|
If we're gonna be full pedants that miss the point, I'll be the person to point out we never really abolished slavery. Underlying conditions mutated and adapted, except for the whole prison part which didn't even have to get rid of the trappings.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:So what gets left behind as soil/mulch? Are you saying none of that is carbon? Basically. Soils (more specifically, organisms within) do not have the capability to quickly store carbon in amounts like that (typical temperate soil is about 3-4% organic matter, and most is contained in the top horizon). If you chop down a tree and just leave it there, I'd presume most of the carbon ends up in the atmosphere. And that's for temperate soils, which are quite nutrient rich, i.e. fertile. In tropical zones (where most of modern deforestation is taking place), the soils can hold barely any nutrients, because all the rain washes it out and has also degraded the clay minerals in the soil. Because of this, rainforest trees get their nutrients mostly from the very top layer, i.e. litter, and are thus dependent on lots of litter being produced in their immediate vicinity.* As opposed to temperate soils which can store a bigger amount of nutrients. That's why rainforest trees have shallow, horizontally spread roots and temperate trees have deep vertical roots. * This is why the deforestation of rainforests is such a tragedy: They burn down X amount of rainforest, plant soy for two or three years, after which the soil has turned basically unusable (because the main source of nutrients, the rainforest, is gone), then they deforest the next bit. Plus, removing a vegetation cover also leads to literal tons of soil erosion (in temperate zones as well), i.e. the most fertile part of the soil (topsoil) which took hundreds to thousands of years to form is washed away indefinitely. This is absolutely a problem in temperate zones as well, and it happened at massive scale during the neolithic, when stone age people noticed you can produce arable land for free by burning down forests (for the resulting deposits, see Colluvium). Ocean of Milk fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jul 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:If we're gonna be full pedants that miss the point, I'll be the person to point out we never really abolished slavery. Underlying conditions mutated and adapted, except for the whole prison part which didn't even have to get rid of the trappings. This is true, and it is also true that even by a traditional definition there are more slaves alive in the world today than ever before. Now come out for rescinding the thirteenth amendment, I dare you. Laws aren't about preventing crimes, mostly. They have that function, as deterrents, but really what they're for is standardizing consequences. Murder is illegal and yet it still occurs. But when it does happen and a jury at trial determines a guilty party that guilty party can be sentenced in a way society at large sees as less of a systemic threat than a thumbs-down from the emperor, or vigilantes taking justice into their own hands. Also I agree that the idea of the abolitionist movement being completely ineffective until the civil war became hot is intensely stupid. There were abolitionists at the first Continental Congress pushing hard for the US to be born free and they did not let up for the better part of a century. That people were willing to become violent was thanks in no small part to the history of stubborn resistance and acquiescence from slave states and slave state apologists. Otherwise nonviolent people were moved to violence because of the failed peaceful attempts, so you can't really call those attempts useless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Also I agree that the idea of the abolitionist movement being completely ineffective until the civil war became hot is intensely stupid. There were abolitionists at the first Continental Congress pushing hard for the US to be born free and they did not let up for the better part of a century. That people were willing to become violent was thanks in no small part to the history of stubborn resistance and acquiescence from slave states and slave state apologists. Otherwise nonviolent people were moved to violence because of the failed peaceful attempts, so you can't really call those attempts useless. Point is, none of those solutions involved bland attempts at personal austerity, even a boycott of a specific thing isn't just some weird plan to vaguely reduce your use of slave products and hope that somehow someday fixes the slave problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Point is, none of those solutions involved bland attempts at personal austerity, even a boycott of a specific thing isn't just some weird plan to vaguely reduce your use of slave products and hope that somehow someday fixes the slave problem. You're a famous agitator here, right? I'm still new in town. So I'll be brief. "Austerity" in your example would mean "not having a slave". Is life without a slave of your very own a crippling poverty?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Ocean of Milk posted:Basically. Soils (more specifically, organisms within) do not have the capability to quickly store carbon in amounts like that (typical temperate soil is about 3-4% organic matter, and most is contained in the top horizon). If you chop down a tree and just leave it there, I'd presume most of the carbon ends up in the atmosphere. It's possible to carbon-enrich soils but... it's intensive work that should only be undertaken if there's a reason you need to not have standing vegetation on that latch of ground. I.e. It is going to be most worthwhile on actively farmed land. why bother when you can just have the carbon sequestered in living tissue? Another bizarrobad consequence of sea level rise with global warming is the loss of tremendous swathes of the most potent carbon-sinking biome: salt marshes. Insane amounts of biomass in saline wetlands. More per area than rainforest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:You're a famous agitator here, right? I'm still new in town. So I'll be brief. If you own a cotton plantation then changing how you produce cotton is a meaningful change as opposed to just being a guy trying to personal responsibility their cotton footprint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
Can we stop with this stupid cotton derail? It is really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
I feel like "should consumers consider the ethics of their consumption?" is a relevant and important question to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Yeah, it's a decent consideration. Is not owning an SUV equivalent to not buying slave-picked cotton? There are certain paralells on both the conservationists and consumerist sides. Keep in mind though that in this analogy fossil fuels= slaves, not an indirect relation to slavery like cotton. The "austerity" in question is not burning a fuel that emits pollutants vs not working a human you own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:So what gets left behind as soil/mulch? Are you saying none of that is carbon? Your are right that rotting trees decompose into carbon rich soil. If you sterilzed that soil and stored it somewhere where nothing would grow in it then that might work. Keep in mind however that it takes decades to build up even a few inches of topsoil. To Shibawanko, I think that even old construction wood in a landfill will decompose in a few decades, not enough to help us. But now you have me thinking of heart pine and ironwood and other super dense trees that are resistant to rotting. ironwood trunks dropped into a large lake would stay there for well over 100 years. WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jul 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you own a cotton plantation then changing how you produce cotton is a meaningful change as opposed to just being a guy trying to personal responsibility their cotton footprint. What you continually miss is that people inspire others to make similar changes, companies who want to sell products to people who made those changes will also make those changes, and politicians who want votes from people who made those changes and/or financial backing from companies who made those changes will support legislation for those changes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
So, this season I've been pretty quiet about Arctic sea ice. It's remarkably held together pretty well, despite a lovely winter season. Or, at least, that's what it seemed... here's what happened over the past few days per ASIF, and forecasts ain't looking good weather-wise in the near term: Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Jul 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
In the melting season I would recommend HYCOM/CICE over SMOS like those uni-bremen graphics show. SMOS shows rapid reductions when meltponding occurs that usually have to correct as the ponds drain/evaporate. That being said the ice pack is remarkably weak on the Pacific side and one cyclone in the 965hPa range in August would probably put us in 2012 territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
In case you were wondering: Yes, the current global wildfire situation is unprecedented, directly linked to climate change, and pretty loving bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:In the melting season I would recommend HYCOM/CICE over SMOS like those uni-bremen graphics show. SMOS shows rapid reductions when meltponding occurs that usually have to correct as the ponds drain/evaporate. It doesn't appear to be melt ponding from the brief glances through clouds in images on that thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
THE BEATWEAVER posted:In case you were wondering: Yes, the current global wildfire situation is unprecedented, directly linked to climate change, and pretty loving bad. I'm sure it'll just burn itself out and we'll be fine, no need to raise the apocalypse alarm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
I jumped in here to see if Owl said anything stupid or doubled down. I was not expecting, well, that 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Instead of comparing climate change to the abolition movement and the American Civil War, you should compare it to previous environmental movements, like banning of DDT or the emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals. And what you see, time and again, is that these were not solved by individual actions like refusal to buy DDT-sprayed crops or refrigerators, but by coordinated international action by governments, nonprofits and business leaders. That's certainly not to say that environmental movements are useless, but rather that this "by cutting back we'll inspire others and this will snowball into a solution" narrative is wishful thinking that doesn't take the problem seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
chlorocarbon regulation followed a popular movement
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
I mean, who here wants to directly deny the notion that political change follows popular will how magnificently pedantic can we take these tangents
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:Some of the articles regarding the Climeworks plant quote the companies projected costs going as low as $100 per metric ton once the factory ramps up. I would be really skeptical of these startups claiming very low costs for direct air capture. It's interesting, but has to be taken with a grain of salt because it's extremely common for startups to make exaggerated claims and fail to deliver. When they're actually doing it at scale, then you get your hopes up. Also keep in mind these figures are only the cost for extraction, and you're looking at a minimum of $50/ton in additional costs for geological sequestration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:chlorocarbon regulation followed a popular movement But the reason people actually stopped using CFCs is because of a broad international agreement. The (small, but real) movement didn't win by convincing everyone to stop using refrigerators, they won by convincing powerful people that this was a huge problem and that they knew how to solve it. If it had come down to "inspiring" the public to chuck their fridge we would have just annihilated the ozone layer, no question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Another pedantic argument that can be solved with "why not both" Hard problems require an ensemble of solutions
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Another pedantic argument that can be solved with "why not both" This isn't really about solutions; it's a question of strategy, and you don't benefit from having complex, confused strategies. And personally I think this is a losing strategy, and we should look to past environmental crises to find a winning one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Instead of comparing climate change to the abolition movement and the American Civil War, you should compare it to previous environmental movements, like banning of DDT or the emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals. And what you see, time and again, is that these were not solved by individual actions like refusal to buy DDT-sprayed crops or refrigerators, but by coordinated international action by governments, nonprofits and business leaders. That's certainly not to say that environmental movements are useless, but rather that this "by cutting back we'll inspire others and this will snowball into a solution" narrative is wishful thinking that doesn't take the problem seriously. They were also only solved as reactions to events, GCC is a unique problem without precedent really in all of humankind. It makes things like ddt or ozone depletion or hell ww2 look like friday at the office by comparison. Potato Salad posted:chlorocarbon regulation followed a popular movement no it didn't it followed direct and incontrovertible evidence that there were major problems and had a direct, obvious, and easy solution. Humans went 99.9999999% of their existence without really having a way to make any sort of reasonable predictions of the future beyond a couple days or weeks; we were simply not built to handle a problem like GCC to be perfectly honest -- we are fundamentally a reactionary species that solves problems with tools and technological solutions. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
hmmm looks like tackling this problem will take a large percentage of gdp for a generation, should we compare that to previous economic upheavals and wars... nahhh, it makes more sense to frame this as a consumerist choice between hairspay brands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:hmmm looks like tackling this problem will take a large percentage of gdp for a generation, should we compare that to previous economic upheavals and wars... nahhh, it makes more sense to frame this as a consumerist choice between hairspay brands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
It's nice to finally see first hand why some of this thread's gallery of rogues are so famously infuriating. I am glad to be informed by the examples of others... you know, that thing humans do? Ahem. I still think abolition is a good comparison because it's a case of immoral profiteering entrenching itself and needing to be dug out at significant pain to the host. How that fight unfolded and eventually erupted in the United States is a pretty spectacular and relevant bit of history, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Every time I hop in this thread I wonder where the gently caress ELF is at and why it isn't a global organization yet.StabbinHobo posted:- 2 or 3 children I'm going to rant a bit about his from a few pages ago because I have strong feelings. A lot of these things kind of go together and feed into each other. Try being a family with kids and not having more than one car, especially in most of the US where public transpo is absolutely horrible. Good luck finding space for your family of four that isn't a SFH. If you and your partner are both supporting a four person family and a four person home and two cars one of you probably has a job that requires you to travel some distance for trainings or other work poo poo. On top of that there is a good chance you're eating out a lot if both of you are working because its more convenient and you don't have time to cook, and most convenient eating out means lovely hamburgers. Chances are because of the rising cost of living in urban centers you have already or will be forced to move out into suburbs or smaller towns where public transportation is even worse and now you have to commute to work and the only place to go grocery shopping is many miles away instead of walking distance which means having two cars is even more necessary than it was before. I guess my point is that I don't think that individual lifestyle "choice" is really that much in making a difference in climate change as much as how our physical living spaces are designed and organized or in the case of the vast majority of the United States NOT designed or organized. I put choice in quotes there because a lot of this stuff isn't really a choice, people tend to just fall in where they can afford to. Climate activists in the US need to be doing more than blocking trains, and pointing to carbon legislation as a means for change, we need to be pushing for radical reorganization of our entire society to move away from things like individual ownership of vehicles. Change how families are pretty much forced to have both people working just to be able to afford to feed their children and a place to live. Things like giving people monetary incentives to move into city centers and redesigning those cities so that people can live/work/shop/play all without hopping into a car, penalizing employers for hiring outside of certain distances, forcing new apartment complexes to have places to eat and shop built in and also have apartments designed for families instead of single people with no kids. When it comes to climate change no one has any good solution because a good solution is going to be all loving encompassing, its going to consist of a huge loving plan that is more than just a carbon tax, or don't have kids or buy an electric car. Its going to be like "gently caress the auto industry forever, gently caress the oil industry forever, gently caress the food industry forever" and hey take a wild guess who drives policy in the US? Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jul 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Humans went 99.9999999% of their existence without really having a way to make any sort of reasonable predictions of the future beyond a couple days or weeks; we were simply not built to handle a problem like GCC to be perfectly honest -- we are fundamentally a reactionary species that solves problems with tools and technological solutions. Uh I'm sorry, have you never heard of astrology?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:They were also only solved as reactions to events, GCC is a unique problem without precedent really in all of humankind. It makes things like ddt or ozone depletion or hell ww2 look like friday at the office by comparison. I agree with most of this, but not really with the core point about reactivity. There's certainly more than enough myopia to go around, but climate change is much further along and doing much more damage than CFCs or DDT ever did. The real difference is that, as you point out, in those cases there were cheap and easy alternatives at hand, whereas there really isn't for fossil fuels. Decarbonization is hard, expensive and error-prone, and if you're looking for reasons it hasn't happened despite the risks of climate change you'd be much better looking to that than some characteristic of human nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:I'm going to rant a bit about his from a few pages ago because I have strong feelings. A lot of these things kind of go together and feed into each other. Try being a family with kids and not having more than one car, especially in most of the US where public transpo is absolutely horrible. Good luck finding space for your family of four that isn't a SFH. If you and your partner are both supporting a four person family and a four person home and two cars one of you probably has a job that requires you to travel some distance for trainings or other work poo poo. On top of that there is a good chance you're eating out a lot if both of you are working because its more convenient and you don't have time to cook, and most convenient eating out means lovely hamburgers. Chances are because of the rising cost of living in urban centers you have already or will be forced to move out into suburbs or smaller towns where public transportation is even worse and now you have to commute to work and the only place to go grocery shopping is many miles away instead of walking distance which means having two cars is even more necessary than it was before. I don't know where these dsa-rose gang tags come from but how the gently caress is this suburban republican sporting one? I like how you word-salad'd your way to a really progressive plan: wait for the whole system to fix itself around you, your way of life is non-negotiable
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I don't know where these dsa-rose gang tags come from but how the gently caress is this suburban republican sporting one? He is 100% right though. The US has a per capita carbon footprint that is over 300% higher than france, but it's not like everyone in france is some gaia-loving hippy who is voluntarily living some sad and reduced life because they have not been so cursed by hexxus as the Americans. Everyone in france lives a perfectly fine modern western lifestyle with no sense of deprivation. They simply live in a better designed environment. Individuals in france aren't making any specific personal sacrifices and it's hard to say people in france are even making any sort of socially enforced 'sacrifices" beyond some dumb abstract opportunity cost thing. Like you can look at various countries with similar qualities of life and see whole ranges of carbon output, and it has nothing to do with rates of self sacrifice or making dumb personal consumer choices. France has low carbon output because it has modern transportation and nuclear power. Not because french are all saints who live under grim conditions to cut 5% off their carbon foot prints by abandoning their hopes and dreams.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:France has low carbon output because it has modern transportation and nuclear power. Not because french are all saints who live under grim conditions to cut 5% off their carbon foot prints by abandoning their hopes and dreams. So you don't count your transportation and electric bill as consumer choices? Because those are the two biggest areas we're talking about when we talk about consumer reductions of carbon footprints. I get what you're saying, it's like the whole Iron Eyes Cody thing, people behind the weaponized eco movement set out to turn the blame onto individual consumers instead of big companies, where it mostly belongs. Someone who is only conserving personally and not pushing for large-scale change restricting the excesses of crony capitalism is not going to directly effect much. But I choose to claim my own small responsibility too, even of if it's just a token example. Even as just a personal commitment, part of a social movement, a component of my community engagement or even parenting, or any of the other valid reasons people have presented here to take individual action as well as push for larger reform. Even as just a show of faith personal austerity is valuable to the larger cause- I can state very confidently that you and a few other posters' cases would be a lot better received if you didn't object so obsessively to how your allies in this cause express their concern. Save it for your real enemies, jeez. Also it's very telling you think not using plastic straws and riding your bike to work is "abandoning your hopes and dreams". Seriously you think life without every possible luxury is worthless and unfulfilling? That's profoundly terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Whoops double post
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
brb let me bike 12 miles to work in 100 degree weather
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:brb let me bike 12 miles to work in 100 degree weather Working a job where you can't take the day off in a place with no buses or trains is your life's dream???
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:brb let me bike 12 miles to work in 100 degree weather Implement a basic income so there's no need to travel to work every day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Saying "it would cost money" to economically account for something that is currently an un-priced externality is like one of the most amazingly dumb thank-you-captain-obvious/no-poo poo-sherlock takes you can possibly have. "but, but, much of rural and suburban america can't do that!" is a very close second. I'm sorry the news is bad. You can't try to victimized-middle-class cry your way out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 21:39
|
|