Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, gringal said:

If "all over the place" is pointing out how we arrived at the place we are now, then so be it.  I am simply unable to agree with what I consider simplistic approaches to a global problem;  the actual solution to which you pointed out would require a more drastic change in peoples' everyday lives than I'm sure they are willing to make.

In short, I'm pessimistic about any solution being found in our lifetimes.  Is that clear enough?🙃

Yes - it is all baby steps. I try, for example I buy old fashioned shaving soap and a "badger" brush rather than cans of foam. The vehicle I brought to Mexico was important to me because it was old school diesel and can burn used cooking oil as fuel. Although I haven't made the conversion yet. A gallon of used cooking oil sells for .50 cents a gallon to California commuters. Conversion to LED is well underway. Our new exterior security lights, called "pineapple" bulbs put out a lot of light but only use the power of a 5 watt bulb. Now we are also moving because we are getting killed with electricity rates as high as 2,500 pesos per month. The wiring is shot in this beautiful old train wreck of a house and no one is interested in paying to fix it. The gauge of wires is too small, and they run through concrete, not conduit, so they corrode and short causing electrical use to skyrocket. Our new place the wiring was redone two years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We don't recognize science and all it's "claims" here. I recall that Maincoons has posted here some links to sites proving that all of science is a lie, except when it isn't. Seemingly, none of us hav

You sure have a hard-on for non-sequitur and tu quoque fallacies, don't you? Whether I drive a car, or burn old car tires for heat, or over fish the ditch in my backyard, as is my wont, in no way dist

So many philosophers, so few scientists.

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, jonnyintrouble said:

I enjoyed the goingson on this subject.  I learned a couple of folks, of whom I never expected, can write well.

I have great respect for scientists.  Ya have to figure they are people who have devoted their lives to empirics.  They'd never get published if there were loose ends in their theses.  And then too when a certain subject is far outside your understanding maybe you should put your faith in what thousands of those so dedicated have surmised. 

Have you ever thought what a nightmare of trickle-down suffering would occur if fossil fuels were phased out?   The auto parts industry alone would become the walking dead, and every industry attached to it.  Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana and any other petrol state, or petrol nation, would become a tourist attraction like the La Brea Tar Pits in L.A.  I wonder if that's why Climate Change is such a wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap dirty word.  

And, Mexico relies heavily on fossil fuels, as do China, India, Russia, etc. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1960 world population was 3 billion.  Now 7.7 and still going up predicted to 9.  This problem might have be manageable at 3.  At 9 I just don't see how short of some miracle breakthrough that gives unlimited clean energy.  Unlimited cheap clean energy gives you the tool to clean up almost anything.

It's not about some evil conspiracy for profit, Gringal, it is just simply people being people and overwhelming the environment with numbers and the byproducts of life.  When we have too many deer in the forest the forest suffers.  The catch 22 here is that while all these people might be able to survive at a low and basic standard of living, they cannot eat without the green revolution which is very much based on fossil fuels.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat right and that was my point.  The rest of the planet wants what we have and the planet cannot survive the associated level of waste and carbon production.  The choice is far fewer people living well or far more just subsisting.  He's wrong in dismissing the number of people.  It really is analogous to the test tube example.  Far fewer bacteria are able to live better for far longer.  But even those living at the basic level damage their environments when there are too many of them in one place.  India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, parts of Africa come to mind.   And in those places life is short and brutal. 

I don't want to live like that and neither do they.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago, Thomas Malthus published his theories on population growth.  The results he predicted have arrived.  Simple. We are at the end of an era and the party is now over.  The fullness of the "cure" is something nobody is ready to face, so it probably won't happen.  Remember how outraged people were when China instituted a "one child policy"? ...and enforced it? 

One Chinese curse is : "may you live in interesting times".  Here we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gringal said:

Some time ago, Thomas Malthus published his theories on population growth.  The results he predicted have arrived.  Simple. We are at the end of an era and the party is now over.  The fullness of the "cure" is something nobody is ready to face, so it probably won't happen.  Remember how outraged people were when China instituted a "one child policy"? ...and enforced it? 

One Chinese curse is : "may you live in interesting times".  Here we are.

A comment on Thomas Malthus's theory.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/ecology/population-growth-and-regulation/v/thomas-malthus-and-population-growth

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tiny said:

Why am I not surprised that a rebuttal would emerge from the Sal Khan "educational" corner?  Neither I, nor any other informed person expects Malthus' theory to play out in the manner he predicted, but the point remains that the ratio of resources to consumers is not in the right direction. This is particularly obvious in third world countries.  Muslims are encouraged to have many children,  preferably male of course.🙃

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Malthus didn't and couldn't perceive how successful the race would be in developing fossil fuel and how the productivity of agriculture would come to be so dependent on it.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-04-01/why-our-food-so-dependent-oil/

In turn the world population was able to grow much more than it would have with the old agricultural processes.  All fine and good but what happens if/when oil supplies finally start to shrink and the price thereof gets really high?

Malthus was describing the test tube.  Unlike the bacteria, however, we have discovered and applied things that stretched the time line out.  It is still there at some point without new discoveries of clean and renewable energy.  And there's always the old standby in history of social decay and collapse.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 12:41 PM, gringal said:

Wrong.   I'm blaming those who are enriched by having no barriers to their activities, regardless of their political affiliation.  It just happens to be more permissible right now. This air and water pollution didn't start recently.  We've been drinking out of plastic bottles for some time, and the plastic island in the ocean has been there since you and I were a lot younger.  Cattle farts from our favorite food source have been spreading their aroma. People who used to use a fan when it was hot now have whole house air conditioning as the norm. The new world is one of huge energy consumption and has been moving in that direction under a variety of directorates.

The bottom line is that producing energy is profitable.  Producing it with few or no environmental restrictions is even more profitable. Making a mess of the air and water quality is just plain undesirable from the point of view of those experiencing it.

Make snide remarks about the child's speech all you like, but the mess she and ALL our descendants will inherit is the end result of simple greed in the past and present.

That's not okay with me, but things have gone so far that I doubt they will change.  Sad.

Richard Werthamer supervised Exxon's research program that confirmed the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels during the 1970s. He seems to agree with you, Gringal  Hope you can forgive him for getting all choked-up like a little girl at the end but, as you can see, he's got a lot on his mind. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could live a simple life. I am very good at wildcrafting skills, we were taught to build Robinson Crusoe style villages within one long weekend. We also did a lot of RV "dry camping" when we were younger, so we know the drill. Power would be nice for long evenings, but easily accomplished with solar panels and/or small scale hydroelectric.. This used to be the aspiration/dream of many people a generation or two ago, and there was a very popular book called something like "a cabin and three acres". I couldn't find it, but this is more recent version, again very popular. I think many are not far away from adopting this style of existence over the style of a suburban "MacMansion". Everybody wants internet though, and we are only a couple years away from worldwide satellite links.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34728332-a-cottage-and-three-acres

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Malthus basic notion was that we would breed ourselves into disaster. What actually has happened is that instead of adding bodies, we've added energy consumption per capita to a degree unimaginable in the time of Malthus.  End result:  go figure.  There are people who are willing to cut back on their consumption, but I'll guess that they are in such a small minority as to make little difference in the end result.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've added bodies too.  Nearly 5 billion since 1960.  And as you note those bodies came with energy consumption.  Remember though an important part of that energy consumption is the mechanized agriculture which has made it possible for all those extra bodies to eat.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mainecoons said:

We've added bodies too.  Nearly 5 billion since 1960.  And as you note those bodies came with energy consumption.  Remember though an important part of that energy consumption is the mechanized agriculture which has made it possible for all those extra bodies to eat.

 

True enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 7:49 AM, Mainecoons said:

We already are and it is being ignored.  Look at the numbers again and the graphs below.  U.S. almost flat over nearly 30 years, the rest UP, some explosively.  Now what?

Yes Alex we already figured out you can't address very relevant questions so no problem.  There's nothing erroneous about the data on carbon generation, it certainly is inconvenient to the narrative that blames the few and ignores the many. 

XRSVJXQAJVHP5JWRWN46QASCJA.jpg

TC2JWQODVZHINFKAVQEUCACRYA.jpg

Washington Post Alex, one of yours.  Don't you believe them?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/05/new-grim-milestone-growth-carbon-dioxide-emissions-across-world/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f8b004151971

It's a lot easier to wax emotional than it is to look at the hard reality  Sorry being asked to explain how you are going to stop global warming by crippling the countries already doing something about it pisses you off.  Nothing personal.  Good luck saving the planet with staged little girl videos.  :D

 

 

I would call it cherry-picked data set within a deceptive framing. For one thing, China is the most populous country on the planet, with a population roughly four times that of the U.S. A fair comparison would be based on CO2 emissions per capita. It's late for me...you do the math. I think you'll find that, on a per capita basis, the Chinese emit about half as much CO2 as Americans. For a second thing, China is the largest manufacturer of goods in the world. A good deal of these products are produced for foreign companies for sale and use in foreign countries. A fair comparison would credit the CO2 emissions from these activities to the countries of destination. Don't know what the figures are...but a rough guess tells me it's one whole hell of lot. And if we subtract that amount, then the Chinese are one whole hell of a lot less than half as much of a bunch of polluters as Americans.

Why have U.S. CO2 emissions remained flat? Judging from the time frame, my guess is that it's largely due to U.S. companies moving their manufacturing plants to foreign countries...such as China.

I don't want to get into an argument about this. If my math is wrong, feel free to correct it. If you disagree with the validity of my methodology, state your case. But I will not respond to your silly questions or your personal insults...that would be beneath my dignity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we know that Alex.  No one has disputed that point,  It is immaterial to the end result.  If one source is rapidly increasing while the other is slightly increasing, stable or decreasing, it is the first one driving the increase.  The flaw in your methodology is that it is the total, and the rate of increase that affects the planet overall.

The other flaw is that you are focusing on two countries but when one looks at the data it is the entire developing world driving the increase and that increase is rapidly making what the developed world does irrelevant.  As to the manufacturing, it is still predominantly Chinese owned.  The world is also beginning to see how the Chinese have taken over manufacturing by selling below cost to drive out competitors, currency manipulation and/or theft of intellectual property.

In any case, you seem to have missed my point that the developing world simply wants what we have and they are getting it and not at all likely to give it up.  That Chinese are leading the charge but they are hardly alone.

If I understand where you are coming from you believe that simply taking away energy and prosperity from the western world, and particularly the U.S. for which it seems you have quite the hard on, the problem will be solved.  The world data and location of the rapid increase in CO2 emissions show that belief is simply not correct.

As for your claim the data are cherry picked, you'll have to take that complaint to the source.  The WashPo is a rabid climate change advocate and they seem satisfied with it. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

" In any case, you seem to have missed my point that the developing world simply wants what we have and they are getting it and not at all likely to give it up.  That Chinese are leading the charge but they are hardly alone. "

...and therein lies the heart of the problem and the truth about what the future holds for the planet. 

Since none of us has the slightest influence on the outcome,  we might as well keep our discussion civilized.  Most of us are at an age where we'll probably have the benefits of the era during our lifetimes.  It's our descendants who will suffer, or perhaps a few genius solutions will be found by them. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The population bomb has exploded and the methane clathrate fuse has been lit. Tipping points have been passed and self-reinforcing feedback loops have kicked in. Global warming is increasing exponentially and will continue to increase for hundreds of years into the future. The planet is entering a sixth mass extinction event, losing over 150 species every day. Civilization, as we know it, is predicted to collapse about the year 2030...give or take.

Once you accept the reality of the situation, you can consider what is realistically possible in mitigating the consequences. Here's an intelligent discussion on exactly that subject.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

.....Civilization, as we know it, is predicted to collapse about the year 2030...give or take.

I'm not a denier, but statements like this one give the 'cause' a bad name. "To Collapse"... not begin swirling down but collapse. Boom. It's over.  But then I guess one would have to ask 'just what is civilization as we know it'?

YMMV

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RickS said:

.....Civilization, as we know it, is predicted to collapse about the year 2030...give or take.

I'm not a denier, but statements like this one give the 'cause' a bad name. "To Collapse"... not begin swirling down but collapse. Boom. It's over.  But then I guess one would have to ask 'just what is civilization as we know it'?

YMMV

 

Yeah...I know what you mean. Kinda shocking to consider, isn't it? Here's the short answer. 

Civilization, as we know it, is based upon the ability to grow and store grains, such as wheat, rice and corn. When human beings learned to do this something like 10,000 years ago, they settled down near the food source, becoming farmers and merchants instead of nomadic hunters and gatherers. They built villages that grew into cities and nations and empires.

Due to increasing temperatures, drought, depleted aquifers and depleted soils, future crop yields are projected to lessen, if there is any yield all. Once all the food stores are gone, civilization, as we know it, collapses. Some people use Syria as an example of this process. The Syrian crop failed due to a drought and Assad hoarded what there was for himself and his Alawite clan. The rest is history.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that a massive power grid failure, and/or a worldwide web failure would be the beginning of the end, if not corrected almost instantly.  The "failure" of electricity in Venszuela should give us a hint: No groceries, no water, no gasoline, no phone, no medical care and no escape, are just the beginning of a repidly escalating collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...