Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pisskop]

:|

I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment that problems will get better (in America) within our lifetime.  Relatively better, sure.

[Gentlefish]

no, it'll take a long time in fixing the system absolutely and we will still probably fuck it up somewhere along the way. But we can definitely make it better for the next generation before handing the system over to them.

[SalmonGod]

But do we have another 10 years on environmental issues, which is possibly the one issue baby boomers are most unitedly obstinate about?  (it's like they're determined to spitefully leave the planet unlivable for everyone after them)

[Gentlefish]

Oh no, it's not been a "Can we reverse it?" issue for a while I think. It's "Can we slow down the current mass exctinction event that appears to have been caused by us?". But, like I said, the current presidential administration is trying its best to help out, even though it made a shitty investment and their opponents are all "see green energy blows" when in reality bad investments just fucking happen all the time.

I think think we need more nuclear, currently. It exists in an efficient enough state and there's plenty of cheap, usable resources. Nuclear resources, at given consumption and production level, will last at least another 200 year. Coal is half that, and gas/oil are projected to be used up by the end of my life.

[SalmonGod]

I'd really like to see evidence of the current administration putting anything more than shallow, token efforts into environmental issues.  And I don't just mean successes.  Failed efforts shot down by conservative obstructionism count, too.

[Helgoland]

That thing about regulating greenhouse gas emissions or something via a regulatory loophole should count - the legislation in question was originally intended to apply to interstate polution.

[alway]

Oh no, it's not been a "Can we reverse it?" issue for a while I think. It's "Can we slow down the current mass exctinction event that appears to have been caused by us?". But, like I said, the current presidential administration is trying its best to help out, even though it made a shitty investment and their opponents are all "see green energy blows" when in reality bad investments just fucking happen all the time.

I think think we need more nuclear, currently. It exists in an efficient enough state and there's plenty of cheap, usable resources. Nuclear resources, at given consumption and production level, will last at least another 200 year. Coal is half that, and gas/oil are projected to be used up by the end of my life.

Yeah, currently, the studies simple have targets of 'this is how much we can output to prevent a warning effect of more than 2C.' All indications currently suggest we will be blowing way past that amount.

However, nuclear isn't necessary. Big investment banks are now warning investors of a massive coming overhaul of power production, due to solar costs being very close to parity with fossil fuels, and still dropping rapidly.

[Truean]

Well, concerning the environment, we need to focus on sustainability, because it's an actually achievable goal. You can talk about climate change all you want, but right, wrong, or indifferent, it's not going very far in the US. Focus on ways to solve the problem and eventually you'd get closer to solving it. The following are real things we could be doing now to save ourselves headaches later.

Bamboo:
It grows fast, and you can use it on all sorts of things. Sure, it is an invasive species, but our harvesting demand is essentially endless. This plant could provide a readily available source of material for building etc and also some monitored habitats for wildlife. The main selling point to bamboo is that it grows fast and is essentially renewable forever if you manage it.

Insects and biological waste ---> livestock feed (Worms and things feed pigs)
One way or the other, people aren't going to eats bugs, but there's a magical and tasty animal that will: pigs. Pigs are wonderful animals, because they take things we won't eat, including rotten food, and turn it into bacon! Moverover, through cultivation of healthy insect populations replacing large, resource intensive livestock feed options for pigs, we save water. Additionally certain insects like worms are good for soil, and predatory insects can keep crop killing pest insects under control.

Basically closed terrarium ecosystems producing cyclical food yields
http://norcalaquaponics.com/aquaponics.html
Read that. You can theoretically do that anywhere, and if EVERYBODY somehow got into a sustainable population control thing, we could feed everybody with food grown right next to them while conserving a LOT of water. Water is going to become rather scarce in certain areas over the next 50 years. 

The problem is that it takes knowledge and some startup capital to get these things going, and frankly, nobody seems to want to do it widescale.

And then of course there's the real problem here: IT DOESN'T GENERATE LARGE CORPORATE PROFITS, so it isn't going to get done.

[Gentlefish]

I'd totally eat insect for protein if I could find it in large enough amounts. It's a much cheaper protein source (feed to protein, by pound) than mammal meats and i doesn't taste bad at all.

And bamboo? Whoo man you can do basically anything you can with wood except make supports out of it. Even then, I'm sure you can find engineered bamboo support joists or something. Bamboo is magical.

[Helgoland]

I guess the easiest way to introduce insects to the general populace would be by adding them to ground meats - everybody knows already that hamburger meat is disgusting.
An even cheaper source of protein would be beans and lentils, of course.

[Gentlefish]

I guess the easiest way to introduce insects to the general populace would be by adding them to ground meats - everybody knows already that hamburger meat is disgusting.
An even cheaper source of protein would be beans and lentils, of course.

Sure, for plant-based protein. I honestly think I'd rather have a cricket/fish farm alongside a hydroponics that gave me savory fruits like bell peppers, tomatoes, and various cukes/squashes and dark green leafy veggies.

[Mr. Strange]

Somehow I doubt "Try our new ground meat, it now contains up to 20% bugs!" would go down well...

[Gentlefish]

Only due to a social stigma of "bugs == gross". Apparently cricket flour has a "nice toasty, nutty, slightly earthy flavor. Kind of like hazelnuts and buckwheat mixed together." I'd totally make the transfer if I had access to it. Protein bread? Hell yes please.

[penguinofhonor]

The most objectively efficient decision is not always the best choice.

[SalmonGod]

I'd also be fine with eating bugs, but I don't know anyone else who would be.  I've brought it up with some people, but none who would even consider it.

I really need to make an environment thread.  MSH told me to a long time ago.  Of all our generation's problems, it's going to be the most drastic and defining, and all of the others feed into it.

I'm not going to cite specific studies or anything, because there are thousands all with different focuses and varying levels of doom prophecy.  But my basic impression from all of my reading is everyone will begin to drastically feel the effects of environmental destruction on their lives within the next 10 years.  But if everybody waits until it's personally effecting them to start taking the topic seriously, it's going to already be at the point where modern civilization is doomed.  The situation is already dire today, but we might still be at a stage where we can prevent things spinning completely out of control into the collapse of modern civilization.  We really can't wait for baby boomers to die off to allow us to start dealing with the problems they've made.