Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: "It's worse than we thought." Sound familiar? [View all]AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)81. *Some* of this may be true, but hemp can be grown with food crops, and in fact, is a food crop......
itself.
And that's just for the oil. To replace all the coal we'd need to plant 3/4 of all the world's arable land to hemp. And we still haven't dealt with the natural gas problem.
Technically, you would be correct, I believe, but do keep in mind that I wasn't operating on the assumption that hemp would be the only alternative used for gas.
It's an interesting idea, but is only useful in regions that have low demand, the right soil and climate conditions, and don't need the land for food production.
Again, hemp can pretty much be grown anywhere, including in some places where normal food crops would have a harder time.
Most people have no clue how much fossil fuel the world really uses in a year.
True, but that's something I did take into consideration when doing the calculations for oil.
Scale is the one factor that most consistently reduces these hypothetical silver bullets to real-world brass BBs.
Somewhat true to some extent, but scale is also not quite as big of an obstacle as some may think. My calculations concerning the U.S. didn't take other countries growing it and trade into consideration, and certainly not the usage of other fuel sources.
If you want to talk about proverbial silver bullets, btw, some people seem to think that shrinking the global economy will necessarily solve all of our problems.......what this theory(and that's all it really is, btw!) continually leaves out is the possibility of wars(the world's militaries are majorly contributing to Co2 output, btw!), continued exploitation by certain countries & companies, and many other factors, including the possibility that gas prices might actually drop, which could eventually lead to MORE civilian consumption under certain conditions; Potus actually pointed this out in one of this year's debate speeches that part of the reason gas prices were so low in early '09 was exactly because of the recession(This would not, of course, be inevitable by any means, but it's not impossible either).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
122 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I can agree that negative feedbacks are probably still somewhat poorly understood, but.....
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#10
You've never seen any proof that they've been doing research into negative feedbacks?
GliderGuider
Nov 2012
#18
No, I didn't say that research hadn't been done(duh!). I did say NOT ENOUGH research.
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#19
"Awhile back?" The fucking NSIDC head said that sea ice won't melt until the 2030s!
joshcryer
Nov 2012
#33
"You are casting uncertainty and doubt on the whole AGW awareness effort through your presence here"
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#24
I'm not saying things can't change, I am saying they are unlikely to change.
joshcryer
Nov 2012
#112
You want us to worry more about someone exploring positive feedbacks to their logical conclusion
cprise
Nov 2012
#42
TBH, having read the paper, 25 does seem to be a tad on the high side........
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#54
True to a point, but so does your assertion of near 100% probability as well. n/t
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#51
Was the Clean Air Act like telling an entire nation they will have to be 10% poorer?
NoOneMan
Nov 2012
#56
No, and look at what happened when CFC production stopped in the mid-'90s.
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#57
There's just one problem with your argument: Alternative fuels have been barely implemented at all.
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#63
"And we can keep building & developing. We just need to do it in a smarter way,"
NoOneMan
Nov 2012
#74
BTW, philosophically speaking, what is so good about the growth you think we need?
NoOneMan
Nov 2012
#80
Well, it IS true that curbing population growth wouldn't solve this problem alone........
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#106
"Ah, you are only thinking in terms of human life and locally." Not really.
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#104
What room do we have for reforestation? Where are we going to plant the hemp?
NoOneMan
Nov 2012
#120
Re: "I really wonder if you have taken time to step back and look at the entire system..."
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#121
Regarding carbon intensity, that graph painted an incorrectly rosy picture
GliderGuider
Nov 2012
#67
I am one of those who think that the worst-case scenarios are the dominant probability.
GliderGuider
Nov 2012
#64
*Some* of this may be true, but hemp can be grown with food crops, and in fact, is a food crop......
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#81
Not in the Tundra itself, but definitely to some extent in the SubArctic north, right around........
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#92
So 40%-50% of Sweden's GDP comes from exporting to countries who also cut their emissions?
NoOneMan
Nov 2012
#95
The point is that your example does not illustrate energy reduction resulted in a GDP increase
NoOneMan
Nov 2012
#102
There's a big problem with powering down, though: It's still a "silver bullet" type situation.
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#105
Let's hope this report sticks with the science as the others have done.....
AverageJoe90
Nov 2012
#115