West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[Deleted member 848]

The Germans aren't feeding the world. Can we reduce and shift our electric infrastructure towards renewables yes. That being said we cannot become carbon neutral anytime soon. Even if we did I guarantee that the drop in fossil fuel prices would lead to new consumers. Do you really think we are in a position to tell emerging economies not to burn fossil fuels?

Bottom line I think we should do everything reasonable and then some as a developed nation but global co2 emissions are going to continue to rise.

Textbook defeatism, IMO. "we could actually have the capacity to change, but there's a chance that some other country will capitalize on the dropping fossil fuel prices so you know what let's just not bother changing our fossil fuel dependence any further" and "you know what we COULD get rid of our carbon dependence, but it'll never result in us being carbon neutral so you know what let's not bother reducing CO2 emissions the environment is like a light switch either you're hurting it or you're not."

 

[franklin]

I respectfully disagree that technology can completely take care of the problems for us. Complete pipe-dream, IMO.

People have a tendency to drastically underestimate what technology will do for us 30, 10, or even 5 years down the road. The current rate of advancement is phenomenal and I have no doubt none of us will recognize the world we dwell in in just a few short years. I.e. there have been some pretty incredible advancements in the solar industry that few thought were achievable 10 years ago. I have little doubt that in a few years it will be popular for home builders to not only offer but list as a feature solar energy saving packages.

The charity stuff on the poor end of the spectrum has been pretty damn cool as well. Google Jimmy Carter or Bill Gates on Africa and you should come up with some pretty good stories about what tech is doing to clean up local environments.

I think you are focusing on a very minor aspect of the grand scheme of contemporary ecological strife. Air pollution is a problem, of course-- and it's probably among those that is being treated most seriously….but quite frankly using this example, and applying it to cliate change altogether is naive.

Air quality was an easier fix for the government to justify because it has a very direct impact on the health of citizens in America. Meanwhile, no one gives a **** when places like the Bhola Island are flooded. It makes sense, and it's human nature-- but I'm just trying to point out that responses are not all one and the same, and its quite simple to see why the response to air quality in the US has been mobilized so quickly.

Back up, young buck. I was only giving a real world example to show how naïve sentiments like The Schriller's are. Yes, I realize hazardous air pollution is a separate issue from climate change.

BTW, I'm the biggest environmentalist you'll ever meet. Come at me bro when you support a huge gasoline tax and government eminent domain seizing lands to create open space like I do.

Right. There are lots of regulations like these, and it's good to see. No one is arguing that nothing is being done to combat climate change-- I think that most people simply state that not enough is being done, by those who are most capable of administering change.

You're Canadian & obviously used to people being a way more rational than I am. Americans act like we're all hooked up to Old Sparky the electric chair. The majority of us honestly believe "nothing is being done" about anything that isn't a direct handout to US multinational businesses.

 

[Hantlers]

Biodiesel.

Biodiesel is a valid point, and I definitely agree we could and should be using more of it. However, there is a large problem with it.

Where are we going to get it from?

It isn't exactly created that efficiently, and quite frankly, if we were to produce enough crops so that we could use nothing but biodiesel, we would have nothing to eat. Hell, we're already faced with an increasing population that food production is struggling to keep up with. Devoting more of our farm land to crops for biodiesel production results in less food for everybody. This of course leads to increased prices, especially beef as corn and soybeans are used for cattle feed, which I'm not exactly complaining about…but it just leads to less people having food. Not exactly good for the future of our Earth either.

As for the cows, I'd love to hear your list of reasons on why having cows is bad.

 

[Hantlers]

The irony that a high crop prices complaint came from a capitalistic, self-proclaimed hard working farmer is pretty thick. But it is Hantlers, and the rest is worth his occasional beanclowning around.

I wasn't complaining about the prices, perhaps you should try reading it again.

I was simply stating that I thought it was humorous that a group of people who typically seem to claim to care about the plights of the poor, were making it more difficult for the poor to eat by creating a mass demand for what was once a cheap product.

 

[Hantlers]

One Brow did a great job addressing these, so I won't bother.

Both you and OB seemed to miss why it is basically impossible for GMO's to have had anything to do with the so called gluten problem that we have, so perhaps you should bother. Can't say I'm overly surprised, but I ain't mad…just disappointed.

 

[♪alt13]

That's the sort of arrogance that led to us overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran to install the Shah. It's looking at a small selection of benefits, without considerations of the feedback loops and changes tot he system.




If they can get the job done with less expense by using renewables, why would they burn?

ummm please share with us the less expensive way to build a developing nation using renewables rather than fossil fuels.

The first statement you made is ridiculous.

Textbook defeatism, IMO. "we could actually have the capacity to change, but there's a chance that some other country will capitalize on the dropping fossil fuel prices so you know what let's just not bother changing our fossil fuel dependence any further" and "you know what we COULD get rid of our carbon dependence, but it'll never result in us being carbon neutral so you know what let's not bother reducing CO2 emissions the environment is like a light switch either you're hurting it or you're not."

Dude emphasis > "Bottom line I think we should do everything reasonable and then some as a developed nation but global co2 emissions are going to continue to rise."

The only way for us to stop global co2 emissions from rising would be to militarily seize every major oil field and coal mine on the planet. Like I said I am for the developing world reducing co2 emissions but there will be an extra 2,000,000,000(that's billion) people on the planet by 2050. Most of those new people will be born in developing countries. Again Co2 emissions are going to continue to rise.

 

[♪alt13]

BTW, I'm the biggest environmentalist you'll ever meet. Come at me bro when you support a huge gasoline tax and government eminent domain seizing lands to create open space like I do.

So you drive an electric car/bicycle, you get all of your power from renewables(PV and pay extra for wind from rocky mountain Power). You recycle everything. You probably don't buy new electronics but prefer to upgrade hardware in used pcs and just live with older models where possible. You must only eat locally sourced food and your garden has got to be impressive. You don't eat sea food period. Point is I bet if you looked at your carbon footprint/environmental impact honestly you would find you are not half the environmentalist you claim to be, but hey you're for stuff.

note: I have an F150 and a Corrolla. I get non of my power from renewables. I recycle quite a bit. I do reuse nut I also like nifty new ****. I don't bother with local food and my garden is not impressive. I eat seafood even though I know we are fishing our oceans to death, but then I'm not claiming to be "the biggest environmentalist you'll ever meet."

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#CO2Lags

Thoughts?

 

[One Brow]

By some accounts much higher, depending on how crazy it gets. Lost jobs, reduced food production, higher costs for basic goods. The impact will be much harsher on the poor, and the developing world would feel it as well as America pulls back and would be forced to keep more "in house" so to speak.

Jobs lost in fossil fuels would be recovered in renewable energy. If our food production is dependent on pulling out ever-larger amounts of non-renewable, cheap energy, then the starvation experienced today would be dwarfed by the starvation of the future.

I don't think anyone in here is advocating for it to "get crazy", but we need to take this situation seriously, as in we can't just sit on our hands and ignore it.

 

[One Brow]

Biodiesel is a valid point, and I definitely agree we could and should be using more of it. However, there is a large problem with it.

Where are we going to get it from?

It isn't exactly created that efficiently, and quite frankly, if we were to produce enough crops so that we could use nothing but biodiesel, we would have nothing to eat. Hell, we're already faced with an increasing population that food production is struggling to keep up with. Devoting more of our farm land to crops for biodiesel production results in less food for everybody. This of course leads to increased prices, especially beef as corn and soybeans are used for cattle feed, which I'm not exactly complaining about…but it just leads to less people having food. Not exactly good for the future of our Earth either.

As for the cows, I'd love to hear your list of reasons on why having cows is bad.

I actually said "so many cows", that is, the excessively large number we currently have. You answered your third paragraph in your second paragraph. Cows take up a lot of calories, something like 17 calories intake for every calorie of food (or so I've heard, I'm open to correction). Even if the ratio is only 2 calories in for every calorie out, you can vastly increase the amount of food our country produces by reducing the number of farm animals we consume, and replacing them with more plants. That gives us plenty of energy for both people and machines.

I'm not a vegetarian, nor do I advocate such, but I have reduced my meat intake over the years.

 

[One Brow]

Both you and OB seemed to miss why it is basically impossible for GMO's to have had anything to do with the so called gluten problem that we have, so perhaps you should bother. Can't say I'm overly surprised, but I ain't mad…just disappointed.

Perhaps you can pull your fingers out of your ears long enough to realize we both agree (98% sure about dalamon here) GMOs don't have anything to do with gluten allergies, and we feel no responsibility to defend positions we don't support. I can't say I'm disappointed with you, though, because this is expected.

 

[Stoked]

I actually said "so many cows", that is, the excessively large number we currently have. You answered your third paragraph in your second paragraph. Cows take up a lot of calories, something like 17 calories intake for every calorie of food (or so I've heard, I'm open to correction). Even if the ratio is only 2 calories in for every calorie out, you can vastly increase the amount of food our country produces by reducing the number of farm animals we consume, and replacing them with more plants. That gives us plenty of energy for both people and machines.

I'm not a vegetarian, nor do I advocate such, but I have reduced my meat intake over the years.

Good for you. Feel free to send the excess beef, steaks, roasts and ribs you don't eat over to my house and I'll enjoy them.

 

[One Brow]

ummm please share with us the less expensive way to build a developing nation using renewables rather than fossil fuels.

The first statement you made is ridiculous.

It will take more investing, certainly, but the basic source for solar, wind, geothermal, etc. is resource-free; you don't use anything up. As we improve our ability to extract energy from them, the price of that energy from it will drop.

I wish I were surprised that you saw a general comment on the narrowness of vision leading to unintended consequences as "ridiculous".

Dude emphasis > "Bottom line I think we should do everything reasonable and then some as a developed nation but global co2 emissions are going to continue to rise."

This is accepting defeat before the war is waged.

 

[One Brow]

https://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#CO2Lags

Thoughts?

The title of the web page is lying about the CO2 lags specifically, and most of the other papers generally, as supporting denialist (aka "skeptical")arguments about climate change.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Perhaps you can pull your fingers out of your ears long enough to realize we both agree (98% sure about dalamon here) GMOs don't have anything to do with gluten allergies, and we feel no responsibility to defend positions we don't support. I can't say I'm disappointed with you, though, because this is expected.

Yeah, didn't really understand where he got that from. I don't eat very much gluten, and lots of the stuff in my house is GMO free, but obviously non-GMO crops can have gluten.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The title of the web page is lying about the CO2 lags specifically, and most of the other papers generally, as supporting denialist (aka "skeptical")arguments about climate change.

yup.

This is accepting defeat before the war is waged.

defeatism, in other words.

 

[Stoked]

yup.



defeatism, in other words.

Or realism that we do not control the rest of the world.

To me defeatism would be him saying since they are going to rise anyways we should not even try. That's not what he is saying. Think you have that part wrong Dala, sorry.

 

[Hantlers]

Perhaps you can pull your fingers out of your ears long enough to realize we both agree (98% sure about dalamon here) GMOs don't have anything to do with gluten allergies, and we feel no responsibility to defend positions we don't support. I can't say I'm disappointed with you, though, because this is expected.

I realize you agree with me, but your reasoning for why you agree is wrong.

You implied they don't cause gluten problems because the science community thinks GMO's aren't bad (and I agree with the science community). Dala agreed with you on this.

The real reason GMO's can't be causing the gluten problem is simply because there are no GMO cereal grains grown in the United States.

 

[Hantlers]

Yeah, didn't really understand where he got that from. I don't eat very much gluten, and lots of the stuff in my house is GMO free, but obviously non-GMO crops can have gluten.

Why avoid gluten if it doesn't cause you any troubles.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Why avoid gluten if it doesn't cause you any troubles.

because I feel better when I don't eat lots of it, and my family physician (MD, FRCPC) says it's a good lifestyle choice as long as I take in the proper quota of nutrients every day.