Global Warming Debate: Both Viewpoints Irrelevant

[GreyICE]

A renewable resource only has use if it's being renewed at a rate equal to or faster than the consumption rate. Humanity's problem is that this is not true for many of the resources we consume.

Then it's a matter of rate modification. That's tough, yes. I'm not handwaving the difficulties. But it's rate modification. It's not impossible.

 

[The_Animus]

GreyICE: Thank you for the counter arguments. Without them there wouldn't be a good discussion!

I can't believe that you did not know I was not literally talking about running out of atoms. I grant that it is technically possible given enough time, labor, energy, and know how to replace almost any resources, or material, or whatever you would prefer to call them. However it is also possible that our ability to do this is limited or problematic.

1. If we can replace the resources, but at a rate less than consumption, we still have a problem.
2. If we can replace the resources, but to do so requires excessive costs (whether in the form of labor, other resources, harmful environmental effects, etc)

Let me try stating my case a different way. Everything in the universe works based upon sets of rules. Our planet is a giant system of such rules. Fortunately for us, and everything else that is alive, this system regulates itself and mediates damage to continue conditions appropriate for life to continue to exist. However like all systems there are limits. This means there is a limit to the amount of food we can grow. There is a limit to the amount of land we can destroy or change before it set off adverse affects upon other areas of the system. There is a limit to the amount of clean drinkable water we can consume regularly. There is a limit to the amount we can pollute the system before it can no longer repair itself. We have seen the damage that we can do to smaller areas of this system and how long it can take for the system to repair itself. Therefor it is entirely feasible that continuing to increase population and resource use without mitigating this issue can have serious consequences.

The idea that we shouldn't convert to a more environmentally friendly and sustainable way of living because global warming isn't real, or it'll hurt our economy, or we aren't running out of resources seems flawed. You mention stuff like recycling, and better utilizing the suns energy, which is exactly what I suggest needs to be done so it seems we agree to some extent.

Now there is always the opinion, one that I certainly hope ends up being true, that technology will solve everything. Unfortunately when technology makes it possible for us to get more for less (like improved engine efficiency in cars to increase ave. mpg) we simply use/require more and either negate the improvement or use even more resources than we did before. I'm going off of memory from an article I read so hopefully this is all correct (or close enough) but if not please correct me. In the 70's engine efficiency was improved and the cars then had better gas mileage than today. This isn't because today's engines are worse than those of the 70's but because we keep getting bigger, heavier vehicles with more features that have ultimately reduced our mpg to less than what it was 30+ years ago.

I'm not entirely convinced we are doomed, or that technology can't solve these problem. In fact I think it will be very interesting to see what happens in the next 50 years. But as you've said we need to start planning, and there is no time like the present to figure out a long term solution.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I do not think anyone is arguing that discovering a solution to any specific rate of renewal is impossible. The point being made was we need to formulate sustainable plans for survival. Obviously the limits of sustainability change with technological improvements. The point is not to ignore what is currently sustainable at the moment and invite disaster. Especially since a pandemic disaster could effectively set back humanity thousands of years if not directly lead to actual extinction. Sure, complete extinction is somewhat unlikely, but not at all impossible with our current ability to cause even accidently. The currently sustainable amount of certain resources such as drinkable water, water useful in farming/ranching, breathable air, food, living space, ect are all directly related to pollution and over extending ourselves. The Animus did not claim the end is inevitable within the next 150, it was claimed the end was inevitable if we do nothing and continue as is.

 

[KingMerv00]

But we're NOT! We have as much metal, as much carbon, as much typewriter materials as we ever did.

It's just carbon. Carbon is rather easy to come by, and is fully renewable.

I am really quite gobsmacked. Wow. Just wow.

You both are saying that carbon is not destroyed when you burn coal, therefore it is renewable? Do you guys have a Star Trek replicator I don't know about? Do you have any concept of the current technological limitations and practical problems that are involved in completely overhauling the energy infrastructure?

 

[KingMerv00]

Then it's a matter of rate modification. That's tough, yes. I'm not handwaving the difficulties. But it's rate modification. It's not impossible.

Right. So in other words you support the OPs recommendation for sustainable living. What the hell are you arguing about then?

 

[KingMerv00]

Why is this forum so hostile to the obvious fact that increasing populations put increased strain on the ecosystem?

Woah there. We aren't monolithic ya know.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am really quite gobsmacked. Wow. Just wow.

You both are saying that carbon is not destroyed when you burn coal, therefore it is renewable?

Well, yes. Of course it is.

Do you guys have a Star Trek replicator I don't know about?

I have a lawn. My lawn distills carbon from the air all the time.

Do you have any concept of the current technological limitations and practical problems that are involved in completely overhauling the energy infrastructure?

That's EXACTLY my point, merv: it's about energy, NOT about carbon. Carbon is not the problem, it's freely available in vast quantities. Just not always in the form you want. Changing its form costs energy, and energy isn't free. I never suggested otherwise, in fact I rather explicitly stated that energy is the primary resource limit we face, and probably always will face.

 

[Pardalis]

The point is that the OP thinks that it's all worthless because we're all doomed.

I don't think it is the OP's point at all.

We fall back to the cavemen level - but we'll still be here.

So it's civilization then that is doomed?

So we better damn well start planning if we don't want that to happen.

Exactly.

Because it's avoidable. It can be prevented. And it DEFINITELY doesn't involve listening to whiny little nihilists who think we're all doomed.

Maybe straw can be a good source of energy, you sure fuel on it.

 

[KingMerv00]

That's EXACTLY my point, merv: it's about energy, NOT about carbon. Carbon is not the problem, it's freely available in vast quantities. Just not always in the form you want. Changing its form costs energy, and energy isn't free. I never suggested otherwise, in fact I rather explicitly stated that energy is the primary resource limit we face, and probably always will face.

Close. The actual limit is USABLE energy. Right now humans only have a few popular sources of energy and coal is the biggest. If we run out of or run low on coal, there will be serious consequences. Will it happen? I don't know. But pretending all of the stored chemical energy on earth is at our fingertips is silly.

 

[Ziggurat]

Close. The actual limit is USABLE energy.

I thought that part was obvious.

If we run out of or run low on coal, there will be serious consequences.

With current technology, yes, because that will constrain the energy available to us, not because it will constrain the amount of carbon available.

Will it happen? I don't know. But pretending all of the stored chemical energy on earth is at our fingertips is silly.

I didn't.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I thought that part was obvious.

The OP was arguing about sustainable resources. That is generally what is meant by renewable resource. A resource that can be sustained comparable to current human consumpation. Non-renewable resources are those with significant smaller sustainable yields when compared to human consumption. I thought that part was obvious.

The carbon cycle imposes a sustainable yield on human consumption. Overriding the carbon cycle to create more usable carbon is a net loss as the current infrastructure and technologies allow. It is therefore non-renewable.

Yes, ultimately all resources are speculatively renewable with the correct infrastructure and techonologies. Usable energy is the ultimate resource in all of this.

We have turned into arguing semantics that we all thought were obvious.

 

[Ziggurat]

The OP was arguing about sustainable resources. That is generally what is meant by renewable resource. A resource that can be sustained comparable to current human consumpation. Non-renewable resources are those with significant smaller sustainable yields when compared to human consumption. I thought that part was obvious.

I understand that. And what I'm saying is that energy is the only critical barrier to every other resource being sustainable.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I understand that. And what I'm saying is that energy is the only critical barrier to every other resource being sustainable.

That plus human will, technology and infrastructure. So yes, the only barrier to usable resources is usable energy. You joined the thread challenging King Merv00's assertion that running out of [obviously usable] coal is like running out of [obviously usable] materials to make typewriters. I agree the analogy is not the best but your challenge was based on the abundance of carbon such as that in the form of lawn clippings, and that it was fully renewable because everything was "fully renewable" [atoms can be recycled with enough energy regardless of feasability with the current set up and usable energy] though a different definition of renewable was the point being argued by others [obviously sustainable at usable levels by current standards and set ups]. Sorry if I find your point on energy missing the arguement. Speculativey if we have infinite energy any transformation is infinitely possible. We are [obviously] dealing with a situation in which we are restricted to how much [obviously usable] energy is available and without running into sustainable yield [obviously the defining point between renewable and non-renewable resources].

BTW I am attempting to be somewhat tongue in cheek. Energy is important but I am trying to point out that just saying 'it is an issue of energy' does not exactly specify solutions or contradict the points it was being brought up against. It seemed like a fun point to argue with and I am attempting to argue it in a fun way.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If you fix that human population up arrow, what then?

DR

 

[JihadJane]

An optimistic message from James Lovelock, aged 90, an estimate that the planet cannot sustain more than one billion people living as we do now and a prediction that the cull to reach that figure will happen this century.

VIDEO: 'A Final Warning':

http://transition-times.com/2009/12/01/a-final-warning-bbc-interviews-james-lovelock/


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why is this forum so hostile to the obvious fact that increasing populations put increased strain on the ecosystem?

Pessimism is an un-American (anti-American?) activity.

 

[Ziggurat]

Energy is important but I am trying to point out that just saying 'it is an issue of energy' does not exactly specify solutions

Indeed. We don't know the solutions. I'm merely specifying the problem we need solutions to.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

An optimistic message from James Lovelock, aged 90, an estimate that the planet cannot sustain more than one billion people living as we do now and a prediction that the cull to reach that figure will happen this century.

VIDEO: 'A Final Warning':

It doesn't seem to want to work

 

[gumboot]

Then it's a matter of rate modification. That's tough, yes. I'm not handwaving the difficulties. But it's rate modification. It's not impossible.

I didn't say it was. All sorts of problems could be saved by the invention of wonderful technology. Relying on the assumption that this technology will be developed in time to save us seems rather stupid to me, personally.

As it is, if the human race were to go into total stasis - no new technology, no new people, etc. we would be doomed. We're already burning through resources far in excess of their replacement rate. Reducing our usage will not solve our problem, in my opinion. It's simply impossible, with our current technology, for the earth to support our civilisation in the long term. We need new technology, and we need to reinvent our civilisation (this is particularly important if we want to even consider the notion of the third and developing worlds enjoying the same quality of life as us in the western world). But by reducing our footprint what we can do is give ourselves more time, thus increasing the probability of the necessary technologies emerging in time.

And for the record, I want to make it clear that I think any notion of the human species becoming extinct is exceedingly unlikely. When I refer to us being "doomed" I am referring to Western Civilisation, or human society as we know it.

My prediction is that increasing strain on resources and climate change will, over the next centuries, result in increasing fragmentation of the "global community" and increasing armed conflict between states, eventually resulting in a social collapse of the existing order (western civilisation) and emergence of a new civilisation period - much like the collapse of Rome led to a dark age and then the emergence of a Feudal Christian civilisation in Europe.

It's quite possible that we are already in the equivalent "dark age" transition period, in fact, since obviously the citizens of ~500AD wouldn't have been aware of how substantially the world order was changing.

As to what that new civilisation period will be like, I have no idea. My bet is on either China or some sort of Islamic society, and I think the quality of life will be substantially inferior to what we currently enjoy. Basically I think we will parallel the Classical-Medieval shift.

 

[JihadJane]

It doesn't seem to want to work

Works 4 me. Try this:

 

[Hallo Alfie]

This works
Cheers.