Anthropogenic Climate Change

And one more reason to pray for the sweet release of death.

Death is for quitters.

In addition to electrification, renewables+nuclear, we also need to reform farming and the agricultural sector so that it becomes sustainable. Any ideas?

Edited by DeMarquis on Aug 11th 2019 at 7:25:23 AM

Hydroponics?

Aeroponics; easily the most efficient and reliable agriculture method so far, with the massive initial investment preventing widespread adoption. Like most other good things, we will probably not see proper appreciation until we reach a point of no other alternatives.

Edited by ViperMagnum357 on Aug 11th 2019 at 9:12:27 AM

Cloned meat, also solves the animal rights issue.

I was discussing vat-grown meat with my friends just a few days ago. Depending on what resources go in and what waste products come out, it could definitely be a good alternative to large-scale livestock farming. And the vegans can eat it guilt-free. Don't know how close we are to practical application of it yet, and you can bet that there will be a lot of people trying their best to shut it down.

I think that some of these things are only tangentially related to climate change, honestly.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Yup.

The main issue has been and continues to remain digging stored carbon up that was locked down in the Devonian to Permian periods and releasing it back into the active carbon system.

Granted, it was eventually going to come back into play thanks to active geology being a thing. Over, say, a few billion years, if not pretty much all at once when the Earth turns into a hot, molten ball. Again.

Until we work out how to lock most of it back out, it's going to just be with us.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Aug 12th 2019 at 10:03:26 AM

any fun photosynthesis tech in the works?

Secret Signature

<Points to thread title>

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Well it could have happened before then as well. Flood basalts intruding on Carboniferous coal deposits is generally believed to be a major trigger for The Great Dying.

The problem with hydropnics, vat-grown meat, and similar approaches is that they are dependent upon artificial chemicals to maximize production, so my question is how much of an advance is this really?

At this point we should probably be trying to popularize GMO foodstuffs and cricket flour.

Granted, this is coming from a guy who is perfectly willing to try cooked crickets that aren't processed into flour.

Edited by M84 on Aug 12th 2019 at 9:39:35 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

The obvious first step with crickets is pet food. Cats and dogs are obligate carnivores, not picky eaters, and it is a very large market.

Unfortunately “GMO” is more or less a bad word these days.

They should have sent a poet.

I find myself actively avoiding foods labeled as "Non-GMO" when I shop, because it's reached anti-vaxxer levels of disinformation being inserted into environmentalist and anti-corporate culture.

If anything, it demonstrates that the left is not immune to affinity fraud. The "gluten-free" craze is another example. The worst part of these crazes is that they indirectly discredit genuine environmental and health messages, much like people insisting that cosmetic features should be banned from guns discredit genuine efforts towards gun control, or people freaking out about nuclear power discredit efforts to get away from fossil fuels.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 12th 2019 at 10:16:12 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The gluten-free craze is even worse since it also makes things more irritating for people who actually need to avoid gluten for medical reasons.

Disgusted, but not surprised

My favorite example is when I saw that the Wegmans grocery chain had a prominent "gluten-free" label on their soda packaging. It's water, carbon dioxide, flavors, and food coloring. Nobody thinks there's gluten!

Some people connect anti-GMO messaging with environmentalism and thus with climate change. They tend to be found in the same circles. The reason it's an issue is because these fad messages both distract from and discredit real ones. It's not Appeal to Worse Problems; it's a completely made-up problem competing for attention with genuine problems.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 12th 2019 at 10:20:13 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, the cricket flour thing at least is a possible alternative source of protein compared to livestock such as cattle whose upkeep actively harms the environment and contributes to climate change.

Edited by M84 on Aug 12th 2019 at 10:18:41 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

Brand marketing to Lefties who don't want to invest a lot of time thinking about what they buy goes back generations. But back on topic—I see the problem as our reliance on monoculture farming. Any way we can disinvest in that?

As with so many things, it's entrenched cultural and economic interests battling tooth and nail against technological obsolescence.

Elon Musk figured this out with Tesla. The solution is not just to present a competing product that is equivalent. You need to present a competing product that is so much better in every way that there's no question of which consumers will prefer in the end.

We need aeroponics to deliver large quantities of tasty, nutritious produce to market that is significantly cheaper than farm produce.

As for meat protein replacement, that is also being worked on by a lot of people. You won't wean people off cows, chickens, and pigs until you deliver a substitute that is just as good, and we aren't quite there yet.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 12th 2019 at 10:24:01 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Not without robotic peasants. Industrial agriculture has very high yields per square kilometer. That is important, because the amount of land under cultivation is in a very direct way our ecological footprint - if it is a farm, it is emphatically not a part of nature. It is possible to do better still, in terms of yield per area, but it is insanely labor intensive, and the very highest yields require you to put everything under glass so you are farming in an entirely controlled environment. None of which is economic unless you can automate the labor component.

There's a few potential benefits here. Genetically-modified crops are often intended to increase yields per square kilometer,potentially decreasing the incentive to clear natural lands, such as rainforests, that photosynthesize a great deal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The article also notes that by modifying crops to grow in stressed areas it may be possible make agricultural regions better able to withstand increases in severe weather related to climate change.

Additionally, by breeding plants for insect and disease resistance, it's possible to decrease the amount of pesticides used on crops, thereby decreasing the carbon dioxide produced in pesticide production. I assume a similar benefit applies if you modify crops to require fewer nutrient inputs. And if you can reduce the amount of tillage needed for agricultural soils, you both increase the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil, as well as decrease the amount of tractor fuel that you are using. There are companies who have tried to use genetic modification for outcomes that aren't environmentally sustainable (see, sterile seeds, potential decreases in genetic diversity), but in the end I think it comes down to whether the technology is used responsibly or not.

We had a good laugh in one of my environmental science classes over the "GMO-free water" I found.

Edited by Pseudopartition on Aug 12th 2019 at 12:12:29 PM

A bit more positive, some empirical evidence suggests that humans stay put after even large sea level rise events. Full text.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman