Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007) • Hacker News Board

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#21

Post by adrianN » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

OneGuy123 wrote: post #12

jjoonathan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point you have to choose what to do , and that's always going to involve unknowns. For instance: 40 years ago, the USA could have chosen to continue building out nuclear power. Not accelerate the deployment, mind you, merely continue the roll out apace. If we had done so, we would be completely free of coal and gas today . Not maybe 30 years from now if we hustle, today . One could rage all day against the ri…

Potentially destroying the ocean vs spending money to reduce carbon emissions is a no brainer, and it's the job of these scientists to say that out loudly rather than to push for these extreme solution which can produce a blackswan disaster of epic proportions that even money won't be able to save. The arrogance of scientists to "try out my method instead" is at fault since if these scientists were to actually want t…

Scientists have been pushing on politicians to lower emissions at least since the early nineties. There is no discernible dent in the rise of CO2 levels. There is not even a big dent in the rise of emissions: Not even the second derivative is pointing in the right direction.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#22

Post by toiletfuneral » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #16

Our species has repeatedly been really clear: we're not going to do anything about climate change. Stop pretending lack of interest is lack of options.

The state has forfeited responsibility for the well being of citizens in its devotion to corporate interests, and capital doesn't give a shit because it will always be more profitable to build enclaves for the rich than limit any production.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#23

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #16

Our species has repeatedly been really clear: we're not going to do anything about climate change. Stop pretending lack of interest is lack of options.

Eurpoe + common wealth + USA + Canada has seen declining CO2 per capita since ~2002, many of them earlier than that.

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?tab=chart&xScale=li...

Just because it's not enough and it's been slow doesn't mean it's nothing.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#24

Post by wahern » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #19

GOONIMMUNE wrote: post #2

It seems more and more likely to me that the general approach to climate change is going to simply be adaptation. We'll have to figure out ways to live and grow food in a hotter world that has more dramatic weather events. I think this will be expensive and could tragically lead to the deaths of many people who cannot afford to live in this new world. If a large country with many poor people are faced with this situa…

If you're interested in adaptation in food systems I really enjoyed The Fate of Food: What We'll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World . I'm currently working through Whole Earth Discipline which calls for work on three different fronts: Reduction (of emission), Adaptation (to unavoidable change) and Geoengineering (to prevent the worst of it). Without significant government ran/funded geoengineering projects we'll…

> The Fate of Food: What We'll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World.

One of my favorite quotes in this vein is "We are eating bait and moving on to jellyfish and plankton", referring to overfishing and climate change changing Americans' seafood diet. From http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/30/local/la-me-ocean30j....

Of course, many cultures have always eaten and enjoyed jellyfish, but that's beside the point. The ethnocentrism is what sells it to the conservative American audience.[1] ;)

[1] Well, older conservative audience. Many younger conservatives grew up only eating trash fish, at best.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#25

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #13

24gttghh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to say most of the plains are used for growing corn and not grazing land but I was wrong, partly. Its mostly cropland in the Northern/Central plains, but mostly grazing/pasture land otherwise. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses/maps-...

Worth noting also is that major crops grown there, like corn and soybeans, are primarily used as animal feed [1][2]. A decent chunk of corn is also used for ethanol additives to gasoline. The best thing we can do for the environment by far is reduce consumption of beef and dairy products. [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feedgra... [2] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexist…

If you are interested in the environmental impact of what you eat this resource is great:

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#you...

Note that you don't need to go vegan or vegetarian to reduce the impact, e.g. replacing any beef with pork or chicken is huge! It's way more important than cutting out milk.

If you primarily eat ground beef consider trying impossible, there are good vegan butters at this point and some okay attempts at cheese. All of those reduce the impact.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#26

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #24

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're interested in adaptation in food systems I really enjoyed The Fate of Food: What We'll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World . I'm currently working through Whole Earth Discipline which calls for work on three different fronts: Reduction (of emission), Adaptation (to unavoidable change) and Geoengineering (to prevent the worst of it). Without significant government ran/funded geoengineering projects we'll…

> The Fate of Food: What We'll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World. One of my favorite quotes in this vein is "We are eating bait and moving on to jellyfish and plankton", referring to overfishing and climate change changing Americans' seafood diet. From http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/30/local/la-me-ocean30j... . Of course, many cultures have always eaten and enjoyed jellyfish, but that's beside the point. T…

> Of course, many cultures have always eaten and enjoyed jellyfish

From my brief search it looks like most edible jellyfish is sold heavily salted. Like higher than average beef jerky salty.

You'd need to change preservation techniques to really use jellyfish a lot of your daily protein intake.

Jellyfish: > Protein 6.67 g > Sodium, Na 2081 mg

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/396504/n...

> Beef jerky > Protein 33.2 g > Sodium, Na 2081 mg

> Those headed for the table have their tentacles cut off; it is their upper dome, dried and preserved in salt, which is used in cooking. These jellyfish arrive at the restaurant in stacks of parchment paper, doused in rock salt

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2006/jan/27/foodand...

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#27

Post by LatteLazy » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #23

LatteLazy wrote: post #16

Our species has repeatedly been really clear: we're not going to do anything about climate change. Stop pretending lack of interest is lack of options.

Eurpoe + common wealth + USA + Canada has seen declining CO2 per capita since ~2002, many of them earlier than that. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?tab=chart&xScale=li... Just because it's not enough and it's been slow doesn't mean it's nothing.

A few counter points:

* rate of World co2 emissions continue to rise.

* we don't just need rate to stop rising, we need rate to fall to pretty much zero.

* and if we could magically get rates to stop rising, and fall to zero, tomorrow, we'd still have about 2 degrees of warming from all the emissions already up there.

People have completely missed the point: the rate of growth of rate of emissions might have improved in some places. But the problem is total amount emitted.

Oh, and you don't avert climate change with per capita cuts if population keeps growing. Which it will, till about 2100.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#28

Post by staplers » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #13

24gttghh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to say most of the plains are used for growing corn and not grazing land but I was wrong, partly. Its mostly cropland in the Northern/Central plains, but mostly grazing/pasture land otherwise. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses/maps-...

Worth noting also is that major crops grown there, like corn and soybeans, are primarily used as animal feed [1][2]. A decent chunk of corn is also used for ethanol additives to gasoline. The best thing we can do for the environment by far is reduce consumption of beef and dairy products. [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feedgra... [2] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexist…

  The best thing we can do for the environment by far is reduce consumption of beef and dairy products.

This is very false.

Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#29

Post by api » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #23

LatteLazy wrote: post #16

Our species has repeatedly been really clear: we're not going to do anything about climate change. Stop pretending lack of interest is lack of options.

Eurpoe + common wealth + USA + Canada has seen declining CO2 per capita since ~2002, many of them earlier than that. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?tab=chart&xScale=li... Just because it's not enough and it's been slow doesn't mean it's nothing.

That has been achieved largely by outsourcing heavy manufacturing that requires a lot of cheap energy to China.

China one of the highest carbon emission rates per GDP of any large developed nation, but China can't exclusively be blamed for that. China is the "workshop of the world." It's where other countries send their polluting industries to get that pollution out of sight and out of mind, as well as to exploit cheaper labor and a high concentration of manufacturing expertise. China is blasting out CO2 to manufacture products that are exported back to the US, Canada, Europe, and so on, making the latter's carbon emissions look better than they actually are.

I'm not saying China couldn't be cleaner, just that the economy is global and so is this problem. If China switched to cleaner but more expensive energy and took other steps to reduce CO2 emissions, their costs would go up. This would just push manufacturing to whatever countries are willing to ignore climate change.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#30

Post by api » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #27

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eurpoe + common wealth + USA + Canada has seen declining CO2 per capita since ~2002, many of them earlier than that. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?tab=chart&xScale=li... Just because it's not enough and it's been slow doesn't mean it's nothing.

A few counter points: * rate of World co2 emissions continue to rise. * we don't just need rate to stop rising, we need rate to fall to pretty much zero. * and if we could magically get rates to stop rising, and fall to zero, tomorrow, we'd still have about 2 degrees of warming from all the emissions already up there. People have completely missed the point: the rate of growth of rate of emissions might have improved…

There is no chance of stopping this. The challenge is massive even if there were political will, and there is no political will. We need to plan for climate change as a near certainty and start preparing now.