks like you come in assuming they're hypocrites. Oh, and on top of that, the real solutions (like stop having so many first world kids) are instantly poo-pooed by the same people criticizing others for not offering solutions, doubtlessly because they're parents themselves or want to be. It's not that no one ever comes in here to offer solutions. They do. It's just that someone will then show that that solution is unworkable or insignificant and then the OP fucks off to another thread and complains about our gloomy outlook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
call to action posted:Oh, and on top of that, the real solutions (like stop having so many first world kids) are instantly poo-pooed by the same people criticizing others for not offering solutions, doubtlessly because they're parents themselves or want to be. I agree and I think this is a part of the mentality that people don't want to change their lifestyles. Having fewer children is a part of the individual actions that can make a difference and like you say, people don't want to change their lifestyles so they dismiss it and say it won't make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
call to action posted:No, it's because the scale of the problem makes changes like these unimportant in the face of, say, continued coal plant development in India, or methane bubbles in Siberia. Seeing this, people wonder the utility of becoming a monk when it won't count for anything and then folks like you come in assuming they're hypocrites. So be a monk while also doing things to discourage coal power plant production.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Avoiding consumerism, recycling, eating less meat, eating no beef, supporting local farms, growing your own food, walking or bicycling to work, volunteering etc. may not have much effect in the grand scheme of things. And the best you can hope for is that your leadership in green living will provide enthusiasm for you peers to do the same. But the skills and attitude you develop today will matter in the anthropocene. Something is going to give. and I'm not saying that humans are going to be wiped out. but the global economy will be the first thing to go. So every attempt you make to go green today, will be greatly beneficial in the future where people are going to have to rely on "it's all we got". And that might not be so bad, especially if you're prepared for it. Make the sacrifices today to become more in touch with the environment and your community. There's no downside. A little bit more work. A little less luxury. sure. but it's all offset by the benefit of developing a healthy and meaningful relationship with the world around you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Alternatively, enjoy things while you can and focus on making/saving as much money as possible and be that much more secure for the future. When things fall apart they do so from the social bottom, upwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
things that actually matter, roughly in order: - having children (especially more than the replacement rate) - using a car or truck on a daily basis (even if its electric, for now) - living in (and therefore heating, cooling & lighting) single family detached housing - traveling via jet plane - commuting long distances (>10 miles) on a regular basis - eating (particularly red meat) - buying stuff So for instance if you: - only have one kid - don't have a car - live in a 2 or 3br apartment/townhome - fly less than once a year - work from home, or walk, or bike some days a week and public transit others - cut back on red meat (but really chicken & fish are fine from a carbon perspective) - don't buy random plastic and metal things shipped halfway across the world constantly You can not that difficultly cut your household per-capita carbon emissions down to 1 ton/year. There's nothing fantasy or unrealistic about it, plenty of people in europe and north america already live this way quite nicely. The problem is almost entirely people who live in single-family-detached/suburb/exurb & rural areas, spent 100s of kwh on heating and cooling it, burn gasoline by the gallon driving their two cars to and from it, and then have 2 or 3 kids who grow up thinking its normal/ok to live that way. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Saving money and biking to work aren't mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:if X% of farming & agriculture was switched from the median carbon cost it has now to the median carbon cost of a well run permaculture farm over the course of say the next decade(s) what would the net carbon impact be? As a general rule, the larger the plant - the more CO2 it individually absorbs. Also, the faster a plant grows, the more CO2 it absorbs. If you want something that can be quite large, yet can also grow quite quickly - there's bamboo. Some bamboo have been studied for their carbon sequestration; others perhaps not so much, such as U.S. native Arundinaria. However - where could we grow it? So, here's an actual idea - I've been a minor proponent of Monolithic domes for housing, but some of their biggest strengths are how well these domes can scale in size and alter their curvatures. They're very energy efficient structures, as well - this could provide climate-controlled places to grow plants. They can be homes or sports stadiums, and they have a whole lot of strength: they can be put underground without issue - even underwater in theory. If it comes down to land use, how about doing just that - layers of growth. Grow plants under a dome, and plants on top of a dome - maybe even stack them with different curvatures. Use LED lightning and solar/wind mounted above for lightning. I'm not certain of the soil depth requirements for bamboo, it might be that this could only be done for smaller plants - at least, the layering anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
call to action posted:Oh, and on top of that, the real solutions (like stop having so many first world kids) are instantly poo-pooed by the same people criticizing others for not offering solutions, doubtlessly because they're parents themselves or want to be. I never understood why people think this is a solution, especially when the first world already has negative population growth rates in almost every case (outside of large scale immigration to the US and a few Euro countries). If there are fewer people around then you've just delayed the inevitable for a while longer, the problem is the mode of energy and commodity production. This has no effect in the short to mid term (i.e. the most important timeframe) and is meaningless if the developing world just replicates first world industrialization, which has already happened so what is this supposed to do? TheNakedFantastic fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:if X% of farming & agriculture was switched from the median carbon cost it has now to the median carbon cost of a well run permaculture farm over the course of say the next decade(s) what would the net carbon impact be? I did not claim that permaculture is the sole solution to climate change. Of course switching all current production to permaculture would not produce net carbon reduction, since that would still require the raising of billions of animals per year, still burping out gigatons of methane. The difference is that permaculture is carbon sequestration (the opposite of soil-destroying, forest-felling conventional agriculture) that also produces food and other agricultural products; current thinking on carbon sequestration is expending vast amounts of energy to reduce direct coal emissions, or expending vast amounts of energy and resources to precipitate CO2 from the atmosphere or ocean using magic. TheNakedFantastic posted:I never understood why people think this is a solution, especially when the first world already has negative population growth rates in almost every case (outside of large scale immigration to the US and a few Euro countries). If there are fewer people around then you've just delayed the inevitable for a while longer, the problem is the mode of energy and commodity production. This has no effect in the short to mid term (i.e. the most important timeframe) and is meaningless if the developing world just replicates first world industrialization, which has already happened so what is this supposed to do? So is it best to continue with current population growth or to halve population growth? Will it be better to have 10 billion people in 2050 or 9 billion? (example numbers) Do you want to be competing with another 43% of the current population, or would you be better off with just 28% more? Like permaculture, a goal of reduced population is not the sole solution, but it is a route to get to a solution faster and in a less calamitous fashion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Also, if you look at land use to CO2 generation, you might find interesting things... 1 kWh = 1.34 lbs CO2 50yr-old Oak forest = 30,000 lbs of CO2/acre/yr Small-scale photovoltaic = 3.1 acre/GWh/yr (bonus: I hadn't seen Linear Fresnel solar before) From this you can calculate: 50yr-old Oak forest consumes equivalent CO2 from 22,388 kWh/acre/yr. Small-scale photovoltaic replaces 322,580/kWh/acre/yr. Doesn't do much directly about sequestration, but... interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
call to action posted:Yeah if we only we acted on the well thought out solutions you posted I mean so far my list of solutions is "don't curl up into a ball in the basement and wait to die" which puts me miles above the cynic gang
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
It's fine to live a low-carbon lifestyle but for every person in America who cuts from 3 tons to 1 ton there are literally eight people in India and China who are increasing their emissions year on year. It's good to cut your emissions. It's better to find a political solution, but that is very difficult. Honestly I have not heard a solution to climate change that is not the liberal internationalist solution that we see failing right now. I'm even skeptical about political violence, which would work on a large enough scale but doesn't have the constituency to be effective. The state capitalist system will keep chugging into the next century and will find it more expedient to let people die from the effects of climate change or kill them when those people find neglect intolerable than to cut below 8° C. If the methane clathrate gun hypothesis is right then nothing short of a peaceful political movement or political violence on a massive scale will save >90% of the human race and that simply won't happen in developed countries. So yeah people are feeling a little fatalistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:How about actively trying to soak up carbon dioxide with plants, instead? Evil_Greven posted:Also, if you look at land use to CO2 generation, you might find interesting things... Yes, the paper I posted a page or two ago, which outlines the effort required to meet the Paris deal, states bluntly that deforestation will have to be stopped immediately (especially in places such as the Amazon) and we will need to start the most aggressive reforestation campaign in human history. That alone will not be enough, however: Artificial carbon capture will need to be deployed at unimaginable scale, starting now, until we are pulling double the carbon out of the atmosphere compared to what the entire biomass of the planet is capable of absorbing. We do not have technology capable of doing this. Here is the article again, and the paper itself, because I suspect a whole lot of you fuckers didn't bother clicking through the link and just keep shitposting into the wind around here: Scientists made a detailed “roadmap” for meeting the Paris climate goals. It’s eye-opening. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization Now if you'd like to get crackin' on killing the illegal loggers down in Brazil, be my guest, you'll be doing more to stop climate change than you will growing basil in your fuckin' windowsill. Rime fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:So is it best to continue with current population growth or to halve population growth? Will it be better to have 10 billion people in 2050 or 9 billion? (example numbers) Do you want to be competing with another 43% of the current population, or would you be better off with just 28% more? Like permaculture, a goal of reduced population is not the sole solution, but it is a route to get to a solution faster and in a less calamitous fashion. White (first world) population growth is already negative and quite close to 1 for many white ethnic groups so this has basically already happened. Yes it's "better" but it's also not a serious solution at all, if the world population is 5 billion in 2050 but energy and good production is the same then you haven't accomplished anything besides giving yourself another decade or two to accomplish these transformations. If the population is 10 billion in 2050 but these transformations have taken place then it's a much better scenario than the former. In reality even if you could accomplish global reductions in fertility to 1 this won't have significant effects until much closer to 2100, which is much to far too speculate about and meaningless to us now. TheNakedFantastic fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:28
|
|