Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

obviously, but I don't see any assurances that technology can or will be sufficient to offset the climate changes currently, much less over the coming centuries, ...which seems to be the position you are asserting.

Try reading pg. 21 "The bottom line… Technology will help to address agricultural sustainability imperatives"

Which is the position I'm asserting.

 

[Furcifer]

Of course the cultural penchant for 10,000 people to drive 10,000 cars and travel two-four hours a day to and from work as opposed to a different set of cultural values encouraging the same 10,000 to accomplish the same transportation with 50 busses, a train and a few hundred cars and live within 30 minutes of where they work has no impact at all,...seriously?!

It is the cultural distinctions and the marketing concepts designed to sell more cars and buy more gas that drive those distinctions that are more at the root of the differences than the fact that larger countries are bigger.

Nobody has a penchant for -40C winters, but people live in Winnipeg anyways. Why? Because corn and wheat don't grow themselves and if you give them the choice fish stay in the water.

Sure there's room for improvement but here in Canada something like 80% of fuel is used in commercial vehicles. Car pooling isn't going to make much of a difference when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions. Ridiculous taxes on petroleum aren't going to do anything to shorten the distance from Halifax to Victoria.

 

[Trakar]

Try reading pg. 21 "The bottom line… Technology will help to address agricultural sustainability imperatives"

Which is the position I'm asserting.

I read it the first time through and stand by the actual meaning of the words used in the presentation and a standard understanding of what those qualifications mean. I am sure that technology will help to address agricultural sustainability imperatives, I simply see no indication that agricultural technologies will do more than help to address some of the deficits we face. The results of the last three decades of work by Dr Sachs has resulted in a 20% yield increase over typical corn under the same drought conditions, unfortunately this increased yield is still between 2-3 fold less than normal crops produce under "normal" present day conditions. By 2050 extreme drought will be "normal conditions" for most of the current breadbasket regions of the planet, meanwhile the population of the planet is likely, and projected to, increase to between 9-12Billion people over a similar time frame. Even given the most optimistic climate change scenario, if you believe that half as much production is going to feed half again as many people without any other changes or causing any other complications, then you have no business claiming that others are operating from a blind faith, religion of science perspective.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've no problem with Dr Sach's presentation ...

I do. PowerPoint is the destroyer of minds.

... but it doesn't appear to be indicating much more than marginal improvements in drastically gene-modified crops, under mildly water stressed conditions. The rest is all about what they hope they might be able to achive

Something often missed is that drought-resistance is at the cost of seed production. Drought-resistant strains still respond to drought by cranking down metabolism until times get better. The most sown crops are selected for maximum production where drought is a rare event and have lost this response, and keep working hard until it kills them.

So production will still be down in drought conditions even though it may not be wiped out.

 

[Trakar]

This is a lie. I've never advocated doing nothing, because quite clearly we are "doing something".

nonsequitor

This is entirely inconsistent with the "super exponential" growth and "business as usual" claims made here continuously.

Not at all, you should see what things would be like if we hadn't been doing what we have managed to do despite all the foot-dragging denial!

 

[macdoc]

"help to sustain"......pretty vague verging on meaningless

 

[Mikemcc]

And how do you propose to make the distance from the East Coast of Canada to the West Coast of Canada closer? How do you get the lumber to grow in cities, or move the minerals and ores in the ground closer to urban centers?

You can't.

Europe is 10180000 km² with 852 million people, Canada is 17075000 km² with 34 million. It's not quite as bad as it seems because of how the population is distributed here in Canada, but these numbers should give you a pretty good idea of how much ground is needed to cover here in Canada to make things functional. If you have a business or industry that needs to service 4 million people, unless you happen to be in the Greater Toronto Area, you're going to have to cover a lot of ground. Currently the only way to do this is with fossil fuel based machinery.

That's just talking about the area, that says nothing about the energy intensive industry here in Canada; mining, manufacturing, forestry, fishing, farming.

Think about it, if you live in a town that primarily deals with the service industry you're going to have considerably less energy needs than the same size town that smelts ore as its primary industry. You can extend that all the way up to the economies of countries; ones that manufacture need considerably more energy than ones that deal in services.

And what happens if Canada stops making steel? China picks up the business. But China's energy needs are more fossil fuels based than Canada's, so the net emissions world wide increase.

Heavily taxing fuel in an economy that relies on fuel as heavily as Canada and even the US doesn't make any sense at this time. The notion is absurd.

A straw man, what on earth are you going on about? I said that I moved to be closer to my work (by 10 miles), your comments are silly.

Looking at goods, which seem to have slipped into. The only really economical way to move them within a country should be by rail. Ship the goods from site to rail head, off load them and distribute. In the UK this idea has been really screwed by Beeching in the 60s when fuel cost were low, and de-nationalisation in the 80s which screwed up the pricing structure. In Canada and the US it makes even more sense to ship by rail given the distances between potential railheads.

Who the hell mentioned steel? The UK steel industry is still (relatively) well thank you despite the downturn and the takeover of the companies by Tata.

People adjust to changes in prices, in the last ten years the price of fuel in the US has pretty much doubled (possibly even more). I've noticed far more smaller cars on the roads in that time. It seems that even the US public are waking up to the fact that their fuel prices are increasing.

 

[a_unique_person]

Try reading pg. 21 "The bottom line… Technology will help to address agricultural sustainability imperatives"

Which is the position I'm asserting.

That's the thing. To try to prevent global warming using our technology isjust opening us up to a communist takeover of the world and any other number of alarmist scenarios. To cope with global warming is a no brainer, we'll just use our technology, it can do anything.

 

[lomiller]

And how do you propose to make the distance from the East Coast of Canada to the West Coast of Canada closer? How do you get the lumber to grow in cities, or move the minerals and ores in the ground closer to urban centers?

Do you think lumber and ore in Europe is any closer to the urban centers? Do you think when you buy an iPhone in Europe, it has less distance to travel a shorter distance to reach you?

 

[Furcifer]

I simply see no indication that agricultural technologies will do more than help to address some of the deficits we face.

Bioengineering will increase yields and produce more resilient plants as required by any changes in growing regions from global warming. It's already being done, but there's no push to do so because Global Warming is easily mitigated by simply using crops already developed.

 

[Furcifer]

A straw man, what on earth are you going on about? I said that I moved to be closer to my work (by 10 miles), your comments are silly.

Of course the comments are silly, they're in response to a silly statement.

In Canada and the US it makes even more sense to ship by rail given the distances between potential railheads.

It depends. You can't deliver to stores by rail, they have to go by truck anyways.

Who the hell mentioned steel? The UK steel industry is still (relatively) well thank you despite the downturn and the takeover of the companies by Tata.

It's one of the many industries that are energy intensive and not easily relocated.

People adjust to changes in prices, in the last ten years the price of fuel in the US has pretty much doubled (possibly even more). I've noticed far more smaller cars on the roads in that time. It seems that even the US public are waking up to the fact that their fuel prices are increasing.

Trucks haven't, they're still the same size. Although fuel efficiency is much better. But they have to service a growing population, so their numbers have increased. No net gain. No net gain in 4/5th of the sector means the gains in the other 1/5th have to be substantial in order to even be noticed.

 

[Trakar]

I do. PowerPoint is the destroyer of minds.

At least he had sense enough to back out of the cooperative research project with doctors Hari and Baugh!

 

[Trakar]

Nobody has a penchant for -40C winters, but people live in Winnipeg anyways. Why? Because corn and wheat don't grow themselves and if you give them the choice fish stay in the water.

Sure there's room for improvement but here in Canada something like 80% of fuel is used in commercial vehicles. Car pooling isn't going to make much of a difference when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions. Ridiculous taxes on petroleum aren't going to do anything to shorten the distance from Halifax to Victoria.

No one was talking about farmers, they make up a very small portion of the population and their primary fuel usage is in the course of their labors and the transport of the product of their labors to their market. These can both be met with electric systems and most likely could be charged with power generated on site. Taxes that account for the full impacts of petroleum usage are simply externalities that should have been accounted for all along, or don't you trust free market principles to work as they are supposed to? If the true cost of petroleum is too expensive for it to be used as it has been used in the past, then the obvious solution is find a cheaper, more efficient means to accomplish those tasks (eg. trains, EVs, etc.,).

 

[Mikemcc]

That's the thing. To try to prevent global warming using our technology isjust opening us up to a communist takeover of the world and any other number of alarmist scenarios. To cope with global warming is a no brainer, we'll just use our technology, it can do anything.

Can I have a pair of those rose tinted specs?

I am extremely dubious about any of the GM crop / Geo-engineering solutions. They are untried and I do believe in the Law of Unintended Consequences. The first trial of using iron filings to stimulate plankton growth failed. The Monsanto presentation is dubious. It's good that they are looking at the field, I didn't think they were, I believe that the quote figures are extremely over-rated, it's an internal sales presentation. I've seen plenty in the industry that I work in (automation for drug discovery), some of it from the company I work for. It always over-emphasises good results, and downplays the costs and problems involved.

 

[Trakar]

Bioengineering will increase yields and produce more resilient plants as required by any changes in growing regions from global warming. It's already being done, but there's no push to do so because Global Warming is easily mitigated by simply using crops already developed.

Please provide citation and reference to support your statements.

 

[lomiller]

It depends. You can't deliver to stores by rail, they have to go by truck anyways.

Can you at least pretend you are trying to keep the goalposts in once spot

Since there is no need to ship deliveries to individual stores across whole countries you comment here is irrelevant, since the poster you were addressing was commenting on your claims cross country shipping distances are a problem for rail.

 

[Trakar]

Bioengineering will increase yields and produce more resilient plants as required by any changes in growing regions from global warming. It's already being done, but there's no push to do so because Global Warming is easily mitigated by simply using crops already developed.

Thus far they haven't even produced crops capable of providing normal yeilds in instances of drought or arid conditions, what makes you think that they will be more successful in matching or exceeding today's "normal" condition yeilds in the much more arid and drought typical conditions expected throughout the current growth regions four decades from now? Likewise it is either simply silly or disingenuously exclusionary to propose that there is no utility or need for drought resistant and arid condition cereal crops today. Cereal crops that could be grown in arid conditions and produce yeilds equivilant to prime Nebraska (Iowa, Indianna, Illinois, etc.,) tillage, is both needed and would be highly profittable glabally, if such existed.

 

[Furcifer]

Do you think lumber and ore in Europe is any closer to the urban centers?

Yes.

If you harvest some wood in Sweden you have some 800 million potential customers in an area half the size of Canada. That's 765 million more customers. It's very simple business.

Do you think when you buy an iPhone in Europe, it has less distance to travel a shorter distance to reach you?

What does this have to do with anything? You aren't seriously comparing finished electronics products to wood and steel?

How many iPods do you have to sell to make the same amount of money you would off a ton of ore or a cord of wood? 1?

Do you have any idea what it would cost to ship a cord of wood to China

 

[Furcifer]

No one was talking about farmers, they make up a very small portion of the population and their primary fuel usage is in the course of their labors and the transport of the product of their labors to their market.

Yes but their population is spread out and they have huge fuel needs.

These can both be met with electric systems and most likely could be charged with power generated on site.

50 years from now maybe.

Taxes that account for the full impacts of petroleum usage are simply externalities that should have been accounted for all along, or don't you trust free market principles to work as they are supposed to?

Hindsight is 20/20.

Of course it's complete rubbish. You can't possibly begin to account for the externalities, both the good and the bad. Seriously, what's a gallon of gas worth if it's rushing a child to the hospital? More than a Sunday afternoon drive but less than harvesting wheat in a combine?

If the true cost of petroleum is too expensive for it to be used as it has been used in the past, then the obvious solution is find a cheaper, more efficient means to accomplish those tasks (eg. trains, EVs, etc.,).

You can't begin to put a "true"cost on something like gasoline. Especially not based on some fantasy version of the future.

 

[Furcifer]

Can you at least pretend you are trying to keep the goalposts in once spot

Since there is no need to ship deliveries to individual stores across whole countries you comment here is irrelevant, since the poster you were addressing was commenting on your claims cross country shipping distances are a problem for rail.

This only makes sense if you're totally ignorant of the rail lines that have existed for more than a century here in Canada.