Those are all ways to reduce the flow of new carbon emissions, but they don’t address the issue if the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere, which is what they’re talking about.
This would be things like more effective carbon capture technologies or sulfur dioxide injection. The point they’re making is that just slowing down the rate that new carbon is added or even stopping new carbon from being added at all isn’t sufficient to stop the runaway effects.
Never mind that the current regime in the US is on track to actually increase carbon emissions.
I’m aware, but I was addressing that one point at the end of their post about us not having sustainable technology, which I consider distinct from tech that sequesters existing emissions. As in, had we structured our societies with that other tech, it would’ve been fairly sustainable.
For sequestering carbon, I’d read a bit about growing mass amounts of some sort of seaweed or grass in shallow areas being somewhat promising, though ultimately I think we’re locked in for some extreme change regardless. My recommendations of sustainable tech would only limit the ceiling we reach in the future.
So, there is a natural carbon cycle, natural nitrogen cycle etc.
On planet earth, the nitrogen cycle of the whole planet is only 50% of what humans need to eat every year. If you don’t have artificial fertilizers, tractors, refrigerators etc etc, there is no way people can be fed even if they are everything that nature created.
We are locked into an artificial life support system. Our agriculture system creates more CO2 than all the cars being driven by a factor of 3.
We have no technology that is waiting to fix this. There is no “fix” where lots of people wouldn’t die directly.
We DO NOT have sustainable technologies. For humans, we are committed to planetary overshoot if we stay alive, we have been in planetary overshoot for many generations already.
Your list of “solutions” are not real things that make significant change. Sorry. They slow down the worsening but they will not even extend civilization by one extra generation. You have been duped into thinking about this the wrong way.
Cities are giant factories that require the constant cycling of goods (food, water and other materials) using a transportation grid and they also require constant energy inputs to remove waste materials. Our ancestors didn’t build cities to permanently live in until they had cheap surplus energy and a way to store it. I have something to warn you about…so your idea about edencity and public transportation is like you almost see how unsustainable cities are, and why.
The idea that wind and solar are infinitely scalable has actually been properly studied in the literature. For example, Mark Jacobson has a fully elucidated picture of what that would look like globally. If I remember correctly, he calls for every river on earth to be dammed for hydro, windmills covering every continent and around 200 solar panels for every living human AND major deductions in energy usage. This is a more highly industrialized future than any previous human project. He did not explore the material or energy costs of building this system. So for instance, on a planet where we cannot feed, build houses and build transport for everyone it’s surprising if we can build them all windmills, batteries, wiring, solar panels and power dams. But…you know…we have to dream right? The main headline is that “the possibility is infinite”. I actually don’t believe that, it seems like all these large scale programs are already failing in many ways. Not that they aren’t the best idea we have, they are just not working out.
By the way , we could also eat insects ground into a protein mush instead of actual vegetables.
f you don’t have artificial fertilizers, tractors, refrigerators etc etc, there is no way people can be fed even if they are everything that nature created.
David R. Montgomery puts forward some interesting evidence that the world could be fed without industrial farming, and there are promising new methods of creating artificial fertilizer using renewable energy instead of the fossil fuel using habor-bosch method.
Cities are giant factories that require the constant cycling of goods (food, water and other materials) using a transportation grid and they also require constant energy inputs to remove waste materials.
Cities use far less energy and materials than less dense suburbs or rural living, which require moving materials and energy further than cities to dwellings that are far less energy efficient. I get the feeling you didn’t actually look at the links I provided regarding how with the right planning, cities could be made self-sufficient and the most sustainable way of living, as you continue to suggest that they cannot be, even though the math in those videos indicate the opposite.
so your idea about edencity and public transportation is like you almost see how unsustainable cities are, and why.
I never said cities as they exist today are desirable or sustainable, nor was that the inquiry you made to me. You asked what existing technologies we had to live sustainably. I think I made a solid case that we do have the existing ideas and technology to do so, but they are simply not implemented for reasons unrelated to their actual technical viability.
on a planet where we cannot feed, build houses and build transport for everyone
And this is a completely artificial social problem, not a technical one, which is what I’ve been mentioning in each response.
Capitalism is ultimately responsible for a tremendous amount of that artificial scarcity of food, housing, and transport, as profit incentives cause powerful corporations to suppress or eliminate solutions that would jeopardize that profit. Farmers during the depression destroyed food while the hungry watched to protect the market, affordable housing isn’t created because it isn’t as profitable as expensive housing, rent caps aren’t implemented because real estate monopolies and landlords lobby politicians to ensure their profits continue to rise, public transport was gutted by monopolists in the oil, car, and tire industry for their continued profit.
As long as capitalism rules us, we will struggle to implement the tools that could save millions of people from dying, all for the benefit of a few psychopaths. I strongly believe we will continue on the path of destruction unless there is a nearly global rejection of capitalism as the main form of societal structure. I don’t know for sure if we will eventually cast it off and survive, but I’m sure as hell going to try to slow down the amount of emissions we spew out in the hopes it gives us a sliver more time for that to potentially happen.
Whether or not you believe it’s possible for humanity to actually do that depends entirely on how cynical your worldview is. In practical terms, a fully cynical view only guarantees a fail-state, which doesn’t seem like a useful mindset to have. So I will continue to do as much as I am realistically able to help the possibility of resisting capitalism, as it’s our only real way out, and I’ll be happier with myself that I tried, even if we fail.
Those are all ways to reduce the flow of new carbon emissions, but they don’t address the issue if the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere, which is what they’re talking about.
This would be things like more effective carbon capture technologies or sulfur dioxide injection. The point they’re making is that just slowing down the rate that new carbon is added or even stopping new carbon from being added at all isn’t sufficient to stop the runaway effects.
Never mind that the current regime in the US is on track to actually increase carbon emissions.
I’m aware, but I was addressing that one point at the end of their post about us not having sustainable technology, which I consider distinct from tech that sequesters existing emissions. As in, had we structured our societies with that other tech, it would’ve been fairly sustainable.
For sequestering carbon, I’d read a bit about growing mass amounts of some sort of seaweed or grass in shallow areas being somewhat promising, though ultimately I think we’re locked in for some extreme change regardless. My recommendations of sustainable tech would only limit the ceiling we reach in the future.
So, there is a natural carbon cycle, natural nitrogen cycle etc.
On planet earth, the nitrogen cycle of the whole planet is only 50% of what humans need to eat every year. If you don’t have artificial fertilizers, tractors, refrigerators etc etc, there is no way people can be fed even if they are everything that nature created.
We are locked into an artificial life support system. Our agriculture system creates more CO2 than all the cars being driven by a factor of 3.
We have no technology that is waiting to fix this. There is no “fix” where lots of people wouldn’t die directly.
We DO NOT have sustainable technologies. For humans, we are committed to planetary overshoot if we stay alive, we have been in planetary overshoot for many generations already.
Your list of “solutions” are not real things that make significant change. Sorry. They slow down the worsening but they will not even extend civilization by one extra generation. You have been duped into thinking about this the wrong way.
Cities are giant factories that require the constant cycling of goods (food, water and other materials) using a transportation grid and they also require constant energy inputs to remove waste materials. Our ancestors didn’t build cities to permanently live in until they had cheap surplus energy and a way to store it. I have something to warn you about…so your idea about edencity and public transportation is like you almost see how unsustainable cities are, and why.
The idea that wind and solar are infinitely scalable has actually been properly studied in the literature. For example, Mark Jacobson has a fully elucidated picture of what that would look like globally. If I remember correctly, he calls for every river on earth to be dammed for hydro, windmills covering every continent and around 200 solar panels for every living human AND major deductions in energy usage. This is a more highly industrialized future than any previous human project. He did not explore the material or energy costs of building this system. So for instance, on a planet where we cannot feed, build houses and build transport for everyone it’s surprising if we can build them all windmills, batteries, wiring, solar panels and power dams. But…you know…we have to dream right? The main headline is that “the possibility is infinite”. I actually don’t believe that, it seems like all these large scale programs are already failing in many ways. Not that they aren’t the best idea we have, they are just not working out.
By the way , we could also eat insects ground into a protein mush instead of actual vegetables.
David R. Montgomery puts forward some interesting evidence that the world could be fed without industrial farming, and there are promising new methods of creating artificial fertilizer using renewable energy instead of the fossil fuel using habor-bosch method.
Cities use far less energy and materials than less dense suburbs or rural living, which require moving materials and energy further than cities to dwellings that are far less energy efficient. I get the feeling you didn’t actually look at the links I provided regarding how with the right planning, cities could be made self-sufficient and the most sustainable way of living, as you continue to suggest that they cannot be, even though the math in those videos indicate the opposite.
I never said cities as they exist today are desirable or sustainable, nor was that the inquiry you made to me. You asked what existing technologies we had to live sustainably. I think I made a solid case that we do have the existing ideas and technology to do so, but they are simply not implemented for reasons unrelated to their actual technical viability.
And this is a completely artificial social problem, not a technical one, which is what I’ve been mentioning in each response.
Capitalism is ultimately responsible for a tremendous amount of that artificial scarcity of food, housing, and transport, as profit incentives cause powerful corporations to suppress or eliminate solutions that would jeopardize that profit. Farmers during the depression destroyed food while the hungry watched to protect the market, affordable housing isn’t created because it isn’t as profitable as expensive housing, rent caps aren’t implemented because real estate monopolies and landlords lobby politicians to ensure their profits continue to rise, public transport was gutted by monopolists in the oil, car, and tire industry for their continued profit.
As long as capitalism rules us, we will struggle to implement the tools that could save millions of people from dying, all for the benefit of a few psychopaths. I strongly believe we will continue on the path of destruction unless there is a nearly global rejection of capitalism as the main form of societal structure. I don’t know for sure if we will eventually cast it off and survive, but I’m sure as hell going to try to slow down the amount of emissions we spew out in the hopes it gives us a sliver more time for that to potentially happen.
Whether or not you believe it’s possible for humanity to actually do that depends entirely on how cynical your worldview is. In practical terms, a fully cynical view only guarantees a fail-state, which doesn’t seem like a useful mindset to have. So I will continue to do as much as I am realistically able to help the possibility of resisting capitalism, as it’s our only real way out, and I’ll be happier with myself that I tried, even if we fail.