Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
1–10 of 118 posts
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#2In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration.
From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyards again, and reduce the amount of monocrop farming and all the global transportation and chemical fertilizer production that goes along with it.
1: “The Carbon Farming Solution”
2: Victory Gardens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#3In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…
Considering how much arable land is used to produce animal feed (about 50%) there is quite a lot of room for improvement, especially considering how inefficient meat production is.
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#4In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…
Victory Gardens worked because they had a patriotic, pro-war, pro-America appeal. Sort of a "Keep America Great" thing.
I suspect there's zero chance that this type of sentiment could be harnessed for "Hey, let's offset carbon emissions [of whom the #1 emitter is our chief political rival, China]"
In fact that's the biggest problem with broadening support for decarbonization in general. The largest share of global carbon is emitted by countries like India and China, which billionaires exported thousands of American jobs to, profiting from looser environmental regulations in the process. Of course the average American outside of the SF ivory tower is skeptical about changing his or her own habits to clean up that mess!
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#5I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants.
This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission.
Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it does not seem we will without major technological leap. In addition, in large parts of the World they just does not make sense as there is not enough sunny/windy days.
For nuclear energy we have everything - knowledge, infrastructure, experience.
What makes people so blind to the simple solution of the problem we have now? Eco people fought vigorously nuclear energy for years and now we are where we are. Time to say that they've made a costly mistake and move on.
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#6I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…
not Solar, we have battery ways of storing it now..my local high school uses it in fact.
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#7I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…
I too am pro-nuclear, but isn't it too late for traditional nuclear to save us? We need solutions very quickly and the typical nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build.
In my uneducated opinion, the only way I see nuclear working is if there are small modular reactors that are produced quickly in a factory assembly line.
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#8I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…
The obvious answer is public distrust of nuclear. There have been several high profile nuclear disasters, not to mention the universal distaste for living anywhere near a nuclear waste dump. Plus reactors are very expensive to build, and they have to compete with cheap fossil fuels for energy cost. In 30 years we haven't been able to tie fossil fuel companies to the carbon cost of their product.
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#9In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…
I'm aware you said its still a ways off but "green bridges"[1] as well as other persistent pests could become a big issue especially in a broadacre monoculture operation (which is what agriculture generally is if we're talking staple crops). Also from experience with dealing with perennial pastures removing them should the disease get out of control would be a nightmare when the root systems are established. Victory Gardens definitley sound like a good idea though. Just my 2c
1: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/grains/control-green-bridge-pest...
Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
#10In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…
I think for agriculture the way to go is syntropic agriculture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE I've seen people implementing this very successfully, I've been doing it myself for around 4 years now, and its very impressive how much carbon the soil stores after a few years on this practice.