The Green New Deal

[Ziggurat]

LOL, so no facts at all just some articles in the popular media that you are not representing correctly, even if they had properly grasped the subject to begin with. About par for the course from your posting history.

It's now less fact-filled than your own claim of an impending point of no return.

Not everyone agrees it’s really safe but the general consensus in the scientific literature is that we need to warming to under 2 deg or we risk serious economic and humanitarian consequences.

But that's not what you said. You didn't say it would be too late to avoid serious negative consequences. You specifically said "point of no return". That means quite a bit more than just negative consequences. Furthermore, even assuming new reactor designs can't arrive fast enough and in large enough numbers to stop serious negative consequences within that time frame, that doesn't mean they can't stop additional negative consequences even further down the road.

This is also when we start to get into unknown territory for tipping points and positive feedback that could drive temperatures much higher. To be confident of staying below this level we need to stay under ~450ppm atmospheric CO2.

So you don't know. You're worried that maybe we'll reach a tipping point, but there's no actual certainty.

At current emission rates we are set to hit this sometime around 2040. No credible source has ever said we’ve already hit these numbers, and your suggestion that “we have” is complete BS.

I didn't say we've hit any specific concentration of CO2, that's your straw man. I said we've already hit predicted points of no return. Multiple times. And we keep getting new predictions of where the point of no return is. Those new predictions always put it in the future, never the past.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well let's not forget that the point of no return might refer to different outcomes.

Possibly. And on that note, it's also possible we don't need to return from past a point of no return.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If X percent of the population thinks we have too many humans... I kind of feel like there's an easy solution to the problem.

I tend to agree. But of course they simply dismiss this type of argument as being too glib.

On the other hand the serious answer to overpopulation is on the flip side.

Overpopulation occurs when a species' population exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche.

The time honored historical solution to this for humanity has always been to either expand its ecological niche(s) and/or increase the carrying capacity of those niche(s).

Thus we have migrations to polar regions and warm shelters and clothes, different foods like marine mammals in polar regions and mostly vegetarian in areas with lots of plant foods. We also invented agriculture which improved the food yields and thus the carrying capacity.

The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water, and other necessities available in the environment.

Then in 20th Century we made some changes in agriculture that completely ignored 1st principles. Yes we improved yields, but we actually dramatically reduced carrying capacity by the way we accomplished those yield increases. They were not sustainable long term and actually reduced almost every other carrying capacity index, like clear water, seafood yields, clean air etc.... AGW is a symptom of this failure to consider 1 st principles. We created a bubble, rather than a real increase in carrying capacity.

So now we have the unpleasant task of dealing with the bubble the last generation created for us. Luckily though, if we approach the task from first principles, we can indeed solve it.

It has got to be sustainable and it needs to create real improvements in carrying capacity. The two main sectors that need changed are agriculture and energy.

Any renewable energy sources we can use are welcome, like Nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc... Even strange ones like compressed air.

The other half of the equation is changing agriculture to regenerative systems that uniformly increase yields at the same time as they increase all the associated carrying capacity factors like clean air water and other neighboring ecosystem functions.

'In the early 1970s, it dawned on me that no one had ever applied design to agriculture. When I realised it, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. It was so strange. We’d had agriculture for 7,000 years, and we’d been losing for 7,000 years — everything was turning into desert. So I wondered, can we build systems that obey ecological principles? We know what they are, we just never apply them. Ecologists never apply good ecology to their gardens. Architects never understand the transmission of heat in buildings. And physicists live in houses with demented energy systems. It’s curious that we never apply what we know to how we actually live.'-Bill Mollison

If we did that, (And yes despite all the trolls in denial complaining they don't understand, we do know how) then the carrying capacity that this planet has to offer would be much higher than it is now, in spite of the fact we are indeed over-populated even now.

You can solve overpopulation by either increasing carrying capacity or dramatically decreasing population, but the only ethical solution for both us and the rest of the planet is to restore carrying capacity. There will be both more people and more wildlife if we did that.

 

[acbytesla]

Experimental reactors and commercial designs are completely different things. AFAIK the earliest proof of concept MSR is at least 10 years away. From that point you still need extensive testing to really understand how it behaves and then more time to commercialize the final design. Once the deign is commercialized you’d need to build and deploy more than 50,000 of them. This just doesn’t fit the timeline for keeping warming below 2 degrees, and may not be fit the timeline for keeping warming below 6 deg.

Well I guess we all should just give up. Put our heads between our knees and kiss our asses goodbye.

Europe is building one right now, And reportedly, so is China. Yes there is a difference between experimental and commercial. But that doesn't mean it requires 40 or 50 years.

Any way you look at it, hemming and hawing gets us nowhere fast. I'd agree that this all takes time. But if we don't start we'll never get closer to the goal.

BTW, a Nuclear reactor is a hundred times simpler than a commercial plane like the 737 and Boeing produces more than 2 every day.

 

[lomiller]

Okay but "the point of no return" isn't like... a real thing.

We can't have the fact that we're getting better at averting disaster thrown back in our face as evidence that there is no disaster to avert.

We haven't averted anything wrt climate change. We are still set to hit the safe limit in ~25 years. As long as we stay below 450 ppm we should be ok, and how w do so doesn't matter. We can keep going as we are then stop all fossil fuels overnight or we can start ramping our emissions down now. F

rom a climate perspective either works, but in terms of economic damage the sooner we start the less painful it will be. Ideally we should have started 30 years ago. We are going to feel more economic pain because we didn't, but that ship has sailed.

 

[lomiller]

Well I guess we all should just give up. Put our heads between our knees and kiss our asses goodbye.

I’m not suggesting we should, in fact I’m an advocate of developing MSR technology. They are not, however, going to be big player in helping limit atmospheric CO2 to 45ppm.

Europe is building one right now, And reportedly, so is China.

Planning not building as of yet. China is targeting the late 2020’s to have their proof of concept version running. (This is where I got the 10 years to proof of concept reactor from)

BTW, a Nuclear reactor is a hundred times simpler than a commercial plane like the 737 and Boeing produces more than 2 every day.

A jet engine is conceptually simple too, it’s everything that needs to go around it to achieve performance and safety that make a 737 complicated to build, and in spite of that they still crash. BTW 2 a day on something that has an expected 40-year life span means you get to~30000 before all you are doing is replacing old ones.

 

[lomiller]

I didn't say we've hit any specific concentration of CO2,

Then you were not talking about real predictions. The accepted prediction form the IPCC literature review is that we need to stay below 2 deg/450pp. This is also the agreed to target in international agreements. Referencing anything else is jut you once again wasting everyone’s time throwing around diversions.

And we keep getting new predictions of where the point of no return is. Those new predictions always put it in the future, never the past.

The bulk of popular press article you “provided” were oversimplified versions (not unusual for the popular press on scientific topics) of the problem. They are better read as whether we have passed the point where we will suffer economic damage from our inaction, which we will.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then you were not talking about real predictions. The accepted prediction form the IPCC literature review is that we need to stay below 2 deg/450pp. This is also the agreed to target in international agreements. Referencing anything else is jut you once again wasting everyone’s time throwing around diversions.

The IPCC is not the source of all truth.

The bulk of popular press article you “provided” were oversimplified versions (not unusual for the popular press on scientific topics) of the problem.

So is the IPCC target.

They are better read as whether we have passed the point where we will suffer economic damage from our inaction, which we will.

Same with the IPCC target.

 

[acbytesla]

Planning not building as of yet. China is targeting the late 2020’s to have their proof of concept version running. (This is where I got the 10 years to proof of concept reactor from)

No China is targeting by the end of 2020 to begin construction on a commercial molten salt reactor. Not the 2020s. It just won't run on thorium.
They already built 2 molten salt reactors test reactors in 2012.

What hasn't been figured out is how to build are the intricacies of building and operating a liquid fuel thorium breeder reactor. How to in an ongoing procedure reprocess the fuel removing the non-fissionable byproducts. It is my understanding while not entirely worked out is very much doable. Something that is impracticable with solid fuel water reactors.

I can't tell you just how frustrating your posts are on this. I've been studying the development of alternative energy since high school in the 70s. Nothing I've read about during that time is as promising as Molten Salt and Thorium. Nothing.

Yet, people have their heads in their asses. (Not saying you) It's like we can't get out of our own way.

China is monopolizing rare earth mining which jeopardizes American businesses and costs consumers huge amounts of money. And they're able to do that because of regulations involving thorium. And thorium is barely radioactive and poses a far less risk then the radon under most people's homes. And thorium could power the world cleanly entirely replacing fossil fuels for 100+ centuries probably thousands.

I'm a liberal and was at one time an environmental activist. And here I am pushing for something I once opposed. I now understand the frustration that many Republicans have about odious environmental regulations. I'm 100% in favor of protecting the environment, but let's stop destroying the environment because we're too busy protecting it. I'm all for safety, but let's be practical about it.

 

[Belz...]

Possibly. And on that note, it's also possible we don't need to return from past a point of no return.

I think you'll find that the future of your grandchildren will not be quite as rosy as our present, regardless.

 

[Belz...]

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?

Well, Red Baron Farms?

Despite what you might think, I'm interested in what you have to say. If killing off most of humanity won't help, then isn't that a good thing? I'm just not currently satisfied that you've made your case, going from the general idea of cascade to the specifics being discussed currently.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Well, Red Baron Farms?

Despite what you might think, I'm interested in what you have to say. If killing off most of humanity won't help, then isn't that a good thing? I'm just not currently satisfied that you've made your case, going from the general idea of cascade to the specifics being discussed currently.

And dispite what you might believe, audio visual is indeed a powerful teaching tool, especially for people attempting to learn something that they otherwise have difficulties connecting the dots.

Be that as it may, ecological cascades and trophic cascades are an emensely complex subject. Orders of magnitude more complex that is possible for me to explain on a political thread. It's probably the most complex field of science, even more complex than physics. So there just isn't anyway for me to explain this to you except in general terms.

If you don't like the audio visual format for whatever other reason, Ted Talks does have a written transcript of a closely related talk by Monbiot available.
He kind of rambles a bit in the introduction though. Takes about 2 or 3 minutes before he begins to explain the concept of trophic cascades, then he starts rambling again at the end. But meh...at least he had good points for part of the talk.
Rewilding

And no I am not here to explain or "proof" a whole field of science. If you need proof that cascades are even real, then you'll need to go back to school, take the appropriate university courses, and then we can have an intelligent conversation about how to reverse them in 4 years.

 

[quadraginta]

We need a benevolent dictator, who will kill off half the population and ration resources for the survivors.

Pol Pot?

 

[acbytesla]

Pol Pot?

A final solution redux.

 

[theprestige]

Pol Pot?

Sort of.

What's probably required is someone with the ruthlessness of Pol Pot and the global sensibility of Barack Obama.

 

[Belz...]

And dispite what you might believe, audio visual is indeed a powerful teaching tool, especially for people attempting to learn something that they otherwise have difficulties connecting the dots.

I didn't say it couldn't be informative. Some of the most interesting things I've seen were in video form.

But the issue is not just learning, but supporting an argument. Now, the video in question is short, but I'm sure you've been subjected at some point by an endless stream of long videos posted in supposed support of an argument, only to find that you have to comb through the damned thing in the hopes that the support is indeed there. That's why, for the specific goal of debates like this, it's better in written form, where it can be scanned and searched, and more importantly, quoted directly.

Be that as it may, ecological cascades and trophic cascades are an emensely complex subject.

Yes, I think that's a given.

Orders of magnitude more complex that is possible for me to explain on a political thread. It's probably the most complex field of science, even more complex than physics. So there just isn't anyway for me to explain this to you except in general terms.

But I'm not asking you to explain it in general terms. I'm asking you to explain to me, simply, how it applies specifically to the topic under discussion; i.e. what you think exactly would be the consequences of the "solution" I proposed.

And no I am not here to explain or "proof" a whole field of science. If you need proof that cascades are even real, then you'll need to go back to school, take the appropriate university courses, and then we can have an intelligent conversation about how to reverse them in 4 years.

That's needlessly condescending. I'm sure you can have an intelligent conversation about computers without going through the schooling that I had to go through to become a computer programmer, plus the 20 years experience I have, just in order to be on my level. Do you have a 4 year education on this topic? Presumably no, and presumably you can still discuss it. I'm sorry but that was a very poor and disingenuous paragraph by you.

 

[quadraginta]

We need a benevolent dictator, who will kill off half the population and ration resources for the survivors.

Well, if you insist, I'll volunteer. Take one for team, if you will.

If you're gonna take the job, here's a suggestion.

First, kill all the lawyers.

That might come pretty close to the number you need, and no one will miss them.

 

[theprestige]

If you're gonna take the job, here's a suggestion.



First, kill all the lawyers.



That might come pretty close to the number you need, and no one will miss them.

That quote is always taken out of context. Two people are discussing a plot to destabilize society. One of them suggests killing the lawyers as step one.

 

[Ziggurat]

If killing off most of humanity won't help, then isn't that a good thing?

Run it through the computer, see if it would help.

 

[Belz...]

If you're gonna take the job, here's a suggestion.

First, kill all the lawyers.

That might come pretty close to the number you need, and no one will miss them.

Noted.