by careinke » Tue 28 Feb 2017, 05:30:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', 'I')F this seaweed scheme can be scaled up to 9% of the world’s oceans it WILL sequester ALL our CO2 emissions
You sure are a committed advocate for destroying large areas of the ocean to grow kelp.
So please explain---how does growing lots and lots of seaweed sequester "ALL our CO2 emissions"?
If that's what you think, you need to watch the following TED talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ViaskDSeI Thanks for the link. While watching this talk, I was thinking to myself, this guy groks permaculture without the formal training. His design is outstanding, stacking functions in time, space, and product. He has also placed his design as Open Source so it can be used and tested in various environments. He has found local land based markets for his product, has a seafood CSA, and developed a system that can provide a living wage for a relatively low entry cost (~$50,000.00).
It seems to me setting up a business for around $50K that you can make a decent living on, would be a better choice for some than say $250K for a liberal arts degree. Think about it a million living wage jobs to be had with no government intervention or subsidizing required. A business that once established requires very little inputs, regenerates the environment, provides multiple income streams and uses local resources and markets. It just takes a million people who like that kind of work, and are aware the opportunities are out there.
I may set up a scaled down version of this in my cove.
I expect to see a lot of these 3D farms popping up soon.
by eclipse » Tue 28 Feb 2017, 17:13:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', 'I')F this seaweed scheme can be scaled up to 9% of the world’s oceans it WILL sequester ALL our CO2 emissions
You sure are a committed advocate for destroying large areas of the ocean to grow kelp.
So please explain---how does growing lots and lots of seaweed sequester "ALL our CO2 emissions"?
If that's what you think, you need to watch the following TED talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ViaskDSeI Thanks for the link. While watching this talk, I was thinking to myself, this guy groks permaculture without the formal training. His design is outstanding, stacking functions in time, space, and product. He has also placed his design as Open Source so it can be used and tested in various environments. He has found local land based markets for his product, has a seafood CSA, and developed a system that can provide a living wage for a relatively low entry cost (~$50,000.00).
It seems to me setting up a business for around $50K that you can make a decent living on, would be a better choice for some than say $250K for a liberal arts degree. Think about it a million living wage jobs to be had with no government intervention or subsidizing required. A business that once established requires very little inputs, regenerates the environment, provides multiple income streams and uses local resources and markets. It just takes a million people who like that kind of work, and are aware the opportunities are out there.
I may set up a scaled down version of this in my cove.
I expect to see a lot of these 3D farms popping up soon.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
by eclipse » Tue 28 Feb 2017, 17:21:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', 'T')he population targets by mid century when the worldwide demographic transition take place should be easily and sustainably maintained by the measures we have already discussed.
Feed people, and give them what they need where they live, and less people will turn up to hassle you at your dinner party.
Demographic Transition: it's a thing.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/reduce/The last several hundred million years of evolution reads more like...
Feed them and they will reproduce until food source is depleted.
Hey, you're the one defying decades of social science research into a KNOWN population phenomenon. Just saying big words like 'evolution' and 'depleted' doesn't make you look any smarter if you're betraying your own ignorance as you do so! Read the wiki, and if that isn't enough, go and read the studies themselves. Demographic Transition - it's a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
by ralfy » Tue 28 Feb 2017, 21:34:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '
')And copper, iron, other metals etc are all infinitely recyclable, aren’t they?
Recycling involves re-using what has been extracted. That's not the same as increasing extraction.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Hectares of what, land or sea? You know I’m not just talking about eating only kelp, but the seafood and other land-based food that kelp can grow. Fish fingers are nice though: I wouldn’t find eating fish & chips on a regular basis a real chore. Especially if I knew the potatos were fertilised sustainably through seaweed fertilisers and grown with renewable and nuclear energy.
Global hectares. Link provided earlier. See also the graph that you yourself provided in an earlier message.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I wish! But, for the sake of argument, IF this seaweed scheme can be scaled up to 9% of the world’s oceans it WILL sequester ALL our CO2 emissions and provide ALL our ener
Wishing is not the same as assuring.
The global economy requires more than just energy. See above.
Recycling <> increasing production.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Well, it might be nice to see some dismantling but I think that’s more of a political view and getting away from the discussion about core technologies that can save our ecology and civilisation.
by ralfy » Tue 28 Feb 2017, 22:24:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '
')Too simplistic. GDP is decoupling from money, and the economy can run in stagnant modes for long periods. See Japan's economy for the last 15 years.
Most of the world isn't like Japan. For that to happen, they have to catch up and industrialize first, after which they can also experience the same.
Given the ecological footprint graph you provided and other info I sent, that catching up will require around four more earths.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We do have access to abundant clean power if we would only build it. Breeder reactors would convert America's nuclear waste into 1000 years of fuel.
America <> world's population. See above.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I do not wish to minimise the challenges we face, but there are ways through. Time for the kelp summary, again! On top of all the abundant clean energy we can get from breeder reactors, we now have the systems to create enormous kelp farms that would HEAL and RESTORE the ocean, not harm it! Win win win!
The paper below says it would give us:-
* half a kilogram of seafood per person per day, to feed a world of 10 billion people!
* all the biofuels and biogas we could need to replace fossil fuels and provide the ultimate backup to wind and solar power
* remove ocean acidity
* restore our atmosphere to 350ppm by 2085
In other words, seaweed is a silver bullet to feed the world, save the oceans, and save us from climate change, all in this free PDF. "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation". Just register, and download it for free.
http://www.psep.ichemejournals.com/arti ... 57-5820(12)00120-6/abstract
What you just did is exactly what you argued you did not want to do, which is to minimize the challenges we face. As explained to you previously, the world economy does not operate on kelp.
You addressed that problem by referring to organic soup and everything grown in labs. If that's the case, then there's no point talking about kelp, right? Or was that supposed to be part of the soup?
Given these points, what you probably need to do is to show how ecological footprint can be increased way beyond biocapacity to meet middle class conveniences for 10 billion people. And, no, "infinite recycling" solely does not make that happen. Either you show that biocapacity can be ramped up significantly or identify that organic soup that will allow for smart phones and passenger vehicles per capita on only one global hectare per capita.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ep.
by eclipse » Wed 01 Mar 2017, 00:59:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'T')he current global capitalist economy requires continuous growth for reasons explained in the capitalism thread. That growth requires increasing amounts of energy and material resources. A limited biosphere cannot ensure that.
So explain Japan's decade of stagnation? They didn't collapse or dieoff from lack of economic growth.
Also, have you not heard of decoupling? I'm bored to tears by the 'we've got to grow like blind bugs in a petri-dish so we're DOOMED' economic mantra. It's not new, and it's not smart. It's a cliché response that ignores decoupling.
http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english/
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
-
eclipse
- Coal
-
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Sydney
-
by ralfy » Wed 01 Mar 2017, 21:12:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '
')Interesting point! There is a branch of cult psychology that analyses "Apocalyptic Outsiders", whether their 'cult' is Jonestown or Waco Texas, or has a more secular environmental basis. The difference between being generally cynical and sceptical is that the sceptic is asking lots of questions and generally pessimistic about the outcome, but still open to being surprised and happy with a good outcome. The Apocalyptic Outsider sees themselves as above and superior to society, and outside that. (Whether or not they are physically removed from it is irrelevant). They use terms like 'Sheeple" to condemn their fellow citizens, and embrace their pessimism as prophecy. Some even have a saviour complex, and see themselves as John Connor warning of the impending Skynet. OK, bad metaphor because that particular version of doom has too many energy requirements in it! It's too high tech for a peak oil doomer.
But the fundamental psychological difference is that the Apocalyptic Outsider is personally invested in society going down. It's a psychological need for certainty that drives it. Documentaries on it describe that uncertainty is the hardest state for people to endure.
You have to understand the basis of that "general pessimism," which is the reality of limits to growth. You yourself showed that very clearly as you presented a chart showing ecological footprint exceeding biocapacity. What "happy outcome" will allow for that footprint to keep rising? Or are you assuming that everything will be lab-grown and will involve less than one global hectare? If so, can you prove that, or are you only talking about "possibilities," as you point out below.
Next, didn't you use "sheeple" in an earlier post? In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you were the first one to use that in this thread.
Third, if the savior complex is a "bad metaphor" because there are "too many energy requirements" involved, then how is that any different from the "organic soup" metaphor you've been raising?
Finally, doesn't that "psychological need" work both ways? That is, just as some are "invested" in "society going down," then aren't others "invested" in the opposite? And how does that work with your view of the sceptic? Doesn't that imply that a cautious investor would not take risks, while a speculative one would invest wildly, hope that at some point he will strike gold?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')usan Tanner
Clinical Psychologist
Now many things are not predictable. The world is a very uncertain place. People change their jobs, organisations fold, collapse, you know, There is no guarantee in anything any more…Global threats like war, climate change certainly create anxiety too because the future is no longer guaranteed…
.…that sort of unpredictability and uncertainty creates a lot of anxiety, and anxiety is often a precursor to depression.
Unresolved anxiety sets people up for depression, because you can then feel despondent that well there actually isn’t anything I can do. Because climate change is out of my hands, terrorism is out of my hands…
So that can lead to what’s called catastrophic thinking, that imagining the worst scenario of what might happen and then believing that that’s what will happen.
Narrator
Surprisingly, being certain about the end can actually bring relief to those suffering anxiety…
Susan Tanner
Apocalyptic thinking can be very useful to people who need to feel a sense of control, and that they therefore feel calm because they know what’s going to happen. Living with uncertainty, living with a question mark is the hardest thing to do for all human beings. We like to know what’s going to happen. That’s why we visit clairvoyants and you know we have our tarots read and all sorts of things….
Narrator
Cards and palm readings may not be the most scientific way to predict our futures, yet humans have looked to them for centuries.
Richard Eckersley was struck by a similar lack of science when he researched fundamentalist thinking about the end times.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2428806.htm "Cards and palm readings"? What we're seeing is four decades of trends tracking forecasts made using computers back in the early 1970s:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapseYou're claiming that labs and "organic soup" will reverse the trend for resources. Or are you referring only to the possibility of that? If so, then how does that negate limits to growth?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Certainty, even of doom, is preferable to uncertainty. People will even vote maniacs like Trump in on the promise of some sort of certainty. Certainty then provides smugness and superiority and a strong sense of community, of belonging to an online elite who are gifted to know the future.
But that's the same certainty that makes people optimistic and believe in "silver bullets." Why else would media corporations controlled by the financial elite invest so much time entertaining people and making light of problems concerning peak oil, global warming, and economic problems? Obviously, they need to keep selling more goods and services each time, and back that up with ideas of a wonderful future where science and technology will make consumers' wildest dreams come true. From lab-grown meat and kelp we will have lab-grown smart phones, EV cars, and even lab-grown labs. After that, travels into space, infinite energy, and immortality.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
It's time for doomers to grow up and admit they don't actually have a crystal ball, and that there are high EROEI alternatives to fossil fuels, abundant food sources like ocean kelp farms that also farm shellfish and fish, and vast-grown meat that can most probably (but I'm still confirming) use kelp biofeedstock to grow all the meat we need without even taxing the land with grazing! This is just scratching the tip of the iceberg of what's happening and how we're adapting. Increasing wealth is going to stabilise the human population at around 10 billion, and by then we
could be living in a largely renewable (+ mainly nuclear) energy economy with largely renewable materials.
I'm not
predicting this, but it is
possible with the technology we have now. On the other hand, Trump could nuke us all back to the Stone Age. Who knows? I'm being an adult and embracing uncertainty, even as I discuss a positive vision of the future.
by ralfy » Wed 01 Mar 2017, 21:37:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'O')K. I watched the TED talk in your link.
Thank you for taking the time to do that! I'm impressed you actually watched it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here was no mention in the TED talk of sequestering "ALL our CO2 emissions" as you claim. The speaker briefly mentioned that kelp absorbs 5x the carbon from the ocean as a terrestrial plant---but then in the next sentence he said the kelp would then be converted into biofuel and burned as fuel.
Absolutely correct! I linked you to that because it is the foundation we're going to build on now. That's the basic principle: vast kelp farms that help clean up the oceans of excess nutrients in a manner that is sensitive to biodiversity, mangroves, shipping lanes, and other concerns.
Let's scale it up. Here's a summary of that TED talk and then the scaled up paper I link to below. I've posted it elsewhere, but will repeat for convenience.
Seaweed farms could revolutionise the world. 2% of the world's oceans are nutrient rich enough for these farms. Nutrients wash down rivers and coastal erosion, and some come up from the ocean floors in 'oceanic upwelling' currents. Some rivers near farming regions dump too much fertilisers in the oceans which causes algal blooms and oceanic dead zones.Seaweed farming can soak this up and restore ocean health. A new vertical column method of 3D farming grows kelp and other seaweeds that are a rich source of vegetarian super-food in their own right! Seaweeds can form a whole variety of ice-creams, 'salads' or vegetables, sauces, and other food ingredients. But not only this, vertical farming is an ecosystem based approach. They also grow shellfish and oysters and even wild fish grow in amongst the kelp. It's nothing less than a revolution that could feed the world! Watch this 15 minute TED talk about seaweed feeding the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ViaskDSeI2% of the world's oceans have abundant nutrients for growing seaweed, and according to the TED talk above, we would only need a small fraction of that to feed the world. But seaweed farming would not limit us to only seaweed and seafood! By no means! It could provide all the fertiliser our traditional land based farmers need. We would bring some biodigested seaweed onto land, get the salt out, and use it as fertiliser. Seaweed could bring our soils back to life. There is even a special seaweed that cows love and eliminates their methane burps! Methane burps are bad news, and cattle lose 15% of their growth to these energy losing burps. But a special seaweed cuts their burps by 99%, solving cattle's infamous methane climate emissions, *and* helping the cows grow faster!
https://theconversation.com/seaweed-cou ... urps-66498Now here's where it gets bizarre, and potentially planet-saving. Peer-reviewed work has been done imagining extending kelp farming out into the nutrient-poor open ocean. They first farm the nutrient rich waters. Then a previous season's kelp is biodigested in big submersible bags to collect methane gas out the top, leaving the digested kelp nutrients behind. They then recycle those nutrients out in nutrient poor waters. They use slow drip feed hoses and 'tea-bags' that slowly fertilise the kelp, extending the kelp farms out into what was nutrient poor water, or 'ocean desert'. This means that oceanic nutrient flows are no longer a limiting factor. We can recycle nutrients and grow kelp almost anywhere.
Methane is harvested out the top, then CO2 also harvested and sequestered in huge plastic bladders that are placed on the ocean floor.
What if we really went crazy and farmed about 9% of the world's oceans this way?
The paper below says it would give us:-
* half a kilogram of seafood per person per day, to feed a world of 10 billion people!
* all the biofuels and biogas we could need to replace fossil fuels and provide the ultimate backup to wind and solar power
* remove ocean acidity
* restore our atmosphere to 350ppm by 2085
In other words, seaweed is a silver bullet to feed the world, save the oceans, and save us from climate change, all in this free PDF. "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation". Just register, and download it for free.
http://www.psep.ichemejournals.com/arti ... 57-5820(12)00120-6/abstract
According to the chart you provided earlier, ecological footprint has exceeded biocapacity even for the current population. An increase to 10 billion will obviously make matters worse.
Second, the global economy in which those "silver bullets" are invested is capitalist, which means investors expect increasing energy and material resource use each time. That means this "silver bullet" won't cut it, and even more "silver bullets" have to be created to ensure continuous economic growth.
Increasing credit and leading to "decoupling" won't help, either, as that eventually means increasing energy and material resource use to back up all of those numbers in hard drives. In fact, that's connected to my previous point: all of the credit created through investments in these "silver bullets" has to lead to even more credit created through sales of goods and services (to make the investing attractive), with the additional credit churned back into making even more products from "silver bullets" to create more credit, ad nauseum. And that's not an "economic meme" but what investors, business people, and consumers expect in the long term. That's why they voted for people like Trump, Obama, and others.
Third, most people don't like in countries like Japan but in developing countries. Not only are these the source of increasing population but increasing consumption, leading to a growing global middle class:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470Investors, including those excited about "silver bullets," want nothing more than to see this happen, as that's the source of increasing sales (and thus, more profits) for their businesses. In order to ensure that, we will need at least one more earth, and several more after that given high ecological footprints for middle class conveniences.
Since you implicitly acknowledge in earlier posts that this type of economy cannot be ignored or dealt away with, then you have to temper your hope by working with it. That means, you have to figure out how these "silver bullets" will lead to lower ecological footprint or will increase biocapacity readily. I am not sure if the claim that everything will soon be lab-grown help.
Finally, after re-reading the title thread, I realize that you can refer to as many "silver bullets" as possible and in many ways, as that's all part of "hope." But at least you should realize one reason why "doomers censor" (I prefer "are skeptical of") hope: inasmuch as they are "open" to "a happy outcome" they are also realistic (which is what I prefer to "doomer").
by ralfy » Wed 01 Mar 2017, 22:01:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')here is no reason to believe that humans will suddenly stop reproducing and human population will stabilize at around 10 billion. Human populations have been steadily growing for millennia ----- having babies is something that humans are very good at.
Incorrect, there is
plenty of reason and they
know the variable because it has already happened in various countries. To deny this is to deny the history of a variety of nations. You really sound ignorant of
basic demographics! Read this page and get back to us on why the UN is so 'delusional' in your opinion that they think the human population will stabilise by mid century.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/reduce/ This might help:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapseThat is, increasing economic output (backed by increasing credit creation) has led to an increasing population that should level off as more people become prosperous (leading to a slowdown in the birth rate).
The question is whether or not that economic output can be sustained. Presumably, your organic soup story should solve that. But global transition may cut across several decades:
http://www.businessinsider.com/131-year ... il-2010-11which means if population does level off, it will do so because of higher death rates due to economic collapse.
Given that, whether or not the organic soup story comes true, humanity will have to take immediate actions to deal with these combinations of crises. That means cutting down ecological footprint to around one global hectare (and for the middle class, decreasing their energy and material resource use by a large fraction) and doing so for several decades.
To find out what that involves, one can probably try any of the footprint calculators found online. From what I remember, it basically involves living with around six other people in a home only around 150 sqm in size, with very few appliances (likely, no computers and Internet access), working no more than a few km away, etc. In short, something similar to what most people (who are poor) face worldwide.
Is that possible given the current global economy, especially one where several "silver bullets" are promoted so that consumers can imagine not having to go through that? After all, why argue that we should not have passenger vehicles or smart phones when, one day, they will all be lab-grown easily and conveniently?
by ralfy » Wed 01 Mar 2017, 22:03:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '&')quot;If we roll out nuclear power and sustainable transport and sustainable food options for the world, and educate and empower women, we'll also be rolling out the Demographic Transition to those countries that have avoided it so far. "
Eclipse, the United States has yet to repair 60,000 dangerous and damaged bridges. It's once-great cities are falling into decay, many with failing water and sewer systems. I'd be surprised if your local town even bothers to fix non-essential pot-holes. And you expect the United States to roll out "nuclear power and sustainable transport and sustainable food options for the world" We have no money to take care of our own
We as in the human race. But if you want to go all "America First" on us when Trumps whacking another $70 billion onto the largest military budget in the world, feel free. It's a matter of financial priorities. The money is there, it just seems America wants to reward their corporations more than their people. (We've got the same thing happening here with our right wing government).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat do you mean by 'sustainable transport'? Does that include EV's If so have you purchased one?
Not yet, because I only give it 5 years before robot EV's mean hardly anyone buys cars ever again! Seriously, the car majors are in an arms race to be the first to sell the public transport-as-a-service rather than cars as a product. Some have estimated robot-EV's will crash the cost of taxi-cab rides to 10% of today's costs. Want to share in an uber-styled robot minibus? Even cheaper. Want to add some rail or tram or trolley bus or other public transport to your trip? Even cheaper again, and the robot bus or robot cab will be at the end of your trip, ready to take you home.
It's just another example where so many doomer claims are exaggerated. With an estimated displacement of 1 super-cheap robot cab (to hire) per 10 family cars, we may only have to build 200 million EV's, and not have to replace 2 billion cars! Think of the raw materials savings on that!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot one person on this site has yet as far as I know. But you expect 'we' to hand them out to the world? Really.
Yup, just keep intentionally over-reacting to
one word.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat is "sustainable food" and how will it implementation protect us from declining petroleum stocks necessary to farm it? Detail man. Detail?
