Dang It Bhabhi! posted:

love to litigate the meaning of “invasive.”

The Nastier Nate posted:

Has anyone ever done an analysis on how much co2 all these forest fires are dumping in to the air? Seems like it would be a lot

Antonymous posted:

like Zizek points out

Complications posted:

The entirely unchecked arctic fires across northern Russia reportedly added about 200 megatons of CO2 to the atmosphere by satellite calculations done. Humanity adds about 37 gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually. I don't expect the various other forest fires to much different in orders of magnitude, and Califonia's to be honestly lower.

Continuity RCP posted:

Kill the horses first, bees are great

Antonymous posted:

the life of the things we don't care about (fungi,

Antonymous posted:

I remember I had to stop reading CSPAM's climate change thread because it's laughably blackpilled (multicellular life on earth will be gone in 30 years!) but

the environment everywhere is going to be different and human, plant, and animal life, and the life of the things we don't care about (fungi, bacteria, inedible fish) are going to get hosed up real bad in many places b/c of human decisions. ultimately that's just an exponential ramping up of what's been playing out since the last glacial maximum (humans ravaging every biome)

the point to me is we could avoid it and get an outcome we like better for ourselves and the types of life we value (animal biodiversity, food species survival etc) and yah that seems like we're not going to make it

but maybe it'll be worth it because in the end we'll be a spacefaring communist society like star trek... or more likely just toast ourselves after using all the free energy in the billion years old oil and doom any future species to also going extinct on this rock

Shame Boy posted:

It's kinda a different beast too, because the CO2 forests release was captured from the atmosphere fairly recently and has been a normal part of the carbon cycle this whole time, whereas the CO2 we release has been locked underground for hundreds of millions of years.

Antonymous posted:

I remember I had to stop reading CSPAM's climate change thread because it's laughably blackpilled (multicellular life on earth will be gone in 30 years!) but

the environment everywhere is going to be different and human, plant, and animal life, and the life of the things we don't care about (fungi, bacteria, inedible fish) are going to get hosed up real bad in many places b/c of human decisions. ultimately that's just an exponential ramping up of what's been playing out since the last glacial maximum (humans ravaging every biome)

the point to me is we could avoid it and get an outcome we like better for ourselves and the types of life we value (animal biodiversity, food species survival etc) and yah that seems like we're not going to make it

but maybe it'll be worth it because in the end we'll be a spacefaring communist society like star trek... or more likely just toast ourselves after using all the free energy in the billion years old oil and doom any future species to also going extinct on this rock

Facebook Aunt posted:

Okay, what if we replaced that old carbon with new carbon? Instead of burning the forests we cut them down and stuff them in old coal mines. Stuff on top would break down a little, but stuff at the bottom shouldn't. Every so often someone excavates an old landfill and finds 30 year old newspapers that are still perfectly fine, without water or air they take forever to break down, so that same storage solution should work on pre-birth newspapers. Trees are pretty slow tho, maybe grow bamboo or kudzu or something to capture atmospheric carbon and stuff it in old mine shafts.

Chamale posted:

That is one of the proposed plans for carbon sequestration. There's no profit in it, but if we were serious about reducing atmospheric carbon that's one of the more cost-effective methods. Much less effective than clean energy and raising less beef of course.

kraken! posted:

Has anyone done the math on how much non-carbon stuff the just bury trees plan would also sequester? Like, is there enough phosphate in trees that sequestering a meaningful amount of CO2 would noticeably gently caress up natural phosphate cycles?

Admiral Bosch posted:

bees are literal colonizers and supporting them is NOT praxis

Chamale posted:

That is one of the proposed plans for carbon sequestration. There's no profit in it, but if we were serious about reducing atmospheric carbon that's one of the more cost-effective methods. Much less effective than clean energy and raising less beef of course.

The Nastier Nate posted:

probably be easier to load them on to a barge and dump in the mariana trench

T-man posted:

White Man's Beeden

Platystemon posted:

I can’t say I’ve read a paper on it, but it’s hard to imagine that it will gently caress up mineral balance more than our fertilisers do, or more than the carbon dioxide diffusing into all the surface water on the planet and forming carbonic acid.

Platystemon posted:

Chamale posted:

That is one of the proposed plans for carbon sequestration. There's no profit in it

withak posted:

This is actually a world-class paleontology meme.

T-man posted:

How long does it take for a group to be indigenous and not simply settlers and why?

If you get too deep into the weeds on history or historical process you're going to find a million and a half counterexamples, exceptions, and complications.

Antonymous posted:

Not to mention that obviously people in the Americas displaced and replaced each other for millennia across the continents



Ultimately I think we can only differ to our own values as to what nature can or should be, like Zizek points out is is nature that wiped out most flora and fauna 65 million years ago and nature that buried so much life underground that we can use its remnants to fuel our cars. Nature is capable of wiping out biodiversity too... in the long run life will uh find a way

CharlestheHammer posted:

I mean that’s the problem with CSPAM mega threads that focus on specific things.

people have to one up each other like it’s a game or something

JesustheDarkLord posted:

Up Yours

JesustheDarkLord posted:

Make 7

AvesPKS posted:

I have always wondered how this applies to New Zealand. It's confusing since I was taught in school that American Manifest Destiny was kind of a bad thing.

Personally I think the answer is history. The extent to which you can obscure an origin in the mists of legendry is probably directly proportionate to the extent that that claim be considered 'legitimate', whatever that means.

ekuNNN posted: