Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
sanchez
Feb 26, 2003
As the impacts of climate change hit, particularly talking about food supply but weather too, hundreds of millions of people will die. This means hundreds of millions of people will stop consuming fossil fuels etc, reducing carbon emissions. How many people have to die before the climate stabilizes? Assume the poor ones who use little energy go first.

This is exactly what is going to happen, so I hope someone has done some research.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

sanchez
Feb 26, 2003

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

\ Our current agricultural output relies very heavy on petroleum and petroleum based products.

Are you sure our current agricultural system couldn't produce enough biofuel to run itself? I suspect it could easily. Electrify our freight rail system and you're in business, "mass starvation" seems like a stretch. The natural gas used to produce fertilizer is an issue but is also a very small percentage of natural gas use.

sanchez fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Dec 20, 2011

sanchez
Feb 26, 2003

Paper Mac posted:


Where's the corn going to come from?



If we don't need anywhere near as much corn, surely that becomes a much easier problem to solve? The end of cheap oil wont make economies of scale irrelevant overnight, I don't see how all this discussion of local small scale agriculture is useful.

sanchez
Feb 26, 2003

Powercrazy posted:

I can see the corn lobby slowly waning (a good thing).

Let's see how good it is once congress is in the pocket of Big Goat.

Goat is actually quite tasty, I have no problem with cornfields being replaced by pasture for them. They also seem to thrive in dry countries.

sanchez
Feb 26, 2003

Paper Mac posted:



It takes 7 to 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce and deliver 1 calorie of food energy to your table. Biofuels aren't going replace that input. To cut emissions by the rate we need to (outlined in the OP), we need to make some serious changes to the way the agricultural system works, especially cutting down on transport ranges. Or we can blithely continue emitting because we think cheap oil might not be such a problem after all and let drought utterly destroy the most productive agricultural ecology on the planet.

There is no single solution, but, if that 7 to 10 calories could be reduced by not producing grain fed beef etc and then the remainder covered through renewable sources, where's the problem? It does not matter if food travels 2000 miles if it does so on a wind powered train.

According to your article 10% of US energy consumption goes to agriculture. We can deal with that.

sanchez fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Dec 20, 2011

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

sanchez
Feb 26, 2003

TACD posted:

I was absolutely gobsmacked at this difference when I moved to the US. For the past 3-4 years in the UK, living in London (so obviously without a car) I've grown to love the home delivery service offered by every supermarket and pretty much relied on it. I would assume the US would freaking love that kind of service, but it barely exists over here. It's just not a thing. I could understand certain areas not being eligible because the US has some pretty loving remote locations but it just doesn't seem to be offered anywhere.


I see the peapod by Giant trucks everywhere, someone must be using them.

  • Locked thread