topcat
Well-Known Member
Turn Mar-A-Lago into an artificial reef.
Climate in the 21st Century
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
These are realistic targets, so why not try? It's not about us, we will be dead, it's about those who are young and yet to come. The planet will be fine, probably humans as a species too, but our global civilization will be fucked.
Dr.Amber Trichome
Well-Known Member
I’m not worried at all. You sure do like to jump to conclusions. If the human race was eliminated at any moment I could care less.Not to worry us humans are as hardy as cockroaches, even if we lose our civilization!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I don't think they'll be achieved without a complete overhaul of the social support structures behind energy production, such as;
END all subsidies and assistance for fossil fuels, full stop.
ENACT big subsidies for EVs, public transportation, electrifying railways, carbon negative fuels for ships and planes.
SHUT DOWN fossil fuel powered electrical generation, replace it with solar, wind, geothermal.
PLANT forests, regreen deserts, permaculture agriculture.
REDUCE reliance on meat for protein, especially those costing a lot of energy to raise. Yeah, beef is bad, chicken, fish and especially squid is good.
We have the solutions. We know what to do. We need the political will to enforce these changes.
Okay, those with big stakes in fossil fuels will gripe; buy the offending facilities out with public funds, then shut them down.
Mephisto666
Well-Known Member
I agree with you.
Human beings pretty much suck in reality and even the very few and far between noble ones are tainted simply by being a Human.
Let's take Jesus for example, the one true God, unless your one of the dozens of other religions that would argue with that selfish premise.
As the Bible states, which is the word of the one and only real Creator, “There is no one who is righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10). So if we use that fable as our Creator intended, even God knew that Humans at their core weren't exactly nice.
Even Gandi ,Budda, Mohammed and JFK were tainted individuals whose faults were ignored because that would ruin our dreams that yes, we all can be good.
That is bull shit, we only hope that we're good, and most of the time we can maybe fool ourselves and those around us into thinking that, but the one thing is that is certain is that essentially Humankind is a primal, tribal, homicidal, and psychotic species that will destroy itself because our DNA is fucked.
So. here I am surrounded by your basic human beings which is very, very tedious I will admit, waiting to return to my true form, simple electrical energy, watching with fascination as man develops new ways to destroy each other and how Nature is about to finish us off and prove that we are too fucking stupid to exist any longer.
We have taken up too much useful space in the Universe for too long and it appears that the gods want it back, and in my usually chemically altered state of mind (some prescribed) they can take it and try again.
This attempt failed.
Mephisto666
Well-Known Member
And how long do you think it will take to achieve your lofty goals?
Maybe a century at least?
This nations electrical grid, which is one click above what Edison designed will not be able to handle the addition of any of the non-carbon based power sources that are still in their infancy.
None of your solutions will be attained before it's too late, that's simple math.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That is both bleak and cynical. It amounts to moral abdication imo. The real problem is that such nihilism is a transmissible disorder.
Mephisto666
Well-Known Member
I'm Irish and we're pretty much all like that.
Blame it on DNA & the English.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
I'm still getting over you comparing JFK to Buddha.
Mephisto666
Well-Known Member
I was being sarcastic, although it does rely on ones ability to discern that.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It took humanity 200 years to screw things up this badly.
I think we COULD do it in 20 with a global push. I think that's unlikely. I think it will take 50 years to really turn things around. Yep, things are gonna get worse before they get better. But bringing carbon back down toThe levels of the early 20th century is a fully achievable goal relatively quickly, given the will to do so.
It is a test of humanity to make that decision and to implement it effectively for the benefit of generations yet unborn. Either we pass this test or we don't. Mother nature gives no fucks either way.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
That's the kicker isnt it? Only 200-300 years.
It took white man hardly any time at all to muck things up due to greed when mankind has been around for about 300,000 years.
50 or 100 years to fix it isn't that long in the scheme of things
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It might take Antarctica and Greenland 500 years to thaw. We can use that to our advantage by getting things back under control in a century.
I don't think it had to be "white man" as opposed to any other color. It would have been whoever broke through and created the Industrial Age first. But for a few factors like national stability and the discovery of electricity, the Romans could have done it two millennia ago.
Finally, let's not leave out agricultural technology; without the ability to reliability feed billions, we would not have been able to generate nearly the amount of carbon dioxide we have in such a short time. I believe that humans have exceeded the long term carrying capacity of Earth and we will destroy our environment one way or another if we do not reduce our population. In other words, either we figure out how to reduce our population or Mother Nature will do it for us. She gives no fucks either way...
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Ironically this is where the steam revolution and mass use of fossil fuels began, with the steam pumps used to drain the mines.
Why US-China Tensions Are Reviving an Ancient British Industry
66,327 views Aug 17, 2023
The UK’s Cornwall county is seeing a mining revival that could play a key role in Britain’s shift to clean energy.
Alan Crawford digs in on how US-China tensions are increasing demand for the minerals, which can be found in EV batteries and other electronics.
Why US-China Tensions Are Reviving an Ancient British Industry
66,327 views Aug 17, 2023
The UK’s Cornwall county is seeing a mining revival that could play a key role in Britain’s shift to clean energy.
Alan Crawford digs in on how US-China tensions are increasing demand for the minerals, which can be found in EV batteries and other electronics.
topcat
Well-Known Member
Mephisto666
Well-Known Member
Just a sub-note to your article which has global consequences in the pursuit of a clean form of energy production.
It is mentioned often in that video about the massive effects that Bidens green energy programs have had for the development of non-fossil based fuel sources and also suppling the raw materials/technology needed in this electronic age have had world wide, minus China of course,
He has really given new life to nations that focus on the development and production of both new and old methods of suppling the means necessary to move onto/into the 22nd century and keep this century's demands satisfied in a sound economical and environmentally conscious manner.
On the other hand the US is facing the uncomfortable possibility that the next POTUS will be a climate change denier that rails about windmills being hazardous to birds and unsightly. This man singlehandedly, albeit with the help of the oil/coal industry and Sen. Manchin, withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accords, setting back the USA's and the entire worlds progress in fighting climate change.
And that man has almost the full support of the other major political party in the US, one not noted for they're concern about the Enviromint or the general public for that matter, where his support and popularity is only increasing in spite of 91 felony indictments against him.
I find that both confusing and nerve-rattling at the same time.
So we shall see what path the US takes next year and it seems the fate of the World will be decided in America come next year in February.
Let us all hope the right choice is made.
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
Ultimately the solution to our environmental dilemma is a reduction in the number of people needing the world's resources and this guy lays it out for us.
www.sciencealert.com
A little over two centuries ago, in the year 1800, roughly a billion people called Earth home.
Just a century later, it had grown by another 600 million.
Today, there are around 8 billion people on the planet.
That sort of growth is unsustainable for our ecosphere, risking a 'population correction' that according to a new study could occur before the century is out.
The prediction is the work of population ecologist William Rees from the University of British Columbia in Canada. He argues that we're using up Earth's resources at an unsustainable rate, and that our natural tendencies as humans make it difficult for us to correct this "advanced ecological overshoot".
The result could be some kind of civilizational collapse that 'corrects' the world's population, Rees says – one that could happen before the end of the century in a worst case scenario. Only the richest and most resilient societies would be left.
"Homo sapiens has evolved to reproduce exponentially, expand geographically, and consume all available resources," Rees writes in his published paper.
"For most of humanity's evolutionary history, such expansionist tendencies have been countered by negative feedback. However, the scientific revolution and the use of fossil fuels reduced many forms of negative feedback, enabling us to realize our full potential for exponential growth."
Rees points out our dominance over the planet has made us forget that we are still governed by natural selection. What's more, our natural inclination towards short-term thinking, which served us exceedingly well in our evolutionary past, continues to compel us to take as much as we can possibly get when it's available.
This has fueled the excessive consumption and pollution that a portion of the current world population is now responsible for, which is set to increase as financial security and population sizes increase, Rees argues.
A changing climate is evidence of the strain the planet is already under but it's only a tiny fraction of the overall problem of overshoot, Rees argues.
As Rees points out, as we continue to use an abundance of fossil fuels we're simultaneously ignoring the other symptoms of overshoot too. From our consumption of biomass to the disruption of planetary nutrient cycles, these interlinked problems are all propelling Earth's sixth mass extinction and risking a chaotic break-down of our planet's essential life-support systems.
What's more, our proposed solutions, such as switching to renewables don't actually address the problem of exponential population growth and in fact further contribute to the excess consumption that goes along with it.
The question is whether improvements in technology – in everything from combating climate change to increasing food production – are capable of keeping pace with the growing demands our consumption places on the planet.
If innovation can't provide solutions, food shortages, habitat instability, war, and disease may well start to make an impact in population numbers, this study predicts.
"While no major symptom of overshoot can be adequately addressed in isolation from the others, addressing overshoot directly would reduce all important symptoms simultaneously," Rees explains.
Another point that Rees makes – and he's not the first to do so – is that we need to be much more aware of the peril that we're in, and should be working out ways to get a better balance between our give-and-take relationship with the planet.
"In the best of all possible worlds, the whole transition might actually be managed in ways that prevent unnecessary suffering of millions (billions?) of people, but this is not happening – and cannot happen – in a world blind to its own predicament," writes Rees.
The research has been published in World.
Major 'Population Correction' Coming For Humanity, Scientist Predicts
A little over two centuries ago, in the year 1800, roughly a billion people called Earth home.
www.sciencealert.com
A little over two centuries ago, in the year 1800, roughly a billion people called Earth home.
Just a century later, it had grown by another 600 million.
Today, there are around 8 billion people on the planet.
That sort of growth is unsustainable for our ecosphere, risking a 'population correction' that according to a new study could occur before the century is out.
The prediction is the work of population ecologist William Rees from the University of British Columbia in Canada. He argues that we're using up Earth's resources at an unsustainable rate, and that our natural tendencies as humans make it difficult for us to correct this "advanced ecological overshoot".
The result could be some kind of civilizational collapse that 'corrects' the world's population, Rees says – one that could happen before the end of the century in a worst case scenario. Only the richest and most resilient societies would be left.
"Homo sapiens has evolved to reproduce exponentially, expand geographically, and consume all available resources," Rees writes in his published paper.
"For most of humanity's evolutionary history, such expansionist tendencies have been countered by negative feedback. However, the scientific revolution and the use of fossil fuels reduced many forms of negative feedback, enabling us to realize our full potential for exponential growth."
Rees points out our dominance over the planet has made us forget that we are still governed by natural selection. What's more, our natural inclination towards short-term thinking, which served us exceedingly well in our evolutionary past, continues to compel us to take as much as we can possibly get when it's available.
This has fueled the excessive consumption and pollution that a portion of the current world population is now responsible for, which is set to increase as financial security and population sizes increase, Rees argues.
A changing climate is evidence of the strain the planet is already under but it's only a tiny fraction of the overall problem of overshoot, Rees argues.
As Rees points out, as we continue to use an abundance of fossil fuels we're simultaneously ignoring the other symptoms of overshoot too. From our consumption of biomass to the disruption of planetary nutrient cycles, these interlinked problems are all propelling Earth's sixth mass extinction and risking a chaotic break-down of our planet's essential life-support systems.
What's more, our proposed solutions, such as switching to renewables don't actually address the problem of exponential population growth and in fact further contribute to the excess consumption that goes along with it.
The question is whether improvements in technology – in everything from combating climate change to increasing food production – are capable of keeping pace with the growing demands our consumption places on the planet.
If innovation can't provide solutions, food shortages, habitat instability, war, and disease may well start to make an impact in population numbers, this study predicts.
"While no major symptom of overshoot can be adequately addressed in isolation from the others, addressing overshoot directly would reduce all important symptoms simultaneously," Rees explains.
Another point that Rees makes – and he's not the first to do so – is that we need to be much more aware of the peril that we're in, and should be working out ways to get a better balance between our give-and-take relationship with the planet.
"In the best of all possible worlds, the whole transition might actually be managed in ways that prevent unnecessary suffering of millions (billions?) of people, but this is not happening – and cannot happen – in a world blind to its own predicament," writes Rees.
The research has been published in World.
Mephisto666
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It is the extreme weather events that will push the change to the point of economic sanctions for noncompliance and even war, doing shit about climate change will no longer be optional for countries.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
Yep.
That 50 to 100 years isn't long in our 300,000 years?
Sure, but i think ive already won the bet by looking at the previous line.