Global warming

[KimB]

Difference between humans and other animals is we can greatly affect Earth and we are adaptable. Before we are "taken care of" we've destroyed big part of the ecosystem.

Actually, I wouldn't say that we're any different in those ways except in terms of degree. Introduce a new species anywhere, and if that new species does will, it will destroy a big part of that ecosystem. The difference between us and other species is that we are exceptionally successful, so that we are now a successful new species basically everywhere on Earth.

The real difference, as I see it, is that we actually have knowledge of the consequences of our actions. And having that knowledge allows us to change those consequences. The cats introduced into a pacific island have no choice at all: they simply do what cats do and decimate many native species. But we, knowing what our actions will do, have a choice.

Problem is there is absolutely no viable replacement for petrol that would be working in next few years. Biofuels seem to work just because they are greatly subsidized and in most of the processing they are still using fossil fuels. If they'd switch over to biofuel in every part where liquid fuel is needed they won't be able to make enough of it even for themselves.

Well, there isn't enough biofuel being produced, but most biofuels actually aren't this bad. Corn ethanol is, but it's the exception. Most biofuels (such as sugar ethanol and most forms of biodiesel) do pay for themselves, even if they are more expensive than fossil fuels.

 

[hoho]

Most biofuels (such as sugar ethanol and most forms of biodiesel) do pay for themselves, even if they are more expensive than fossil fuels.

Really? Does that include all the water and fertilizers that they need to get half decent crops? Also, most fertilizers are produced from fossil fuels.

Only even remotely viable biofuel source I see is algae. Anything growing on fields simply isn't sustainable over long periods.

 

[KimB]

Really? Does that include all the water and fertilizers that they need to get half decent crops? Also, most fertilizers are produced from fossil fuels.

Yup. Corn is the only one that's negative but actually in use. The primary drawback of going with most biofuels isn't energy balance, but instead land use: by displacing land previously used for food production, biofuels force the clearing of more rainforest, which releases a tremendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, such that it takes decades to hundreds of years for most biofuels to recover in terms of overall change in CO2 levels (eventually they get better than fossil fuels, but it takes a long time).

Only even remotely viable biofuel source I see is algae. Anything growing on fields simply isn't sustainable over long periods.

Well, it's actually the short term that's important here. Algae is really promising not so much because it's better in the long run, but because it doesn't require the same land use changes that other biofuels do, so it doesn't have a massive up-front carbon cost to offset its benefits.

 

[corduroygt]

Really. So that's what you think we should do? Wait until everybody is in such abject poverty that we can't even afford to feed ourselves well? You think that is a good solution to overpopulation? Let it continue until everybody is suffering horribly?

Why do you think everyone would suffer? I doubt many people living in developed countries would suffer.

If we get a decent public transportation system going in more places, a lot of people will significantly reduce the amount of time they spend driving. Believe it or not, peoples' behaviors do change when they are presented with new opportunities.

Getting decent public transportation is only possible if you convince people to give up their spacious and private suburban homes and shove them into apartments. That's not going to happen here in the US.

 

[hoho]

Getting decent public transportation is only possible if you convince people to give up their spacious and private suburban homes and shove them into apartments. That's not going to happen here in the US.

Alternatively you could convince people to walk some 500-1000m to bus stop. Yeah, light physical activity is probably completely unacceptable to many but I can hope at least.


My sister lives in suburb some 15km out of city. There is a bus stop with regular service moving people to and from city every day at decent times. Within 1km of the stop there are around 50 homes and that's just one side of the road, other side is an empty field.

 

[corduroygt]

Alternatively you could convince people to walk some 500-1000m to bus stop. Yeah, light physical activity is probably completely unacceptable to many but I can hope at least.

To put a bus stop within 500-1000m of every suburban home in the US will either require too many buses or each bus ride will be 2 hours long.

 

[hoho]

Versus car rides at 1-2h+ sitting in traffic it might not be that bad.

Though real "fix" would be not to live that far from your work place. Suburb is nice but not viable.

 

[corduroygt]

Versus car rides at 1-2h+ sitting in traffic it might not be that bad.

In my experience, irregardless of the traffic, car has always been significantly faster than bus. Commuter trains where you drive a short distance to the station and park your car are a better option, and they're quite successful in the US.

 

[hoho]

In my experience, irregardless of the traffic, car has always been significantly faster than bus.

Does that include the time for parking the car in city?

 

[corduroygt]

Does that include the time for parking the car in city?

Unless you're talking about an ultra-dense city like NYC, most workplaces have parking for their employees here.

 

[eastmen]

How do you suppose we do that? By government forced sterilization like jvd suggested?

Humans are just another species of animals, animal population decreases when there isn't enough food to support them all. The same will also apply to us and that's how mother Earth takes care of herself. Same with AGW.

When the Ozone layer was threatened, people didn't stop using deodorant, they just changed the propellant. Same thing has to happen with cars and petroleum will have to be replaced by something that's just as convenient to see any reduction in carbon emissions. People aren't going to stop driving their cars and start using public transport. The closest target for this is biofuels for now, because battery technology hasn't really been progressing after li-ion and li-po batteries that are at least 10 year old technologies.

The liberals will just continue to take more money away from the middle class to give it to the poor who are pumping out babies left and right and don't forget the lovely anchor babys .

Lets nto forget that as population grows there are less and less jobs to go around compared to the increase in people .

 

[hoho]

Lets nto forget that as population grows there are less and less jobs to go around compared to the increase in people .

That depends how many people work in services and how many actually at producing stuff.

 

[corduroygt]

The liberals will just continue to take more money away from the middle class to give it to the poor who are pumping out babies left and right and don't forget the lovely anchor babys .

All the global warming legislation will effect the middle class the most, so I'm against it. But I'm not against taxing the rich to pay for social programs, AGW, whatever.

 

[KimB]

Why do you think everyone would suffer? I doubt many people living in developed countries would suffer.

If you want to rely solely upon starvation to deal with overpopulation, then there won't be any rich countries left: there will be too many people to have any rich countries (though there will be a small number of rich people).

Getting decent public transportation is only possible if you convince people to give up their spacious and private suburban homes and shove them into apartments. That's not going to happen here in the US.

That's fucking moronic. Nobody is "shoved" into mid-high cost apartments. They actively choose to live in them. And building good public transportation makes it so that the benefits of living in such apartments are that much higher.

 

[KimB]

The liberals will just continue to take more money away from the middle class to give it to the poor who are pumping out babies left and right and don't forget the lovely anchor babys .

Yay, racist, poor-hating bullshit!

This is complete and utter nonsense. The policies of the conservatives in the US have been taking the wealth away from poor and middle-class Americans to feed the fortunes of the top few percent. The wealth of middle-class Americans has grown the most in periods where the Democrats have been in control, a tide that has been turned only by the combination of brain-dead and outright corrupt politics stemming from Reagan-era Republicans.

By contrast, more liberal policies, which yes, would help the poor, would also help the middle class. The only people that would lose with a more liberal tax system and social safety net would be the ultra-rich. But seriously, they don't deserve any of the fortunes they have. The super-rich are almost uniformly a bunch of fucking thieves, as this latest financial crisis has demonstrated quite strongly.

Lets nto forget that as population grows there are less and less jobs to go around compared to the increase in people .

As long as we're not resource-limited (and we aren't in the US), then more people means more people buying shit, which means there is no problem with jobs regardless of the population.

 

[KimB]

All the global warming legislation will effect the middle class the most, so I'm against it.

Really? Like what, precisely?

 

[NRP]

Hey Chal, where are we regarding fusion as a viable energy alternative? I watched part of a presentation from some dude at LLNL's national ignition facility and he seemed pretty optimistic about it. What do you think?

 

[KimB]

Hey Chal, where are we regarding fusion as a viable energy alternative? I watched part of a presentation from some dude at LLNL's national ignition facility and he seemed pretty optimistic about it. What do you think?

Still at the concept stage, unfortunately. It's really unknown how long it will take to produce viable nuclear fusion, as it's just a very difficult engineering problem.

 

[Grall]

Where's the actual stumbling blocks? I hear the successor to ITER whatsitscalled will take years and years to complete, yet it's not any bigger than being able to comfortably fit inside the hangar of a light aircraft airfield, and that probably includes most if not all the support equipment too... Machining and assembling custom metal parts doesn't take THAT long.

Is it a money issue or what?

 

[corduroygt]

If you want to rely solely upon starvation to deal with overpopulation, then there won't be any rich countries left: there will be too many people to have any rich countries (though there will be a small number of rich people).

How do you figure that? A balance will be reached when there's enough food for everyone.

That's fucking moronic. Nobody is "shoved" into mid-high cost apartments. They actively choose to live in them. And building good public transportation makes it so that the benefits of living in such apartments are that much higher.

Trust me, few people, especially those with kids, want to live in a cramped apartment, at least here in the US. A single family home is a very important part of the American dream, and people's desire to have one was a big part of the housing boom and bust here.