[Kylon]

My opinion is that the conventional wisdom that got us here is not going to work for this problem.

Ideas which are called crazy are going to be the only way out of this problem.

Ethanol, a conventional solution, a simple, no risk idea, won't work, negative EROEI, and ultimately a bad idea all the way around.

It seems simple. It seems like it would work(at least to alot of people). The idea of burning plant fuel(which everyone knows can burn. But ultimately it doesn't.

In contrast, ideas which are far more "out there" and "dangerous" such as nuclear power options, may be the only real, viable options.

Also, the altnerative to not having solutions is living in a world in which massive dieoff is the reality. A reality which you(and your children), will most likely be a part of. Many of you think that "you'll survive", that "You'll be one of the lucky ones". Well sorry to burst your bubble, but like it or not, we're all in this together.

Suppose society breaks down, and the government doesn't become a fascist state which seizes all your property and sends you to a death camp, or doesn't slowly move towards a more Orwellian double-plus-good society, where life slowly deteriorates to the point of not being worth living(that's a good scenario without a viable solution). Suppose anarchy occurs.

Well guess what, if anarchy occurs, and you happen by some miracle to survive the onslaught of the dieoff, your still toast.

Global warming is much, much worse than imagined. The only reason we haven't been toasted alive is that the pollution coming out of our chimney stacks and our cars has been blocking the sunlight from hitting the Earth.

If that pollution goes without some sort of sequestration effort to eliminate the CO2, the temperature will rise by about 5.4 degrees. If it rises by 2 degrees celsius then the ecosystems of the world become greenhouse emitters and not greenhouse sinks.

If we increased by the 5.4 degrees celsius that might occur during a total societal breakdown scenario, then the methane hydrates would melt. That might add, oh I don't know, another 5-10 degrees celsius to the world overall.

This, of course is combined with all the temperature increases from other self-feed back loops, such as the ocean dumping all of it's CO2 into the atmosphere, or the forest decaying and breaking down, the peatmoss, defrosting and releasing CO2, or the melting of the ice caps, which in turn will cause the oceans to absorb more light as the ice won't be there to reflect it.

The planet will become a burning hell hole, so if you survive the dieoff caused by a total collapse, then you'll have to survive the burning hell hole that will exist afterwords.

So if you win the evolutionary lottery, then you'll have to play and win the evolutionary lottery again, and maybe, just maybe you'll win.

And if you win, so what? Your life will be so miserable and isolated that you might as well be dead.


That's what will happen if there isn't a viable solution.

IF there is a viable energy solution(nuclear anyone?) society can continue, and if society continues, maybe, just maybe, it will get the sense to use iron seeding to cause a massive algae bloom that will soak up all the excess CO2, while simultaneously pumping new life into the seas.

So remember, if total collapse happens: your screwed. And if we don't have any viable energy solutions, total collapse WILL happen.

Just some food for thought.

[gampy]

I agree that too many politicos are looking for a conventional, off-the-shelf, and available solution to depleting energy supplies. Vis-a-vis nuclear, bio-fuels, coal, solar, windpower, etc.

But I don't think a total collapse is within our lifetimes. There will certainly be some paroxysms in the coming century, here, there and everywhere.

Some regions will suffer more than others...but it won't be overnight, or even over years. I am thinking a slow decline over decades with a smattering of civil unrest, regional wars, perhaps a world war, environmental damge, and declines, and increasing disease. More poverty, and less innovation as our paradigm begins it's slow disintegration.

I don't think our current consumerist, capitalist model will implode all at once, but it will be an evolution (de-evolution?) as the resources we currently use deplete, and we find other ways to make a living. Some regions like Africa, and south, and east asia will probably fair the worst, and we might see more suffering there. North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and South America will probably see more of a gradual change, and change-over, to an agrarian, fragmented, less global economy.

If there is world war involviong nuclear exchanges, then all bets are off, and we see the die-off so many here are counting on.

But a lack of cheap energy, and environmental decline happens to slowly to cause the massive upheavals, I think.

I am thinking more along the lines of...

"Well Timmy...when I was a boy in 2010, things were certainly different. We had lots of gizmos...lots of people...lots of cars...but it was a shallow, soul-sapping life. I much prefer living on the farm with you and your parents."

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd if you win, so what? Your life will be so miserable and isolated that you might as well be dead.

[Kylon]

I thought this would be a good thread to revive.

[Maddog78]

I've worked in the Oil Exploration business my whole life and so I've been lucky to travel to over 20 different countries. I've loved the travel part of the job.
It will be a shame for people not to be able to see how other people live in the future.

[mos6507]

I used to be anti-nuke, but not anymore. If you watched Earth 2100, the sticking point was China asking for the west to donate nuclear reactor technology to them. The west refused. The future of humanity may boil down to an issue of trust over nukes. Perhaps the best thing we could do is build lots of nuclear power plants, not just to power us, but to perform 24/7 terraforming duty. Think carbon sequestration without the coalfired power plant on the other end. As far a technofixes go, that's probably the only viable one, to suck out the CO2 from the atmosphere, molecule by molecule. Think of it kind of like the Cosmo-DNA device from Starblazers but with CO2 rather than radioactivity. That's my quota of science fantasy for the day, thank you.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I') used to be anti-nuke, but not anymore....The future of humanity may boil down to an issue of trust over nukes. Perhaps the best thing we could do is build lots of nuclear power plants....

[ki11ercane]

Don't forget to close the door and shut out the light to the Archive Room when you're done.

[Jotapay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e're All In This Together

[rangerone314]

Hey, in 30 years we'll have fusion power!

[Grautr]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', '
')
If that pollution goes without some sort of sequestration effort to eliminate the CO2, the temperature will rise by about 5.4 degrees. If it rises by 2 degrees celsius then the ecosystems of the world become greenhouse emitters and not greenhouse sinks.

[bodigami]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', 'M')y opinion is that the conventional wisdom that got us here is not going to work for this problem.

Ideas which are called crazy are going to be the only way out of this problem.

Ethanol, a conventional solution, a simple, no risk idea, won't work, negative EROEI, and ultimately a bad idea all the way around.

It seems simple. It seems like it would work(at least to alot of people). The idea of burning plant fuel(which everyone knows can burn. But ultimately it doesn't.

In contrast, ideas which are far more "out there" and "dangerous" such as nuclear power options, may be the only real, viable options.

Also, the altnerative to not having solutions is living in a world in which massive dieoff is the reality. A reality which you(and your children), will most likely be a part of. Many of you think that "you'll survive", that "You'll be one of the lucky ones". Well sorry to burst your bubble, but like it or not, we're all in this together.

Suppose society breaks down, and the government doesn't become a fascist state which seizes all your property and sends you to a death camp, or doesn't slowly move towards a more Orwellian double-plus-good society, where life slowly deteriorates to the point of not being worth living(that's a good scenario without a viable solution). Suppose anarchy occurs.
(...)

[Cloud9]

Anarchy leaves you bleeding in the mud because somebody hit you over the head for a hand full of rice.

[bodigami]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'N')ow to the spirit of your post I guess I would agree, we are screwed. I, however, will be less screwed if a lot of people take the attitude of "I would be better off dead" when the proverbial manure hits the fan. I guess for religious reasons I hope they do not take that attitude, it would be pretty shallow and short sighted, but if they do I guess there is more topsoil for me.

[bodigami]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I') used to be anti-nuke, but not anymore. If you watched Earth 2100, the sticking point was China asking for the west to donate nuclear reactor technology to them. The west refused. The future of humanity may boil down to an issue of trust over nukes. Perhaps the best thing we could do is build lots of nuclear power plants, not just to power us, but to perform 24/7 terraforming duty. (...)

[bodigami]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'A')narchy leaves you bleeding in the mud because somebody hit you over the head for a hand full of rice.

[Cloud9]

1651 Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) describes the Natural Condition of Mankind as a war of all against all, where man lives a brutish existence.

Anarchy by its definition is a state of lawlessness.

[bodigami]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', '1')651 Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) describes the Natural Condition of Mankind as a war of all against all, where man lives a brutish existence.

Anarchy by its definition is a state of lawlessness.

[Cloud9]

Anarchy in mysticism may be seen as some idealized period of peace but in history it has proven to be a period of violence. While you may see the chaos that accompanies anarchy as opportunity, I would not wish for it. There are too many unknowns. A future filled with chaos is fraught with danger.