|
TheNakedFantastic posted: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. You did not account for the scenario of 5 billion population [i]and[i/] "these transformations" have been accomplished, which is twice as good as your 10 billion+transformations scenario. There is no either/or mutual exclusion. As I said, 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 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You did not account for the scenario of 5 billion population [i]and[i/] "these transformations" have been accomplished, which is twice as good as your 10 billion+transformations scenario. There is no either/or mutual exclusion. As I said, 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. The importance of reducing human population if society has shifted to greatly reduced levels of green house gas production is marginal though. I'm not disagreeing that it's better or non exclusive, it's that as a "serious" solution it's worthless on a theoretical (it doesn't solve the real problem) and practical level (it takes far too long for this to have a major effect). It's much more similar to personally abstaining from red meat than something like replacing all coal plants with nuclear plants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
The great thing about the inherently circular and ultimately worthless discussion about population caps is that, since the plan outlined to meet the Paris goals is functionally impossible, we don't have to worry about reducing the worlds population through actionable means. Climate change will take the burden of that problem off our shoulders for us, in great volume. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Honestly I have not heard a solution to climate change that is not the liberal internationalist solution that we see failing right now. Totalitarian asceticism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I did not claim that permaculture is the sole solution to climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
The entire existing biomass of the planet only absorbs 2.5 gigatons of carbon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Rime posted: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. Well, we do, but at this point, it isn't economically feasible. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephen-hui/bc-clean-innovation_b_15525074.html Theoretically, we could throw money around and put up a bunch of these facilities all over the place, but the last I knew, the calcium carbonate they produce has no real industrial use; the "feedstock for synthetic fuels" idea is mostly a theory at this point. Running the plant would basically be throwing cash into a fire, and you'd be using up a lot of industrial space on a process that would eventually make itself obsolete. Still, I figure this or something like it is going to end up as part of the general landscape before too much longer. I can think of four direct-capture technologies off the top of my head that aren't quite mature, including the "let's turn it all into carbon nanotubes" guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
If you want to drop population growth rates you don't knock on doors or post on forums telling people to have fewer kids, you go advocate for women's rights to contraception and abortion and make them as available as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
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's two types of people in the world those that try to stay informed and fret and worry and are constantly taken aback at other people's ignorance and people that are relatively happy and content it's our job to move people from ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to (╯° °）╯︵ ┻━┻)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:If you want to drop population growth rates you don't knock on doors or post on forums telling people to have fewer kids, you go advocate for women's rights to contraception and abortion and make them as available as possible. I feel like of all the things discussed in this thread, participating in the country's political process is the only worthwhile action with any chance of having a meaningful impact on an individual level. If you can place weekly calls or send X e-mails to your local representative, and vote during the midterms, and then convince, I don't know, 5 people to do the same, that'd probably be better than growing god knows how many acres of lettuce or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The importance of reducing human population if society has shifted to greatly reduced levels of green house gas production is marginal though. I'm not disagreeing that it's better or non exclusive, it's that as a "serious" solution it's worthless on a theoretical (it doesn't solve the real problem) and practical level (it takes far too long for this to have a major effect). It's much more similar to personally abstaining from red meat than something like replacing all coal plants with nuclear plants. It seems like you are saying "in the event society reaches a point at which it produces no carbon emissions, total human population will not effect green house gas production, therefore solutions should focus on reaching the point of zero per capita emissions rather than on efforts which limit emissions in present conditions." Is that a correct interpretation of your argument? I'm sorry to try and rephrase you, I just think this subject often suffers because people talk past each other and I want to be sure I understand your point. First I think it's dangerous to assume we are going to reach a point where individuals have a marginal or negligible carbon forcing in the next 100 years. If that does not happen, reducing population growth is going to produce lower total emissions. I'm not sure what you mean by "serious" solutions. In terms of addressing the "real' problem, which I would describe as net carbon emissions, reduced population growth certainly would contribute to solving the problem in foreseeable conditions. For example even if we reach a point where energy generation becomes carbon neutral, extremely implausible in the next 50 years imo, increasing people are still likely to require the replacement of tropical forest with agricultural land which has a major carbon forcing. Regarding whether it is "serious" solution or not, i.e. whether it is plausible top-down policy directed at reducing fertility and first-world immigration are likely to be implemented, I would say no it is not. However it is hard to find any serious policy to address climate change by that definition, and even a given policy towards fixing climate change is implausible it is still valuable at least to describe the situation with open eyes. Also I think you are thinking on too short a time frame. Any effort to address climate change will necessarily be inter-generational, and government policy can have surprisingly swift effects. For example following a concerted effort to implement family planning, Iran drastically reduced its fertility rate after 1989, which today sits at about 1.9, in contrast with other near by countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We must take a long term perspective. There is no other choice. Note I'm not advocating for brutal Chinese style forced abortions, but we should at least be realistic about what effects such policies have had.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:If you want to drop population growth rates you don't knock on doors or post on forums telling people to have fewer kids, you go advocate for women's rights to contraception and abortion and make them as available as possible. Squalid posted:Also I think you are thinking on too short a time frame. Any effort to address climate change will necessarily be inter-generational, and government policy can have surprisingly swift effects. For example following a concerted effort to implement family planning, Iran drastically reduced its fertility rate after 1989, which today sits at about 1.9, in contrast with other near by countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We must take a long term perspective. There is no other choice. - educating women to a highschool level - providing them access to unbelievably rudimentary healthcare Which are good things anyway! Rarely in history has there been a better two birds with one stone scenario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Population surplus is good if you're planning a brutal culling war and all the profit that entails. Some old time religion helps encourage both. News, not news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted: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. What kind of posts should we make?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Yinlock 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 In what effective, measurable way does that put you an inch above the cynic gang TheNakedFantastic posted:The importance of reducing human population if society has shifted to greatly reduced levels of green house gas production is marginal though. I'm not disagreeing that it's better or non exclusive, it's that as a "serious" solution it's worthless on a theoretical (it doesn't solve the real problem) and practical level (it takes far too long for this to have a major effect). It's much more similar to personally abstaining from red meat than something like replacing all coal plants with nuclear plants. Hey, folks that are very very strongly!! against something that "could, y'know, work but really it wouldn't mean that much" - are you parents (or do you plan to be) and do you consider yourself a liberal or progressive? I bet I could make a good guess! call to action fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
How's the solar panels for cars technology going? Is it in the range where it pays for itself and makes a difference carbon footprint-wise? Also how would one keep people from stealing it off the top of your car? I don't imagine a lot of people would be stealing solar panels but I'm sure we'll get there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
vermin posted:How's the solar panels for cars technology going? Is it in the range where it pays for itself and makes a difference carbon footprint-wise? If you could tape four standard residential solar panels on to a Nissan Leaf, it'd take at least 36 hours of direct sunlight before it'd be fully charged. The only way this could work is if you stack a few heavy rear end panels in the hatch and then deploy them when you park.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
call to action posted:If you could tape four standard residential solar panels on to a Nissan Leaf, it'd take at least 36 hours of direct sunlight before it'd be fully charged. The only way this could work is if you stack a few heavy rear end panels in the hatch and then deploy them when you park. Ah man. That's depressing. I guess it makes more sense to charge a series of batteries at home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
call to action posted:If you could tape four standard residential solar panels on to a Nissan Leaf, it'd take at least 36 hours of direct sunlight before it'd be fully charged. The only way this could work is if you stack a few heavy rear end panels in the hatch and then deploy them when you park. With a range of 107 miles that's 24 miles of charging during an 8 hour workday. That would actually cover 100% of my roundtrip commute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
I was basing my calculations on a 73 mile 1st gen Leaf (used to have one) but the point's valid, if you could park in an area where people wouldn't gently caress with your panels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Where and at what time of year did you assume? Because that's going to have a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of solar panels. The whole thing with a single slim shadow potentially preventing it from producing usable electricity is probably also going to put a hamper on things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
That's a good point. I live on the border of hot dry and cold dry states so solar panels might not be a worthwhile investment for all that money I don't have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Where and at what time of year did you assume? Because that's going to have a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of solar panels. The whole thing with a single slim shadow potentially preventing it from producing usable electricity is probably also going to put a hamper on things. This is assuming peak output, which is a pretty big assumption as you note, unless you live in the Mojave.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
vermin posted:That's a good point. I live on the border of hot dry and cold dry states so solar panels might not be a worthwhile investment for all that money I don't have. call to action posted:This is assuming peak output, which is a pretty big assumption as you note, unless you live in the Mojave.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
High temperatures decrease PV panel efficiency but the Mojave is still a world class place to use solar power. You usually have to choose between snow/ice or heat in places with high solar potential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
call to action posted:High temperatures decrease PV panel efficiency but the Mojave is still a world class place to use solar power. You usually have to choose between snow/ice or heat in places with high solar potential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
I guess I'm just hopin we discover how to pull energy out of the universe's rear end in the next few decades 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
One of my roommate's friends was arguing the other day that solar panels are the real cause behind global warming because instead of letting the sun's rays reflect back into space, they trap their energy on the planet. He said instead of solar panels we should just paint everything -- roofs, roads, cars, parking lots, etc. -- in white paint so that Earth's albedo is increased and "the whole thing just cools down."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:One of my roommate's friends was arguing the other day that solar panels are the real cause behind global warming because instead of letting the sun's rays reflect back into space, they trap their energy on the planet. He said instead of solar panels we should just paint everything -- roofs, roads, cars, parking lots, etc. -- in white paint so that Earth's albedo is increased and "the whole thing just cools down."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
You know, data analysis to that effect would make a good satirical piece. Another angle might be obesity as both a carbon sink and a means of depopulation. Just have to get fat on carbon-friendly foods, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
A Modest Proposal 2: The Fattening
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Light reflection related I read an article about how planting more trees wouldn't help offset climate change. If I'm remembering correctly there was a paragraph or two about it being more complicated than +oxygen -carbon but most of the article was about how since trees have green leaves, more light and heat would be absorbed than reflected making the world hotter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If you painted every urban area of the Earth with white acrylic paint, equivalent to 2.7% the total surface area of the world, the albedo of the surface of the Earth would change enough to absorb roughly 5% less solar radiation. This would in turn result in a rapid 1.5°C drop in average temperatures across the Earth, greatly offsetting the effects of the greenhouse gasses we pump into the atmosphere. Plus the blinding reflections off this bright paint, as well as the noxious fumes emanating from them in the sun, would quickly decimate the human population to the great benefit of most other species. Your roommate's friend has the right idea. Yeah, good luck finding all that paint and then convincing everyone on the planet that they should paint everything white with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Yeah, good luck finding all that paint and then convincing everyone on the planet that they should paint everything white with it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
In another universe this is the unifying symbol of the authoritarian new world government that formed to combat climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
A significant uptick in US concern over climate change, taken from a poll earlier in March http://www.gallup.com/poll/207119/half-concerned-global-warming-believers.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles Still extremely partisan, but overall trending in the correct direction. Activists (i.e. you) need to keep strong pressure on the media to actively cover it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Yeah, good luck finding all that paint and then convincing everyone on the planet that they should paint everything white with it. Well, a couple pages back someone did complain that there is no major industrial use for calcium carbonate resulting from CO2 capture 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
You can put it on floating barges at the north pole to replace all the melted sea ice
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
vermin posted:I guess I'm just hopin we discover how to pull energy out of the universe's rear end in the next few decades Ha, human beings would just use it to murder each other and animals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:33
|
|