tl;dr please.
[deleted]
Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
21–30 of 158 posts
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#22tl;dr please.
Just use the TL;DR button of your browser, if it has one.
We're in the AI age after all.
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#23This isn’t true. You can grow - it’s just the seasons are different or offset. In the warmer climates you actually have a longer growing season than say New England. Your local extension office can explain. For example, here is the UFIFAS which is very good https://sfyl.ifas.ufl.edu/media/sfylifasufledu/orange/hort-r...
The author is not talking about vegetables but various non-food plants that require cool overnight temperatures.
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#24This is why it’s important for us to develop C4 alternatives to existing C3-using food staples. https://c4rice.com/the-science/engineering-photosynthesis-wh...
Not that you’re wrong, but I find it darkly amusing that rather than than cut back on all the crazy things we’re doing, it would make sense to instead bio engineer a bunch of plant life to deal instead.
That's a good practice anyway. Focusing on the capability to flexibly adapt our agriculture ensures long-term survivability. Focusing on hyper-efficient extraction that assumes a steady state gives a high-output but incredibly fragile agricultural industry. One black swan event, like a few volcanic eruptions, and we're all toast - and of course, the climate is constantly shifting even in the absence of such events and human inputs, just more slowly.
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the proposed mechanism for implementing a cut back? A global population with 8 billion people and 1950s carbon emissions implies an average living standard somewhere in the realm of the 1900s. Are you volunteering to move back to the horse and buggy? Bear in mind that the industrialized world of 1950 was only inhabited by a small portion of the global population at most a billion people. The only path forward…
> The only path forward is technological innovation to reduce or remove carbon emissions. I’d be completely happy with technological innovations that allowed us to restore heat balance (solar radiation management, marine cloud brightening, etc). That can buy time for transitioning from fossil fuels.
The moment anyone tries anything on that scale of geoengineering, they will immediately be blamed for whatever weather-based natural disasters that follow. I just don’t see how this can work without creating massive diplomatic tensions.
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that you’re wrong, but I find it darkly amusing that rather than than cut back on all the crazy things we’re doing, it would make sense to instead bio engineer a bunch of plant life to deal instead.
> cut back on all the crazy things we’re doing How would you get grant money for that?
[deleted]
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that you’re wrong, but I find it darkly amusing that rather than than cut back on all the crazy things we’re doing, it would make sense to instead bio engineer a bunch of plant life to deal instead.
What is the proposed mechanism for implementing a cut back? A global population with 8 billion people and 1950s carbon emissions implies an average living standard somewhere in the realm of the 1900s. Are you volunteering to move back to the horse and buggy? Bear in mind that the industrialized world of 1950 was only inhabited by a small portion of the global population at most a billion people. The only path forward…
“Horse and buggy”. How dramatic.
If at least the US got in line with the rest of the world, we would be half-way there.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita
The problem is not the 8 billion people, is the handful that have an disproportionate impact.
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#28You can, if you keep them cool with shade and water if it's not excessively humid. I practice zone denial with a shade house and have things like rhubarb, cilantro and lettuce growing right now. It's been over 100F many days this summer and these would not make it outside. I also have many varieties of tomatoes and pretty sure I'm the only one the region who does because they would not set fruit outside in these temp…
I started a tomato patch in MA early on this season but they hardly grew and are just now delivering fruit. Are they negatively impacted by high temperatures? This is the first time I have a plot in full sun, and all instructions point to tomatos doing well in full sun, but I wonder if the sun was a bit too full this season :-D
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the proposed mechanism for implementing a cut back? A global population with 8 billion people and 1950s carbon emissions implies an average living standard somewhere in the realm of the 1900s. Are you volunteering to move back to the horse and buggy? Bear in mind that the industrialized world of 1950 was only inhabited by a small portion of the global population at most a billion people. The only path forward…
I volunteer yeah. I can get everywhere I need on my bike so horse and buggy would give me enough range and prevent all the over touristing.
there are many problems with this attitude but even bicycles require industrial processes and trade to maintain. Mainly the tires but if anything breaks the metallurgy for the spokes wouldn't be available
Re: Why you can’t grow cool-climate plants in hot climates
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that you’re wrong, but I find it darkly amusing that rather than than cut back on all the crazy things we’re doing, it would make sense to instead bio engineer a bunch of plant life to deal instead.
What is the proposed mechanism for implementing a cut back? A global population with 8 billion people and 1950s carbon emissions implies an average living standard somewhere in the realm of the 1900s. Are you volunteering to move back to the horse and buggy? Bear in mind that the industrialized world of 1950 was only inhabited by a small portion of the global population at most a billion people. The only path forward…
We could start by banning things that explicitly waste resources such as proof of work cryptocurrency and adjust tax incentives to punish huge energy consumers for things like AI. Make the energy cost factor in the long-term externalities and maybe companies will hesitate before burning the world for things that aren't necessary.
Things don't have to be perfect - you start with the biggest polluters/consumers and use trade incentives to convince other nations to join. We've seen this work under Democratic administrations (China's outputs are dropping) before Trump etc. threw it all away.