51–60 of 230 posts
The scale of human activity has become so large that what may seem like fairly trivial variations can be quite impactful thanks to the multiplication factor. Until we substantially reel in the global population size the situation will continue to be rather precarious.
The scale of human activity has become so large that what may seem like fairly trivial variations can be quite impactful thanks to the multiplication factor. Until we substantially reel in the global population size the situation will continue to be rather precarious.
My favorite doomsday scenario at the moment is that it may be earthworms who finally kill us: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-soil-c... They appear to be venturing into new areas and releasing carbon there, furthering global warming. There are just too many scenarios of that kind. Either we really are doomed, and climate will switch into a new kind of equilibrium hostile to humans. Or, there are…
See the other 5 mass extinction events.
Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…
Weird that there's no mention of the melting permafrost as a methane source. I thought that was a well understood potential feedback loop for climate change.
Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…
Live stock farming is ~27% of methane production, where fossil fuels are ~33% [1]. Eating an eco friendly diet is great on the individual level, but we should not underscore the drastic need for decisive action on an institutional level. [1] https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissio...
It's because of this, and practical reality, that I don't understand why scrubbing is not considered a bigger part of the discussion on these topics. For instance one new technological solution [1] proposes an atmospheric removal of CO2 that could cost as little as $94 per ton. Our current CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels are about 37 billion tons a year. That's $3.5 trillion, 4% of the global GDP, to remove 100% of annual emission output. And an even better aspect of these solutions is that they also scale indefinitely. For instance you could not only reduce our footprint to 0 but even reduced the concentration of various gases in the sky, such as CO2, if that was deemed desirable. The same technology (or an inverse) also has direct application to future geoengineering efforts on other planets.
Ultimately this is technology that there does not seem to be any physical barrier against - in other words we can develop it. And now seems like a great time to develop it. The current mitigation ideas of cutting back on x seem to be all we consider, yet they have immense barriers to execution. By contrast technological solutions would be something that would require no sacrifice and simultaneously also greatly expand our technology and developmental capabilities. And most importantly they all seem tantalizingly close.
Yet in spite of all of this there seems to be near 0 discussion of these options. This is something I find confusing.
[1] - http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/ne...
My favorite doomsday scenario at the moment is that it may be earthworms who finally kill us: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-soil-c... They appear to be venturing into new areas and releasing carbon there, furthering global warming. There are just too many scenarios of that kind. Either we really are doomed, and climate will switch into a new kind of equilibrium hostile to humans. Or, there are…
But what do we have instead? Ignorance, unwillingness, a dangerous continuation of the status quo on the state level andin the general polulation. Think about exxon who knew this was a problem since the '70 and there's no change in sight. A dark (or should I say hot?) future awaits us.
Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…
Assume that humans stop consuming livestock products tomorrow. The real goal would still be to reduce livestock, right? How will it be done exactly? How long will it take? Will they be released to nature? Killed? Not allowed to reproduce and we'll wait for them to die of old age? Be supplied condoms?:-) I don't have the knowledge to know whats needed to be done, or which steps are needed to be taken to do that, even…
That's longer than the normal farm lifespan of almost all food animals. Most ones reared for meat have less than two years.
Reproduction of farm animals is totally controlled today by segregation usually from birth.
My favorite doomsday scenario at the moment is that it may be earthworms who finally kill us: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-soil-c... They appear to be venturing into new areas and releasing carbon there, furthering global warming. There are just too many scenarios of that kind. Either we really are doomed, and climate will switch into a new kind of equilibrium hostile to humans. Or, there are…
Earth will be fine. Us, not so much.