Policy & Solutions

[SteveMDFP]

Hail and hurricane proof farming all internal away from the contamination/radiation of the outside world requiring 80% less water 95% less land and zero pesticides... We could live on the moon if we wanted to... no reason we couldn't recolonize earth even as bad as it can and will get.. So long as a blade of grass is growing on the planet, it will be far more hospitable than any place else we know.

Somewhere on this forum in the not distant past, someone posted a link to a presentation that examined the economics and physics involved in growing food under LEDs.  The net conclusion was that the electricity costs are generally prohibitive for staple crops.  Better to use natural light, rather than covering a comparable acreage in solar panels to get the electricity.

One could imagine scenarios in which vast acreage is useless for agriculture (say, after a nuclear exchange) and food is much more precious (say, after a nuclear exchange).  So, that wouldn't be the last word on the subject.

[Eco-Author]

Hail and hurricane proof farming all internal away from the contamination/radiation of the outside world requiring 80% less water 95% less land and zero pesticides... We could live on the moon if we wanted to... no reason we couldn't recolonize earth even as bad as it can and will get.. So long as a blade of grass is growing on the planet, it will be far more hospitable than any place else we know.

Somewhere on this forum in the not distant past, someone posted a link to a presentation that examined the economics and physics involved in growing food under LEDs.  The net conclusion was that the electricity costs are generally prohibitive for staple crops.  Better to use natural light, rather than covering a comparable acreage in solar panels to get the electricity.

One could imagine scenarios in which vast acreage is useless for agriculture (say, after a nuclear exchange) and food is much more precious (say, after a nuclear exchange).  So, that wouldn't be the last word on the subject.

All my designs have these greenhouses in the top floor so as to allow as much sunlight as possible as well as artificial lighting... Power via solar or wind or whatever is something we know how to produce so whatever amount it takes becomes the minimal requirements!.

[Tor Bejnar]

Tor, my understanding is that there is not predicted to be an increase in the numbers of tornadoes, but they will occur at times and places where they have not before (we are already seeing that). If you have other info on predictions wrt tornadoes, I would be most interested in any links you could provide on that! Thanks ahead of time.

What your write matches my understanding.

EA: my concern for fire (add hail to the concern) is for foodstuffs grown outside the fortress.  But I see you're foreseeing a (quazi-) biodome environment, with the outside world being relatively toxic.

[sidd]

Re: potatoes

Bigger bang for the buck compared to grains. But you need a buncha other things. Can't live off potatoes alone ...

sidd

[GoSouthYoungins]

I never said...

living of self sufficiently and off of 2 acres makes sense.

we should live like it is 1850.

potatoes, grains, and legumes should only be grown at large scale.

[TerryM]

Re: potatoes

Bigger bang for the buck compared to grains. But you need a buncha other things. Can't live off potatoes alone ...

sidd

Add bacon bits, cheddar cheese, green onions and a very large portion of butter, now we have a balanced meal.
Terry

[sidd]

" bacon bits, cheddar cheese, green onions and a very large portion of butter "

pigs. cows. green onions are easy, in season ... it's surprising how late you can find em tho.

sidd

[Eco-Author]

Note to admins.  You can see how this thread moves nowhere vs. when it was on the arctic sea ice section. Being 'Nice and tidy' on a dying world hinges upon taping more ideas than this:

[Bruce Steele]

Eco-Author, Maybe there is some problem of scale . As a very determined individual or small family maybe you can figure out how to live on something close to zero carbon. I don't know any options that include any of the mechanical solutions you might prefer. Slave labor or slave mechanical labor is very addicting.
 If you can't think of how to live zero carbon as an individual how then does a village or a country do any better ? That is part our silence , we are plenty smart enough to realize we too are the problem.

Best idea I have heard on something that can scale is simply to pipe the effluents of all major coastal metropolis into anerobic ocean basins. We already dump the effluents so with some pipes we could at least send the carbon it contains where it won't come back for a very long time.
 

[Eco-Author]

Eco-Author, Maybe there is some problem of scale . As a very determined individual or small family maybe you can figure out how to live on something close to zero carbon. I don't know any options that include any of the mechanical solutions you might prefer. Slave labor or slave mechanical labor is very addicting.
 If you can't think of how to live zero carbon as an individual how then does a village or a country do any better ? That is part our silence , we are plenty smart enough to realize we too are the problem.

Best idea I have heard on something that can scale is simply to pipe the effluents of all major coastal metropolis into anerobic ocean basins. We already dump the effluents so with some pipes we could at least send the carbon it contains where it won't come back for a very long time.
 

If you are calling for a near ZERO or 80% reduction in CO2 output, one of the best ways I could suggest doing that is by having large multi-family homes with commercial grade shops in order to work productively right from a larger housing facility... No transportation required at all... no vehicle expense, no travel delays, no spread of plague... 10% more free time... all just by working from home... This is much more possible these days with advanced CNC machining and 3D printing which allows vital parts production right from a small garage... 30% of the engine parts of new newest helicopter engines are 3D printed... and the design has 95% fewer parts and last longer so just making these has more performance than most major cities helping produce one of the most vital disaster recovery needs: helicopters.  To think someday we'd be able to produce a jet engine in an apartment building is unheard of... ZERO traffic driving to work.  No fuel/CO2 emitions…. other than working at home/right down the block, you won't be able to achieve 80% reduction.

[Eco-Author]

20% more fuel efficient, TWICE as strong, 5% lighter, 855 parts to 12 (TWELVE)… 1/3rd 3D printed so we are talking a two generational leap in an entire sector of helicopters and regional aircraft not yet realized...  20% mind you is a good chunk of 80% needed overall!

[Eco-Author]

One thing surprising of technology is things have actually gotten a lot simpler... LED TV vs. days-of-old... LG smart-phones are just easy to make... far less parts than a old-style-phone... this has never been more true than in jet engines and is a hidden hallmark of F-22/35 type engines casting entire fan blade sections in a single piece and ultra high/never-before-seen-yet technology that allows them to burn far hotter.... While things have gotten a lot simpler... our ability to make them in nothing more than several small garages never having to drive through bad weather, suseptable to a bridge or road outage...



Other than the SUPER benefits from working at home, making things 20% more efficient, we also have a need for larger buildings with 98% lower outside surface area than an equivalent number of single family homes.... This Greatly reduces heat loss in the winter and heat gain in the summer to the point 80% less heating and cooling is needed.... Yeah, in such a massive/Efficiently-shapped home, you can get the type of performance you are looking for.  30% more free time in homes that can fit 12 charter coaches into its garage! 

[Eco-Author]

Sometimes graphs and charts don't convey the urgency of our situation enough.  We are a very visual society who relates to many movies and graphics... Maybe something like these can help convey the dangers... As a writer, we must justify our measures with as many combined dangers that face us.  Sometimes a single deliberate solution is just good for all high enough up the ladder

[Eco-Author]

As GRAFFIC AS POSSIBLE this one is just below the one above in the callage:

[Tom_Mazanec]

Here's three solutions you might not have thought of:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/06/10/three-surprising-solutions-to-climate-change/#600b5de26742

Finland will have to slash logging even further:
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2019/06/finland-must-further-reduce-logging-preserve-carbon-sink-environmental-institute

[nanning]

Recommended reading.
This is a great post by a commenter on a Guardian article (click to enlarge):

[NeilT]

There are 3 parts to surviving what is to come; assuming that we have not done the easiest thing of all which is to avoid the catastrophe by going net negative CO2.

1. Survive the breakdown sustainably.  That means food, population and infrastructure.

2. The ability to continue to advance our technology and improve our situation to accommodate a larger population over time.  Including the ability to make the machines that make the machines. Microprocessors come to mind as they are ultra specialised and have taken us 100 years and tens of thousands of scientists to get where we are.

3. The ability to teach the next generation to the point that they are able to move forward and not just stand still.

There was a point, around the 1950s where we could have done this, the main issue being the library of knowledge.

Today we have a larger library of knowledge, more easily retained, than ever before.  But the barrier to replicating it requires the resources of 1/4 of the planet.

The engineering of a post AGW society that would not revert, slowly, to the 18th century, is not for the faint hearted.

[sidd]

America's Finest News Source: New US plan for Climate

"the most ambitious effort ever to tackle climate change on a global level"

"Climate change is a serious threat to American livelihoods"

"As the world’s superpower, we know that it is incumbent on us to lead the way in the effort to fight global warming, and it’s why we will stop at nothing"

"the plan would likely cause significant issues and economic hardship in emerging economies"

https://www.theonion.com/u-s-unveils-plan-for-rest-of-world-to-become-carbon-ne-1841885532

sidd

[Sigmetnow]

Twitter users offer thoughts on the idea of working remotely in the time of coronavirus... and beyond.

Kelly Vaughn  (@kvlly) 3/1/20, 9:33 PM
Imagine all of these companies asking employees to work remotely for 2+ weeks to prevent the spread of illness only to learn the companies are continuing to function just fine with a remote workforce and everyone is content.
Imagine.
https://twitter.com/kvlly/status/1234305903647690753

< And then they realize they don't have to pay the huge costs of running a campus....and boom, everyone is remote
<< In theory. But in practice, most people don't know how to manage remote teams well. It'll take some work to facilitate moving more of the economy to remote.

>> Do you have kids? Just a small flat? A wife which also wants to work remotely? Or even very rare but actual personal things like autophobia.
<> Prediction- Productivity will drop at a lot of companies, because people don’t know how to work effectively remotely, and in the aftermath C levels and directors will say it was a “failed experiment “ and it’ll set the whole remote movement back at those companies.
<> However, yes, at some companies it is bound to lead to greater remote adoption, or at least a closer look at options. Hopefully it’ll be a net gain...

<>> Network engineers after being told that the VPN servers are going to quadruple their usage next week. ... pic.twitter.com/aI90UN3ahO
<<> It takes a lot of effort & time to build a successful remote company. Asking employees to go remote - without giving them the right tools, training, and process while planting the seed of a culture that supports effective collaboration and open communication - is unrealistic 

[nanning]

Non-technological geoengineering:

By aeroplane/drone: drop suitable plant seeds over the melting permafrost.
Will the seeds germinate and the plants take root?
Are there suitable plants?

Are these stupid questions?

[TerryM]

nanning

Are your seeds to grow harvested crops, or simply to encourage subarctic forest growth?


Few species can survive the long nights and the huge range of temperature that they'd be subjected to.
Perhaps dollars spent lobbying for stronger forest conservation whether in Brazil, Indonesia or Germany would be dollars better spent?


I've been amazed at how far north crops have been grown, but much of the land is simply unsuitable even if AGW removes the lowest temperature problems. In many regions when the trees are killed or removed the land becomes a swamp because the trees no longer suck up the excess water, then allow it to be evaporated from the leaves or needles and blown away by the wind. The swampy conditions flood the roots of those trees trying to make a comeback.
Terry

[nanning]

Thank you for thinking about it Terry.
I meant "simply to encourage subarctic forest growth" but not necessarily trees or forest. Just carbon sequestering plantgrowth.


Terry wrote: "Perhaps dollars spent lobbying for stronger forest conservation whether in Brazil, Indonesia or Germany would be dollars better spent?"

Do you agree that it's insane that we need to give money to fellow humans so that they please stop cutting down the rainforests?
And we call that 'conservation'...
I am against violence but perhaps in this case we should simply shoot them down to save the last biodiversity hotspots and terrestrial carbon sinks.
In stead of further destroying the already ravaged middle eastern Asia with another 'peace mission', our military should focus on the clear and present danger in the Amazon, Congo etc.   Humanity's long term survival is at stake.

[blumenkraft]

By aeroplane/drone: drop suitable plant seeds over the melting permafrost.

Depending of climate and fauna, it takes like 100-300 years for a forest to grow to a sustainable state.

By spreading seed, it might take 95-295 years, but without the guarantee that the outcome will be as sustainable. Humans are not as good at selecting the right sorts of trees.

[nanning]

blumenkraft, I don't mean growing a forest or trees. Just hardy plants to sequester carbon.

[kassy]

Plants are really bad for ice albedo so you do not want to do that.

[blumenkraft]

Well, bushes are not capable of sequester carbon in a meaningful manner. We need to have trees for this task. A lot of them and we need to let them grow. Only many decades later you'll have the effect you are looking for because in these regions (where permafrost is thawing), trees are growing very very slowly.

[Iain]

“we should simply shoot them down”

Steady on there nanning, I assume you meant that figuratively?

While you are taking aim, they might take the opportunity to point out that the UK used to be 97% forest, cleared for farming to increase population and for pit props for coal mines to feed the machines to increase productivity and allow the further development of technology including superior weapons  (e.g. Lee Enfield) to dominate and prevail over others and source raw materials at the lowest cost to make enormous profits, the surplus of which was used to educate the population and further increase productivity to a level so high that the surplus now pays for free healthcare and social security for all, Police & Judiciary largely free of corruption, Roads, housing… ….

So we are in the lap of luxury in comparison.

Still aiming your rifle?

[nanning]

Note: I am not taking any 'aim' and I very much dislike fire arms.

Iain, the complete quote is:
"perhaps in this case we should simply shoot them down to save the last biodiversity hotspots and terrestrial carbon sinks."

The 'case' here is the second part of my quote. That is an extremely important part.

Was there an earlier case for extinction rebellion?
You know what civilisation collapse and human extinction mean. Impossible you say?

[Iain]

Full quote, I was picking up on the underlined. The Military will certainly have firearms:

Do you agree that it's insane that we need to give money to fellow humans so that they please stop cutting down the rainforests?
And we call that 'conservation'...
I am against violence but perhaps in this case we should simply shoot them down to save the last biodiversity hotspots and terrestrial carbon sinks.
In stead of further destroying the already ravaged middle eastern Asia with another 'peace mission', our military should focus on the clear and present danger in the Amazon, Congo etc.   Humanity's long term survival is at stake.

[Iain]

I think this is a persuasion game rather than by force

If the populus is aware of climate change and it's consequences than they will accept measures such as taxing carbon and supporting alternatives

If not they will just vote for the other party.

I also think the extinction of humans, even if another big rock hits the planet, is extremely unlikely. We have too many advantages - opposable thumb, tools, complex speech, writing, accumulated knowledge...

[nanning]

I am principally against violence. It has a high chance of backfiring and is extremely low morality behaviour.
Will I use violence against a violent attacker to defend my life? Yes. I'll do my best not to kill him/her. I don't have weapons apart from my well-maintained long fingernails.

Is saving the human race and all biodiversity and ecosystems not worth fighting for as if defending your life? Does there come a time when if nothing gets done, it is too late? Is it already too late?
Will justification for the violence against rainforest destroyers come? Is it already justified?
the above is meant as philosophical contemplation and not serious.

I think this is a persuasion game rather than by force

It is not a game and persuasion has clearly not worked. Nothing is happening, fossil fuel investments and exploration continues and our emissions keep on growing year on year.
That's why I suggested deadly force. Of course it wasn't serious because it would be like declaring war on the U.S.A. and most of the western world. They protect the evil corporations.

If the populus is aware of climate change and it's consequences than they will accept measures such as taxing carbon and supporting alternatives

- Taxing carbon?

When? James Hansen proposed it. Bill Clinton proposed it. Is it a fast enough effect? Is it continuing BAU? Continuing uncontrolled markets and further growth?


- Supporting alternatives?

My alternative is not being considered and it is extremely cheap:
Use less of everything; live frugal; de-growth.
This alternative is not being considered because it goes directly against the all-destroying economic/financial growth dogma. The dogma/box from which people cannot think outside of. Another 'bubble'.

If not they will just vote for the other party.

The general populace will not vote for the best long term policies but for their personal short term advantages.


In my interpretation, your last sentence boils down to: We have technology so we will survive.
Please be aware that only an extremely small part of humans has the capacity to make new technology. The majority just uses the stuff and can't understand it or repair it.

When civilisation has collapsed, modern tech is not working (without electricity) and all old technology is lost in the past 100 years. Good luck with surviving in completely degraded living nature/ecosystems when looking for food whilst severe weather from AGW will give much uncertainty and anxiety (no more news and satelite information from the Internet, can you imagine?).
Insectageddon alone should make you scared and make you pause to start thinking deep and long. There are a plethora of simultaneous interacting other *-ageddons.

What would you do without electricity? Remember that gas, phones and internet won't work either. Try to think that scenario through a couple of months.
The challenge in my understanding is to NOT use technology if not absolutely necessary and then use the lowest tech that can do the job.

Human's powerful fantasies coupled with technology are its Achilles' heel because it gives it supposed supremacy over other lifeforms. And that is the beginning of the end: Total destruction. That is where we are now.

[Iain]

Note the customers can defeat the “evil corporations” in a week, just stop buying. However, they make things people want to buy.

I think it boils down to : If your solution is frugal living, how would you persuade others to adopt it?

If they can’t be persuaded, Another way forward is needed:

Carbon is taxed in the UK e.g. around 60% on petrol, grants and tax breaks for  EVs, support to get renewables started, now going on it’s own.

I’m not as pessimistic as you that there will be a collapse. I see an acceleration of the transition already happening, because of a big motivator – Renewable energy is cheaper. My wee bit hill and glen is on course for net 100% Renewable electricity this year – 2020
As it happens, I’ll be OK in a collapse, I have a fusion powered generators.
PV and wind turbines : )

Energy is the easy one, The environment is harder.

[nanning]

Our house is on fire.

"If your solution is frugal living putting the fire out, how would you persuade others to adopt it?"

[wili]

Well put, nanning.

Our house is on fire, and anything else we plan to do about it won't make much of a difference if we continue to pour gasoline (literally!) on the flames (= consumption).

That it is difficult to achieve does not mean that it is not a moral imperative to do so.

Of course, the recession that is crashing down around us right now, along with the corona virus quarantines, etc, will put a bit of a damper on consumption for the short term.

Why crashes in fictional stock markets can bring about more curtailment of consumption than concern about the very non-fictional destruction of the living world and its support systems is beyond me

[Iain]

Make non FF energy cheaper than the FF alternative.

It already is.

[blumenkraft]

Maybe not today, Iain... 

[Iain]

Point taken : )

For petrol and diesel in the UK there is a duty (fixed amount tax at 58p/litre) as well as VAT (20% of selling price) so the drop in the price of the crude makes only a modest difference.

[kassy]

An example of how not to do it:

RHI inquiry: Farmers ‘gamed the system’ under Britain’s £23bn green heat scheme


Farmers across Britain, like their Northern Irish counterparts, were being paid to heat potato sheds, warm up barns with open doorways, and install more boilers than necessary under Westminster’s version of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).

Civil servants and ministers in Northern Ireland were roundly criticised for their running of Stormont’s version of the scheme, which saw costs spiral to more than £700m and the Stormont power sharing agreement to topple.

Experts say there were major flaws in the way the British RHI was designed and implemented – flaws which cost taxpayers money and slowed the rollout of green heating technologies.

Gaming the system
Under the Westminster scheme farmers and landowners exploited loopholes to maximise subsidy payouts, installing boilers in draughty sheds and outhouses. Experts say biomass tariff levels were initially set too high and it took the Government too long to cut subsidy payouts.

...

Chicken sheds, for example, often boasted one boiler per hen house, despite the fact it would have been more efficient to install one larger boiler for an entire farm.

...

Meanwhile, there is doubt over whether the RHI delivered on its carbon cutting goals. Many environmentalists dispute biomass’ status as a carbon neutral fuel, arguing the carbon released immediately from burning wood takes decades to be cancelled out by the planting of new trees.

Critics say the dominance of biomass crowded out greener technologies like heat pumps. Officials had hoped the heat pump market would flourish under the RHI, eventually preparing the industry for a nationwide rollout as a replacement to gas boilers.

https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/rhi-inquiry-farmers-gamed-system-britain-green-heat-scheme-2450521

We are going to get a lot of extra climate policy so it is really important we get systems that actually help. We need to use absolute numbers. No selling compensation plots of forest multiple times, only proven reductions can count etc.

I am really not familiar with the law above but if they wanted more heat pumps they could have made the law/subsidy for heat pumps?

[NeilT]

Wherever there is government money, there is someone lining their pockets with it.

Take, for instance, UK insulation grants.  Attic insulation was specced at three layers of 100mm insulation.  Or 12 inches (one foot) to theose who live in Imperial measurements.

What the people who worked out the required insulation depth did not think about was that UK attic joists are 8 inches (200mm) generally.

So what happened? The companies fitted insulation to the top of the joists, kept the 3rd layer in the warehouse, pocketed the change and sold the extra off at £15 a roll on eBay.

It is all well and good saying "the government should have thought of everything", but they are never going to.  What it does need is overbearing monitoring and review and direct change and action when the abuse is found.

[kassy]

Lets call it a bit off background...

Climate change: The rich are to blame, international study finds

The rich are primarily to blame for the global climate crisis, a study by the University of Leeds of 86 countries claims.

The wealthiest tenth of people consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom ten, wherever they live.

The gulf is greatest in transport, where the top tenth gobble 187 times more fuel than the poorest tenth, the research says.

That’s because people on the lowest incomes can rarely afford to drive.

The researchers found that the richer people became, the more energy they typically use. And it was replicated across all countries.

...

The researchers combined European Union and World Bank data to calculate how different income groups spend their money. They say it’s the first study of its kind.

It found that in transport the richest tenth of consumers use more than half the energy. This reflects previous research showing that 15% of UK travellers take 70% of all flights.

The ultra-rich fly by far furthest, while 57% of the UK population does not fly abroad at all.

...

Rich Brits

The research also examined the relative energy consumption of one nation against another.

It shows that a fifth of UK citizens are in the top 5% of global energy consumers, along with 40% of German citizens, and Luxembourg’s entire population.

Only 2% of Chinese people are in the top global 5% of users, and just 0.02% of people in India.

Even the poorest fifth of Britons consumes over five times as much energy per person as the bottom billion in India.

...


But Professor Kevin Anderson, from the Tyndall Centre in Manchester, who was not involved in the study, told BBC News: “This study tells relatively wealthy people like us what we don’t want to hear.

“The climate issue is framed by us high emitters – the politicians, business people, journalists, academics. When we say there’s no appetite for higher taxes on flying, we mean WE don’t want to fly less

“The same is true about our cars and the size our homes. We have convinced ourselves that our lives are normal, yet the numbers tell a very different story,” he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51906530

[NeilT]

Well we "rich" nations are reducing our consumption.  Whilst the "poor" nations produce more people, who also consume more.

Roll forward 20 years and see where we stand.

[kassy]

Yes now calculate how many people they need to produce to catch up.

We in the rich nations have nearly used up the whole carbon budget already. We profited from the industrial age most.

Also better developed countries have a lower population growth and the very reasons most of these countries are so underdeveloped is their history. Having been colonies for a long time and after that the exploitation does not end either (read Moneyland f.e.).


 

[rboyd]

Yes now calculate how many people they need to produce to catch up.

We in the rich nations have nearly used up the whole carbon budget already. We profited from the industrial age most.

Also better developed countries have a lower population growth and the very reasons most of these countries are so underdeveloped is their history. Having been colonies for a long time and after that the exploitation does not end either (read Moneyland f.e.).

The core problem at the global level. The rich wont make GHG room for the poorer nations to brcome richer. The resuly is an impasse where emissions just keep going up.

[interstitial]

<snip>

The core problem at the global level. The rich wont make GHG room for the poorer nations to brcome richer. The resuly is an impasse where emissions just keep going up.

There was never any room for anyone to pollute more. Original target for Paris accord was one degree. Renewables are cheaper now anyway why would they want to build more expensive ff infrastructure. FF once were the path to riches but that is no longer the case now they are a dead end.

[nanning]

Thank you for all your very interesting and high quality posts and opinions kassy.

[Iain]

All on #89 aligns with my thinking

We can do it, we have the technology...

Steve Austin and other Westeners really can become net zero CO2 on energy, cheaply.

(Scotland on track for net 100% renewable / low carbon electricity this year)

Large EV batteries n times that required for a daily commute ends the intermitency problem.