The Green New Deal

[Belz...]

Right now, I can think of only one answer to the CO2 problem. Stop or significantly reduce the burning of fossil fuels. But of course with a world where prosperity is the result of the relatively cheap energy it is not an attractive solution. That is unless we can find a cheap alternative. And I'm sorry, solar, geothermal and wind can not replace more than a fraction of what is required and their production actually contributes to greenhouse gases.

This is why I have become a big proponent of nuclear power.

Nuclear's going to be very expensive, it seems.

The only solution is to force most of humanity back to preindustrial standards of life!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Nuclear's going to be very expensive, it seems.

The only solution is to force most of humanity back to preindustrial standards of life!

unacceptable

 

[acbytesla]

Long term, Nuclear must be part of the solution. That is unquestionable. Maybe Thorium which is safer than what we use now and with dramatically less radioactive waste. Maybe Fusion. But some form of nuclear must be part of any long term plan or we can kiss all civilization and maybe even human survival goodbye.

It's not that Thorium is safer. A nuclear reactor's safety has nothing to do with the fuel used.

What makes today's reactors potentially dangerous is the use of high pressure water to cool the reactor. Typically, they operate at around 1500 PSI. That requires very thick very expensive alloy metal pipes. Still, the big fear is that a pipe could break resulting in a loss of pressure and the water flashes into steam which then no longer has very good cooling properties. It also expands thousands of times. And here is why reactors are housed in huge buildings with massively thick concrete walls.

Moving away from high pressure water which has only a 100 degrees range where it is a liquid to salts that have more than a thousand degree range and do not require pressurization totally eliminates the concern of a blast that sends radioactive elements like Strontium and Iodine into the atmosphere.

No longer will there be a need for huge thick expensive Hastelloy pipes and 5 feet thick concrete containment domes.

And nuclear reactors can not use thorium to operate. It's only after Thorium 232 transmutes to Protactinium 233 and decays 30 days later into fissile Uranium 233 where an actual nuclear reaction can happen.

There is still science and engineering on using the thorium fuel cycle. It has issues, but we know it will work. It's about working out issues about processing other actinides in the salts that need to be worked out.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The mistake AOC made was in putting it forward instead of sneaking it in the backdoor of the process.

So AOC's 'rookie mistake' was not making a mockery of the legislative process?

Nothing I have seen you link so far even suggests the people you are linking to even agree with your ridiculous claims, so it's rather pointless to bother checking on whether they are legitimately experts in the field. pardon the pun). Yes they are discussing increased carbon sequestration in soil, but your claims are orders of magnitude higher than can be found in anything resembling respectable research.

That's the part you're not grasping. You see, all we have to do is turn 90% of our land area into carboniferous forest and wait a few million years, then all that carbon will go back into the ground!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So AOC's 'rookie mistake' was not making a mockery of the legislative process?

Yes.

That's the part you're not grasping. You see, all we have to do is turn 90% of our land area into carboniferous forest and wait a few million years, then all that carbon will go back into the ground!

That is not the only way to sequester carbon in the long term geological carbon cycle. Actually it is a relatively small minor way. The only reason it seems significant is that was results from millions of years added up.

Most carbon enters the geological carbon cycle by ocean sediments. Followed closely by a process called weathering. 80% of weathering is biotic though. The sequestered soil carbon when it finally leaves the soil takes both these pathways actually. It's all explained in the first Retallack paper...

 

[Belz...]

unacceptable

Well I was being facetious in the sense that I don't think it'd ever fly. Unfortunately, and let's be cold here: reducing human numbers by 90%+ or forcing the abandonment of industrial tech might be the only road to survival. And even then the earth is going to take a long while to recover.

Acceptable, which is a value judgment, becomes irrelevant under those conditions.

 

[acbytesla]

Well I was being facetious in the sense that I don't think it'd ever fly. Unfortunately, and let's be cold here: reducing human numbers by 90%+ or forcing the abandonment of industrial tech might be the only road to survival. And even then the earth is going to take a long while to recover.

Acceptable, which is a value judgment, becomes irrelevant under those conditions.

Nuclear doesn't have to be expensive. But we need to spend the first mover cost for a thorium breeder reactor. If that can be successfully done, we've solved the world's energy problem. Period, end of story.

It's still a big if. But it is a thousand times smaller "if" than solving the problems of fusion or making solar cheap and efficient enough to power the planet.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Unfortunately, and let's be cold here: reducing human numbers by 90%+ or forcing the abandonment of industrial tech might be the only road to survival.

In my opinion that is the least likely road to survival of the human race and must be avoided at all cost. Nor is it a necessary unavoidable outcome either.

What we have now is a variation of the tragedy of the commons, but the whole planet's biosphere is the commons. So this time should it go to collapse, it takes out the entire biosphere and very very likely us with it.

Maybe before we destroyed or degraded every major biome on the planet we could have just killed 90% of everyone and held out a couple thousand years and waited for the ecosystems that support life to rebound. But the time when that might have worked was long ago. At this point many ecosystems will further degrade and collapse if we stop our efforts at rehabilitation. Much like the grasslands of Arizona are all desert now that we forced the Navajo to remove most their sheep. Nevada had a very similar result. Almost no grasslands left over vast areas of Nevada. Hard to believe that the first nations actually considered the area surrounding modern day Las Vegas as prime cropland!

But remove the herbivores and what happens is called a trophic cascade. The whole thing goes to desert. So we eliminate mans attempts to rehabilitate many of these areas, and long before the wildlife has a chance to recover, the whole thing collapses. Then no habitat for the wildlife to return.

So yes. I do agree that we are a major part of the destruction, but we are also the only viable solution left. We just need to be clear about that. And it will take a lot of work to fix it, meaning we need all hands on deck.

 

[Eddie Dane]

In my opinion that is the least likely road to survival of the human race and must be avoided at all cost. Nor is it a necessary unavoidable outcome either.

What we have now is a variation of the tragedy of the commons, but the whole planet's biosphere is the commons. So this time should it go to collapse, it takes out the entire biosphere and very very likely us with it.

Maybe before we destroyed or degraded every major biome on the planet we could have just killed 90% of everyone and held out a couple thousand years and waited for the ecosystems that support life to rebound. But the time when that might have worked was long ago. At this point many ecosystems will further degrade and collapse if we stop our efforts at rehabilitation. Much like the grasslands of Arizona are all desert now that we forced the Navajo to remove most their sheep. Nevada had a very similar result. Almost no grasslands left over vast areas of Nevada. Hard to believe that the first nations actually considered the area surrounding modern day Las Vegas as prime cropland!

But remove the herbivores and what happens is called a trophic cascade. The whole thing goes to desert. So we eliminate mans attempts to rehabilitate many of these areas, and long before the wildlife has a chance to recover, the whole thing collapses. Then no habitat for the wildlife to return.

So yes. I do agree that we are a major part of the destruction, but we are also the only viable solution left. We just need to be clear about that. And it will take a lot of work to fix it, meaning we need all hands on deck.

I didn't know about Nevada having been grassland. Sounds like what happened to the fertile crescent.

What caused the desertification? I didn't think the first nations were into intensive agriculture.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Nuclear doesn't have to be expensive. But we need to spend the first mover cost for a thorium breeder reactor. If that can be successfully done, we've solved the world's energy problem. Period, end of story.

It's still a big if. But it is a thousand times smaller "if" than solving the problems of fusion or making solar cheap and efficient enough to power the planet.

I passionately support Thorium as a solution. But I also suspect that such a clean and cheap technology could completely take the breaks of population growth and consumption.

Humans can do almost anything now if they have enough energy. And I think that includes large-scale carbon-capture and literally placing nuke-powered floating ice-machines on the poles to reverse ice loss. As well as growing kiwi's in Siberia and skiing in Dubai.

But let's face it; as a species, we are just a bunch of up-market Chimpanzees who are motivated by greed, status and sex. Unlimited energy means unlimited growth and consumption until we run into the next big problem caused by unsustainable practices.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I didn't know about Nevada having been grassland. Sounds like what happened to the fertile crescent.

What caused the desertification? I didn't think the first nations were into intensive agriculture.

Yes there were first nations who were farmers and other first nations who were hunter gatherers.

The causes of the desertification are many. In the case of the cropland, mostly it was the buildup of salt and loss of organic matter. The salt especially caused by the first nations use of irrigation. (Yes first nations who practiced farming were very very sophisticated)

Other areas have been hit with the 1-2 punch of overgrazing and undergrazing, and also the spread of invasives like cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).

Undergrazing when the herbivores were hunted off. Overgrazed by domestic animals. Then undergrazed again when the domestic animals were removed. It has been a very destructive cycle of undergrazing and overgrazing because until very recently finding the sweet spot was almost impossible.

Cheatgrass is especially damaging when undergrazed because it dramatically increases fire frequency. Then fire kills off much of the other vegetation, leaving a monoculture of cheatgrass. We can fix that by properly grazing the land to promote the domination of native perennial grasses like Great Basin wild rye (Leymus cinereus), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), needle-and-thread (Heterostipa comata), and Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) to fill in the spaces between the other forbs and sages and pump large quantities of carbon into the soil. This improves the water holding capacity and mitigates the salt buildup and fire problems. If properly grazed and healthy, those perennial grasses will out-compete the cheatgrass.

Of course there is some natural desert there too, but it has spread dramatically over the last couple hundred years, and even though spread, it actually is pretty degraded too because of undergrazing by desert animals like the desert bighorn and a wealth of smaller birds and other animals that are becoming increasingly endangered.

PS edit to add: I almost forgot. Surprisingly one major factor was the trapping of all the Beaver leading to the near complete extirpation of the species from the entire region. They had a huge impact on the water cycle, which had major impact on all the vegetation. And one even more surprising impact was the extinction of a sort of grasshopper Extinction of the Rocky Mountain Locust

 

[Belz...]

Nuclear doesn't have to be expensive. But we need to spend the first mover cost for a thorium breeder reactor. If that can be successfully done, we've solved the world's energy problem. Period, end of story.

If we're going to put money into developing a technology, that makes it more expensive.

In my opinion that is the least likely road to survival of the human race and must be avoided at all cost. Nor is it a necessary unavoidable outcome either.

And why? If humans disappear today, no more carbon emissions from us. Eventually things even out, story ends, life goes on. I'm hypothetically proposing a slightly less radical solution that also has that outcome.

Why must this be avoided, and what's your alternative? Planting more trees and grass doesn't sound like such a great idea when one remembers what plants breathe out when there's no sun.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If we're going to put money into developing a technology, that makes it more expensive.



And why? If humans disappear today, no more carbon emissions from us. Eventually things even out, story ends, life goes on. I'm hypothetically proposing a slightly less radical solution that also has that outcome.

Why must this be avoided, and what's your alternative? Planting more trees and grass doesn't sound like such a great idea when one remembers what plants breathe out when there's no sun.

It's the ecological cascade effect.

An ecological cascade effect is a series of secondary extinctions that is triggered by the primary extinction of a key species in an ecosystem.

Just abandoning the planet will mean that many of these cascades will continue their downward spiral with no hope of recovery. Humans can indeed be very destructive, but we also have the ability with our clever brains and opposable thumbs and technological advancements in tool making to actually reverse some of these ecological cascades we started. Since we can, we should. But it is a lot of work. It requires all hands on deck.

 

[Belz...]

It's the ecological cascade effect.

You're saying that humans are a key species?

Just abandoning the planet will mean that many of these cascades will continue their downward spiral with no hope of recovery.

Can you, like, support that?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You're saying that humans are a key species?



Can you, like, support that?

scroll up please.

 

[Belz...]

scroll up please.

Don't play mystery post. Do you have evidence for that claim or not? A link to the general concept doesn't cut it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Don't play mystery post. Do you have evidence for that claim or not? A link to the general concept doesn't cut it.

I gave explicit example when I described for Eddie Dane some of the major causes of desertification in the Western US. #1251 But all ecological cascades behave differently. General terms is the only way to answer your question without writing a book.

If you want an entertaining example of how humans have successfully reversed an ecological cascade, watch this :

 

[Belz...]

I gave explicit example when I described for Eddie Dane some of the major causes of desertification in the Western US. #1251 But all ecological cascades behave differently.

Sorry, I don't see how that answers my specific request. Of course removing humans from an area will have effects, but things will balance back.

If you want an entertaining example of how humans have successfully reversed an ecological cascade, watch this :

Sorry, I don't do arguments via Youtube.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Sorry, I don't see how that answers my specific request. Of course removing humans from an area will have effects, but things will balance back.



Sorry, I don't do arguments via Youtube.

And I don't do arguments with willfully ignorant trolls. Although they constantly try to suck me in and cherry pick what evidence they will look at or not depending on their bias.

 

[Belz...]

And I don't do arguments with willfully ignorant trolls. Although they constantly try to suck me in and cherry pick what evidence they will look at or not depending on their bias.

Ok that's a nice story, and I agree that trolls should generally not be given a platform. Not sure what that has to do with anything, but ok.

Back to the discussion:

You said that reducing human population drastically would be terrible. In support of that you mentioned a story where repeated poor management of land caused problems. I don't see how you get from that to your earlier claim. It's really a simple question.

As for Youtube videos, I can't view them from here anyway, and even if I could, it's been explained by numerous people on this forum over the years why it's generally a pretty bad idea to make your case via a video, and in no small part it's because you can spend a whole lot of time watching a video that doesn't actually support whatever it was purported to support, and finding whatever part of it does support the claim can be tedious and frustrating. In other words, posting a video shifts the burden of proof to a degree towards the audience, rather than the claimant, and I won't play that game.

Clearer?