Live data from Hacker News

The Ocean is Broken (2013)

theherald.com.au

211–220 of 246 posts

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#211
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no way in which you can eat food and not have some negative impact. Actually, no, there are, collectively . Humans have existed, give or take, for a couple million years. In modern form for about 80,000, and with present levels of cognition, for around 10,000. For most of that time, humans most certainly did affect local ecosystems (and sometimes in significant fashion), but had relatively little impact on t…

what's desperately required is to reduce total population levels. By a lot. Got any ideas on how to do that?

- China has a plan that seems to work..

- Giving women the chance to use contraceptives and making sure their kids survive (else: shotgun approach to procreation) has some impact as well.

- It also seems that population growth goes down with wealth (though then individuals use more ressources).

All of these approaches need at least a generation though. I cannot see an ethical way to change that.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the inventor has come out as saying that they're a bad idea and that he wouldn't do it now; he designed it as a boutique/niche product, never anticipating the problem of waste at scale. I've had several people offer them to me as gifts in the last few years and although they do make a delicious cup of coffee and I love coffee, I just can't stomach the waste involved. Not just the cups and so on - reusable contai…

Yeah.. the weird thing is somehow this process is considered odd, or something fit for a "dirty hippie" 1) Grab a jar with a lid. 2) Get the store down the street to measure the weight of the empty jar 3) Fill the jar with roasted coffee beans, note the new weight, and pay for the difference 4) grind the beans and make some coffee in a French press. Is this so crazy? Of course, the coffee is hopefully shade grown (mo…

>Why is something as simple as "using a glass jar or bottle more than once" so crazy?

Most people don't realize:

"Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"

That is actually the order they are supposed to go in!! First you try to reduce. Then, you try to REUSE what you have. When you can't THEN you recycle. People tend to skip the first two steps or don't realize there is an order to them.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#213
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your alternative? Nuclear. I notice you don't mention this at all, unless you mean to include it in "electrical generation", in which case your statement that technological civilization is not sustainable strikes me as far too pessimistic. Even if you only consider nuclear to be a temporary energy source while we develop high-grade solar energy, it still can get us a lot further than our remaining fossil fuels…

Keep in mind that uranium is also a limited resource. Might last us another thousand years,but it will run out eventually. Unless by nuclear you meant fusion power,but we are not quite there yet.

In a thousand years we'll have fusion power--in fact we'll probably have better sources of energy than fusion (like the ability to tap solar energy much more efficiently than we do now).

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#214
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your alternative? Nuclear. I notice you don't mention this at all, unless you mean to include it in "electrical generation", in which case your statement that technological civilization is not sustainable strikes me as far too pessimistic. Even if you only consider nuclear to be a temporary energy source while we develop high-grade solar energy, it still can get us a lot further than our remaining fossil fuels…

Nuclear Great! Fission or fusion? What fuel cycle? What reactor design? Is it proven? Experimentally? Prototype? In production? What's the fuel availability look like? How about issues with proliferation, waste disposal, plant accidents, and plant decommissioning? I didn't spell out my alternatives in detail, but yes, nuclear is an option for electrical generation (I suppose you could also run a power loom or stampin…

We have plenty of existing nuclear plants that can provide cleaner energy than we get from fossil fuels. Per unit of energy consumed, even the existing nuclear plants are much safer than fossil fuels even when you count the harm from Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Uranium/plutonium LWR fission has a pretty critical fuel shortage.

These numbers are way too pessimistic; they are produced by the same sort of calculations that said we would run out of oil by the turn of the millennium, because they didn't take into account the continuing discovery of new reserves. They also don't take into account breeders; if there are concerns about weapons-grade material being created, you guard the plant (the material doesn't need to be transported, it just stays at the reactor until it's used).

With nuclear fission there's an additional consideration as well: the cost of the fuel is only a percent or so of the total cost per kW-hr, whereas for fossil fuels it's something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the total cost per kW-hr. So it doesn't take a lot of increase in the price of oil to make fossil fuel electricity much more expensive; but even a large increase in the price of uranium doesn't increase the price of nuclear-generated electricity very much. And there's a lot of uranium that could be extracted at, say, 10 times the current unit cost; by some estimates we can extract uranium from seawater at that cost, which increases the time horizon to thousands of years if not more.

I see energy needs coming to a head Real Soon Now -- rather less than 25 years, at any rate.

Same comment as above: I think this is way too pessimistic.

none of these technologies, nor wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, or tidal power give you liquid fuels

Two comments here: first, improved battery technology; second, algae fuel.

that's how a lot of people live: combing through trash heaps and swimming in shit

We already have the technology to fix this; the reasons so many people don't (yet) benefit from that are political, not technical.

I don't see gradients (flows or stocks) we can tap with the ease and usefulness we have for the past 250 years.

Again, way too pessimistic. It's not that I don't see obstacles, but once again, the main ones I see are political, not technical.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#215

I sometimes wonder if shopping for groceries is as frustrating for most people. I like Nutella, but when I see Palm Oil as the second ingredient I picture dead orangutans. I like beef, but I sympathize for a fellow mammal and think of the enormous amounts of diverted water and fertilizer runoff that goes in to producing feed. I enjoy fish, but thinking of this makes me sick to my stomach. I enjoy many beverages that…

I can't think of anything at the grocery store that doesn't have some sort of negative implication. Heck, just driving to the grocery store burns fuel and supports the automotive industry. Biking to the grocery store burns food (of which all food has negative implications) and supports the bicycle industry. You can work yourself into knots over it; there is no way in which you can eat food and not have some negative…

> just existing costs the world "100 externality". If living to the fullest costs "110 externality"...

110, OK, here your point makes some sense. But what about when living to the fullest costs "850+ externality"? (e.g. compare mean oil consumption per capita US vs China).

If we're going to use this argument, at least let's be honest about it: we are not at 110, and our motility is not the problem.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#216
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair point. Meat contributes far more of a negative impact on the environment than plants though. Consider the fact that it takes 8 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of beef[1]. That's absurdly wasteful in the quantities of beef that most American's eat weekly. [1]: http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?articl...

A good portion of that excess weight is caused by parts of the plant that we, as humans, can not digest either (cell walls, exceptionally long carbohydrate chains, etc). So while inefficient, us humans wouldn't get much more nutrition out of those 8 lbs of grains. Also, it's worth remembering that we get a lot more than just meat out of your average cow. We get medicines, leather, meat, fertilizer, gelatin, and pet f…

You aren't looking at the whole picture.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/we-could-be-...

>It takes 100 times more water (up to 2,500 gallons) to produce a pound of grain-fed beef than it does to produce a pound of wheat. We’re also running out of land: somewhere around 45 percent of the world’s land is either directly or indirectly involved in livestock production

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greenhouse-ham...

>the meat [in our diets] cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.htm...

>Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

>Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#217

I just spent three weeks at sea in the Andaman, and... it's grim out there. The sea is virtually lifeless. Small pockets of sea-life survive on reefs in national parks, but as you look up from the water, you see trawlers scattered across the horizon - soundly within the nautical boundaries of the national parks. They operate day and night, as the article says, and the size and brightness of the arrays of floodlights…

do you know of any online resources where i can read more about this yacht talk? i scuba dive quite a bit, and as a human, this is relevant to my interests.

I went to the barrier reef in 2001, and already saw damage there. I thought, "This is a hobby for part of my lifetime, but probably not for any meaningful part of my kids"

If we can get our act together, life in the ocean will respond. I'm just not sure we can do that.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#218
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear Great! Fission or fusion? What fuel cycle? What reactor design? Is it proven? Experimentally? Prototype? In production? What's the fuel availability look like? How about issues with proliferation, waste disposal, plant accidents, and plant decommissioning? I didn't spell out my alternatives in detail, but yes, nuclear is an option for electrical generation (I suppose you could also run a power loom or stampin…

We have plenty of existing nuclear plants that can provide cleaner energy than we get from fossil fuels. Per unit of energy consumed, even the existing nuclear plants are much safer than fossil fuels even when you count the harm from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Uranium/plutonium LWR fission has a pretty critical fuel shortage. These numbers are way too pessimistic; they are produced by the same sort of calculations that…

Uranium ... These numbers are way too pessimistic

Then cite your sources. The Wikipedia article I linked cites this MIT study for ~100 years supply at present rates of consumption: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009....

I think this is way too pessimistic.

For liquid fuels I'd strongly suggest you check recent trends: BP's annual statistical review, CapEx spends and yields from Shell, BP, and Exxon, and projections from the EIA and IEA -- this isn't the Peaker fringe, by a long shot.

algae fuel

Tell me how much algae fuel you want and what conversion pathways (biodiesel, ethanol, synthesis, solids) you're referring to. Then give me acreages and water estimates. Oh, and how you're going to fertilize all that goop and keep pests out of it.

You've done some hand waves but I've seen no sources. Who or what do you rely on for information, estimates, models, or whatever else serves as the foundation for your optimism?

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#219
post #19

This is a great story--unfortunately, it's just that, a story. It's not surprising to me that there are people recklessly over-fishing, but without any numbers, no government can take action to stop it. On a tangential point, earth-life has survived five mass-extinction events, and a future one is almost certain. This doesn't negate the tragic, useless destruction of life, but the earth itself--and some form of life…

Plenty of data...

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ExternalLinks/Pages/estim...

Reviewing the situation in 54 countries and on the high seas, we estimate that lower and upper estimates of the total value of current illegal and unreported fishing losses worldwide are between $10 bn and $23.5 bn annually, representing between 11 and 26 million tonnes. Our data are of sufficient resolution to detect regional differences in the level and trend of illegal fishing over the last 20 years, and we can report a significant correlation between governance and the level of illegal fishing. Developing countries are most at risk from illegal fishing, with total estimated catches in West Africa being 40% higher than reported catches. Such levels of exploitation severely hamper the sustainable management of marine ecosystems. Although there have been some successes in reducing the level of illegal fishing in some areas, these developments are relatively recent and follow growing international focus on the problem

http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceans-fish-fishing-i...

- Fishless oceans could be a very real possibility by 2050.

- According to the UN, 30 percent of fish stocks have already collapsed.

- One billion people, mostly from poorer countries, rely on fish as their main animal protein source.

The world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 without fundamental restructuring of the fishing industry, UN experts said Monday.

"If the various estimates we have received... come true, then we are in the situation where 40 years down the line we, effectively, are out of fish," Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN Environment Program's green economy initiative, told journalists in New York.

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/oceans-without-fi...

This estimate is similar to other recent estimates of the impact of overfishing, but really gains new resonance in light of the recent politicized CITES meeting which, due entirely to political pressure from Japan and other nations prioritizing short term financial gain over all else, failed to ban trade in the critically endangered bluefin tuna. At current catch rates (four times the official quota due to illegal, often Mafia-backed, fishing) Atlantic bluefin will be extinct in less than three years.

Overall, the report says that 30% of world fish stocks have already collapsed--meaning yielding less than 10% of their historic potential--with only 25% having healthy numbers of fish, and these are only the less desirable species.

As to one major factor contributing to the decline, the report says government subsidies encouraging bigger fleets is to blame. Annually $27 billion in subsidies, mainly from wealthy countries, are doled out. That compares to the entire value of fish caught being $85 billion.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-...

Last year, global fish consumption hit a record high of 17 kg (37 pounds) per person per year, even though global fish stocks have continued to decline. On average, people eat four times as much fish now than they did in 1950.

Around 85% of global fish stocks are over-exploited, depleted, fully exploited or in recovery from exploitation. Only this week, a report suggested there may be fewer than 100 cod over the age of 13 years in the North Sea between the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. The figure is still under dispute, but it’s a worrying sign that we could be losing fish old enough to create offspring that replenish populations.

Large areas of seabed in the Mediterranean and North Sea now resemble a desert – the seas have been expunged of fish using increasingly efficient methods such as bottom trawling. And now, these heavily subsidised industrial fleets are cleaning up tropical oceans too. One-quarter of the EU catch is now made outside European waters, much of it in previously rich West African seas, where each trawler can scoop up hundreds of thousands of kilos of fish in a day. All West African fisheries are now over-exploited, coastal fisheries have declined 50% in the past 30 years, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/ipso-2011-ocean-rep...

If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.

The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.

“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."

The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#220
post #60

If the ocean is really broken and all the fish are gone, how come the amount of fish caught has not declined dramatically? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_fish_production This story is anecdotal. Actual data would be better.

Here's some data

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7190706

Post reply on HN