The Uninhabitable Earth • Hacker News Board

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#201

Post by vram22 » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #180

vram22 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re. reversing desertification: Came across this technique - imprinting - recently - seems interesting: Imprinting soils – Creating Instant Edge for Large Scale Revegetation of Barren Lands: 1) https://permaculturenews.org/2012/09/19/imprinting-soils-cre... Excerpt: [ Imprinting is a method for instantly adding what permaculturists call the ‘edge effect’ to soils, utilising a heavy and dimpled/wedged roller to ‘imprin…

Woah, that's very interesting. It's pretty well-established that analyzing land based on gross regional characteristics is a disaster for reasons like these - the relevance of a given patch of soil to erosion resistance or vegetation support can change massively over miles or even yards. Sometimes protecting 100 acres of exposed, average land is less useful than protecting a single acre of liminal ground that holds b…

Yes, it does seem so. Also, though I haven't checked the financial aspects, it seems like it could be done at somewhat low cost, and still be effective to some extent - e.g. not only the machine-driven imprinting, but might be possible to do it manually by humans (using some hand-operated tools, like even just spades/shovels, or something a bit more sophisticated). And that could be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on availability and cost of the human labor vs. cost of the imprinting machine (the tractor with an attachment or whatever it is).

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#202

Post by gorkonsine » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

extra88 wrote: post #63

hacknat wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but still own two cars, never take public transport, eat meat daily, live in big houses, and buy buy buy. The car and the "buy, buy, buy" are the only real problems. Cut those two out and the big houses and meat aren't a big deal (or are at least workeable). Probably the biggest thing you could do to help the environment is not buy any kind of mo…

I don't know about all meat but the deforestation for cattle ranching and feed, methane produced by the beasts themselves, and other factors seem to be fairly significant. The much greater energy requirements to light, heat, and cool big houses should not be discounted so easily either.

>The much greater energy requirements to light, heat, and cool big houses should not be discounted so easily either.

Heat and cool, yes. Light, no, not any more. Lighting is really pretty insignificant now thanks to LEDs, and getting constantly better as the older incandescents get replaced.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#203

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #131

latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but still own two cars, never take public transport, eat meat daily, live in big houses, and buy buy buy. Given the evidence of all of recorded history and archaeological evidence, how is the denial of economics any better than climate change denial? We have many, many examples of e…

you can't, in the short term. There are no good long-term solutions that are not going to cause some acute pain in the short term. Deep down everyone knows this, and the increasing viciousness of politics is, under the surface debates, a fight over who is going to have to bear that pain and to what degree.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#204

Post by gorkonsine » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #130

cagenut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy consumption (and therefore carbon emissions) per capita in the west/US comes almost entirely from the feedback loop between single-family-detached housing and the car-or-two it takes to live in that kind of sprawled out lifestyle. Put another way, Transportation and Housing (heating & cooling) are the #1 and #2 sources of carbon emissions for suburban, exurban and rural dwellers. People who simply live in…

Are American cities ready to build enough housing and infrastructure to handle a collective influx of over 120,000,000 Americans currently living in suburbs and rural areas? HA! I wouldn't and actually couldn't (financially) move to a major city as it stands barring a pretty sumptuous raise or downsizing from my 2 BR apartment to a studio. Rents are ridiculous, taxes are higher, air is much more polluted, traffic is…

The problem with American cities is NIMBYism: existing property owners are the ones with control of the zoning and the approval for new construction. So SanFran can't replace its too-small housing with lots of high-density high-rises because the people who own the other land there don't want it.

The fix for this is to move control of zoning and construction permits to the state level.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#205

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #84

latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

This is why I'm so concerned about the trend that SUV sales are outpacing Sedan sales. Whereas sedans used to be the "default" car a decade ago, SUVs are now taking their place [0]. All things being equal, a smaller car (sedan) should get better MPG than a larger car (SUV) [1]. And yet it seems that people's efforts to reduce their environmental footprint is focused on recycling a plastic cup here and there [2]. A ve…

Just to add a little context, people were buying huge cars back in the early years of the century (remember Hummers?). Then rising gas prices, the financial crisis, and Obama's election made that unfashionable. Now many people feel better off economically and are buying the large cars they secretly wanted anyway.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#206

Post by erikpukinskis » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:45 PM UTC

jackmott wrote: post #86

grondilu wrote: post #43

If you feel like watching more hopeful content on the subject, there is Allan Savory's TED talk about how to stop desertification[1], and Freeman Dyson's speech called "heretic thoughts about science and society"[2]. Basically, those speakers suggest climate change is an issue that can be solved with better land management . Soil is extremely good at absorbing Carbon Dioxide. Isn't it why there is so little CO2 in th…

>Soil is extremely good at absorbing Carbon Dioxide. Isn't it why there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04%)? We just need to make sure the process does indeed happen. Nonsense hand waving. Nobody has a coherent plan for how to "just" make that happen. The people who think they have a coherent plan haven't opened up excel or a napkin to do some preliminary math about the scale involved.

Here's a plan:

Hire 1 billion people to do the remediation work. Hire another 100 million people to do the science to figure out what proper remediation work looks like. Hire another 100 million people to design video games that walk the 1 billion workers through the process, and can accommodate differences in IQ, learning style, and work life needs. Then hire an additional 100 million people who will document the workers lives, and create media experiences to fund the effort. The work can also be funded by creating eco-resort experiences, selling food byproducts, etc.

No need for advanced technology, just very detailed instructional games paired with good quality basic tools and 1 billion people worth of labor.

Seems perfectly actionable to me. You just have to start with four people: the worker, the scientist, the game designer, and the media producer, and iterate until it's working well and then infect the global population virally.

I'd agree with you if it was 1950, we'd have a very difficult time of it going through traditional political/social channels. But it's 2017, and with software the problem seems very tractable.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#207

Post by throwanem » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:45 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #39

throwanem wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Move north, I suppose, ahead of the great land rush to come.

Although there might be opportunities for beach-front surf shops on tropical Baffin Island, good luck getting customers when the rest of the world has gone to hell.

Customers aren't often a concern for the subsistence farmer, although I suppose you might sell or barter any surplus - though you may be better advised to share it freely and so build goodwill.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#208

Post by erikpukinskis » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:49 PM UTC

sosodaft wrote: post #118

What we really need is WWII-style, society-wide action on this count--remember the days of Meatless Mondays, saving your cans to make bullets, mailing your binoculars to the Navy. Even if it's confined to the parts of society that actually believe global warming is a serious threat, making pro-climate living a social norm could have a tremendous effect.

How about we just take the step and say that eating beef, in any circumstance, is morally wrong? Even if you can find some beef that you think is ecologically responsible, your are promoting the practice which is perhaps most central to global warming, after driving a large gasoline car.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#209

Post by mac01021 » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 10:54 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #194

dietdrb wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Climate Leadership Council is an organization of Republican Party elders with an extremely solid proposal to immediately reduce carbon emissions through a carbon fee, which is a market-based mechanism to reflect the true cost of carbon at the source. Link to proposal: https://www.clcouncil.org/our-plan/ Link to TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh...

I would have applauded this...a decade ago. The proposal itself is a fine thing, but heralding it as 'the right strategy for our political moment' (1) is asinine. ~1/3 of the population has bought into the idea that climate change is a hoax, and that Tea Party conservative demographic has essentially wrested control of the Republican party from the well-intentioned paternalists that used to run it. Appeals to rationa…

So what, if not this, is the right strategy for our political moment?

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#210

Post by npsimons » Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 11:02 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #68

A few observations: Trying to scare people into behavior does not work very well. The Catholic Church spent centuries threatening people with eternal hell if they had extra-marital sex, and people still had extra-marital sex. Studies have shown that abstinence only sex education results in more teen pregnancies. Thomas Malthus saw an impending famine and begged people to have fewer children. People did not listen. Wh…

> The green revolution is able to feed people, without most people having to do anything different in how they eat.

I feel Norman Borlaug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug) is worth mentioning. As Penn Jillette put it, he's probably saved billions of lives.

We need more Norman Borlaugs, and they need more recognition. This I believe because I agree with you: sure, we could still fix things, but we're not going to. So we better start coming up with ways to handle this. Think of it like creating a mail alias for someone who keeps misspelling an email address. It's a technological solution to a people problem that you can't fix (not easily), only on a much, much bigger scale. We hear people all the time here ask "how can I change the world through X?" or "what should I do with my life?" The answer is simple, but not easy: apply yourself to fixing this mess we've gotten ourself into, because if you don't, your children (or even you) will suffer the consequences.