IFish Fishing Forum banner
481 - 500 of 576 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,583 Posts
Jeff, in 100 years the primary global energy source will be different than it is today. If the midwest ceases to be the breadbasket perhaps Alaska will? Life will be different in 100 years but I don't believe that has to be a bad thing. The extra CO2 might green up the planet enough to suck down all that nasty gas and output levels of oxygen not seen since dinosaurs roamed. And, I don't feel guilty about living the lifestyle I've built for myself and family, but I am tired of this discussion. Oh, mankind will adapt, but there will still be some better off than others. I don't feel guilty about that, either. I'm out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
I think the only point of difference here, basically, is I think the adaption process should start with us, now, whereas I think you are seeing it as something others do in the future.

The Midwest breadbasket is a tough one and not as simple as it sounds. The correct temperature band will likely move northwards, true, but the soils there are not the 6’ deep loam that took millennia of stability to build up at their current location. Simply put- it won’t function the same way, not within a time frame we need it to anyway.

I don’t think any of us should feel guilty. We were just doin’ our thing and by the time this became obvious, it was basically too late. But that’s different than being an obstructionist towards some of the changes- call them adaptions, if you will- that we need to start making ASAP. The obstructionism is the problem here. A relatively small proportion of our voting population can basically prevent the adaption of which you speak. I’m fine with calling it adapting, but let’s get started!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
You also have to deal with the cutting of fertilizer that is said is necessary to reach our goals, I think they have started to have some big fights over that in Europe. We at this time can not feed the world without carbon based fertilizers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
We’ve got ourselves pretty well cornered. I’m not optimistic. In a way, the best (most realistic) argument for doing nothing amounts to “we’re screwed no matter what and there’s no realistic way out so why screw up the present for a future that’s ****ed regardless”. And that is probably the truth.

Pray for a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rank Amateur

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
In a way, the best (most realistic) argument for doing nothing amounts to “we’re screwed no matter what and there’s no realistic way out so why screw up the present for a future that’s ****ed regardless”. And that is probably the truth.
There’s a simple problem with this argument - our actions are especially screwing poor people worldwide who have scarcely caused the problem, but who are feeling it’s brunt the hardest … like the many eeking out a living farming on marginal land without fertilizer, or families living along coastlines for subsidence fishing, etc.etc. If we flew overhead and dumped radioactive waste on them, it’d be viewed as unambiguously immoral. How is knowingly screwing them with CO2 and climate change, just to support our lavish lifestyles, really any different?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
I believe the solution has to be a mix of solutions, yes clean energy solutions that don't produce tons of carbon in their creation and changes in lifestyle over time. Carbon capture or ways of dealing with the excess carbon is going to have to be a huge focus and yes there will be a cost for that. It is really laughable if our Government is banking solely on clean energy and EV's as the solution, this will fall so far short that it really is a worthless cause.

Everyone (who cares to do anything) believes the solution is a mix of solutions, great to hear it. Read about stabilization wedges. Efforts to combat the problem are vastly more diversified than just energy and EVs, with agriculture also being a major focus,

Turns out, energy, transportation, and agriculture are the largest sectors of CO2 emissions globally, along with industry. Add in energy efficiency, which governments have long pushed, etc etc and it is clear that more than energy sources and EVs are on the table.

However, of the sectors, fossil fuel transportation and energy’s business models are both built largely on CO2 emission, so they’re lobbying like mad to push back. Contrast with much (not all) agriculture, where practices that preserve soil carbon keep soils productive and healthy, and those that lower CO2 often equate to money savings.

Transportation and energy get so much attention because, when their externalities are ignored, amounts of CO2 production often translate directly to corporate profits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
Then throw in there that most likely many of these actions we will take will reduce the economy, take the airlines industry, it simply can not exist at todays levels if we are going to make any progress. People traveling just for fun and for most business must stop. I fear once people truly understand the size and scope of this endeavor they will bail. Oh by the way, the reason people talking about living in a cave is that around 27% of a house hold carbon allotment would be used for heating and cooling, the cave is a very stable environment, just have to wear more clothes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
"The U.K. wants to stop the sale of new diesel and gasoline cars and vans by 2030, for example. It will require, from 2035, all new cars and vans to have zero-tailpipe emissions.

The European Union — which the U.K. left on Jan. 31, 2020 — is pursuing similar targets."

How is the EU and UK going to generate enough power for all that on top of other demands?
Simple my dear Watson - the power of Jaw Boning. Every time a politician, elite type, or website lecturer flaps his gums .000001 Watt of electric power is generated. If we had known this the past several decades when Global Cooling, ah, I mean Global Warming, ah, I mean Climate Change began - shesh - oh h*ll, whatever the latest nomenclature description is today? Anyway, the power generated by our American Congress + Hollywood + Certain websites alone could be powering the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,552 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
There’s a simple problem with this argument - our actions are especially screwing poor people worldwide who have scarcely caused the problem, but who are feeling it’s brunt the hardest … like the many eeking out a living farming on marginal land without fertilizer, or families living along coastlines for subsidence fishing, etc.etc. If we flew overhead and dumped radioactive waste on them, it’d be viewed as unambiguously immoral. How is knowingly screwing them with CO2 and climate change, just to support our lavish lifestyles, really any different?
I agree. But the point stands: the most realistic argument against doing anything is that it hurts us now, but doesn’t really make a dent in the problem. Right? I mean that’s a sucky argument to make, but how is it substantially wrong?

I look at the global carbon output graph... I think about all the ways we end up generating the stuff.... most of them aren’t going to change (for the better anyway).... I think about how even within the boundaries of a single country it’s a politically intractable problem, then I try to imagine the industrialized nations somehow reaching internal consensus, THEN coming together in a kumbaya of shared sacrifice and then actually DOING it for decades and decades even when it hurts.... I mean, it just ain’t happening.... so why ding ourselves now for no real reason, is the thought, ugly as it is.

AND YET, you gotta try. :) That’s where I see the potentially monumental value in conversations exactly like this one: to gradually turn opinions. The biggest obstacle, from an electoral standpoint, is the Boomers. They essentially hold a veto on anything substantive happening, via the size of their voting bloc and their collective reluctance to engage with this issue in a positive fashion. Maybe they’ve earned that right; maybe they’re just stubborn and selfish, maybe both, but the path towards significant progress (at least for the next decade-plus) goes through them, just a statement of plain fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
I'm sorry that I looped in ODFW into this thread. And the wolves!

I just purchased stock in 2 American electric vehicle companies, so I've been hoping to see some constructive discussion on the merits of electric vehicles. It seems that the military is very interested in more EV applications. They move quiet, low heat signature and low(er) maintenance and don't stink. If your narrative doesn't support 'saving the planet', perhaps our investment in EV gets closer to protecting our freedom from Middle East Oil. Just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
I agree. But the point stands: the most realistic argument against doing anything is that it hurts us now, but doesn’t really make a dent in the problem. Right? I mean that’s a sucky argument to make, but how is it substantially wrong

Any reduction helps.

Reductions are already occurring in many “first world” countries. CO2 emissions in the US and EU have declined (slightly) over the past 10 years.

Slope Rectangle Plot Font Line




The US and EU reductions have helped slow overall global CO2 rise.

Between 2000 and 2010, global emissions rose 3 percent per year on average. Between 2011 and 2020, emissions grew more slowly, at roughly 1 percent per year. As more renewables, etc come on line, there is every reason to think it can turn around
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
Any reduction helps.

Reductions are already occurring in many “first world” countries. CO2 emissions in the US and EU have declined (slightly) over the past 10 years.

View attachment 985947



The US and EU reductions have helped slow overall global CO2 rise.

Between 2000 and 2010, global emissions rose 3 percent per year on average. Between 2011 and 2020, emissions grew more slowly, at roughly 1 percent per year. As more renewables, etc come on line, there is every reason to think it can turn around
i know... it’s just, there’s a lag time before the effects of a given year’s carbon even shows up.... we’ve already caused problems we aren’t even seeing yet.... I’m sure you’re familiar with the notion of area under a curve; the effect of the area we’ve already “banked“ is obviously not good, and there‘s a LOT of area still to come, relative to what we’ve felt the effect of so far. Hell, we haven’t even peaked yet.

Anyway... I guess the odious argument I’m making here is that relatively small changes in US output might be completely irrelevant in the big picture as this plays forward, yet cause significant economic hardship. Is that worth it? I don’t know.

I don’t like this argument but I come back to it like a moth to the flame, haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
i know... it’s just, there’s a lag time before the effects of a given year’s carbon even shows up.... Hell, we haven’t even peaked yet.
Correct. Want to see how long? Go here:


Play with emissions, click run projections, and see how long it takes for CO2 to peak.
If we flatline at 2020 emissions into the future, the atmospheric CO2 peak occurs in 2075.
If we manage to stabilize at 2000 emissions in the future, CO2 peaks in 2040

I’m slightly optimistic because I expect continued near-term climate-related events like heat waves and droughts and fires and floods will increasingly spur government action to maintain habitability/stability in essential non-fossil fuel sectors (stuff like food, water, forests), and because young people always care more and dig tech to foster transitions (i.e., renewables are coming online faster than many projections).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
I agree. But the point stands: the most realistic argument against doing anything is that it hurts us now, but doesn’t really make a dent in the problem. Right? I mean that’s a sucky argument to make, but how is it substantially wrong?

I look at the global carbon output graph... I think about all the ways we end up generating the stuff.... most of them aren’t going to change (for the better anyway).... I think about how even within the boundaries of a single country it’s a politically intractable problem, then I try to imagine the industrialized nations somehow reaching internal consensus, THEN coming together in a kumbaya of shared sacrifice and then actually DOING it for decades and decades even when it hurts.... I mean, it just ain’t happening.... so why ding ourselves now for no real reason, is the thought, ugly as it is.

AND YET, you gotta try. :) That’s where I see the potentially monumental value in conversations exactly like this one: to gradually turn opinions. The biggest obstacle, from an electoral standpoint, is the Boomers. They essentially hold a veto on anything substantive happening, via the size of their voting bloc and their collective reluctance to engage with this issue in a positive fashion. Maybe they’ve earned that right; maybe they’re just stubborn and selfish, maybe both, but the path towards significant progress (at least for the next decade-plus) goes through them, just a statement of plain fact.
I don't know if that is a fair statement, go ask some of the younger generations to go to 2 carbon tons per capita and you will get your answer. It looks like the average city dweller averages around 8 carbon tons per year, that is going to be a lot of suffering to get down to 2. We are only focusing on reduction of use of carbon, IMO that is not a wise way to go, we must do both, reduction of use and reduction in the atmosphere. You don't hear much about planting trees and restoring soil health that can absorb and hold vast amounts of carbon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffO
481 - 500 of 576 Posts
Top