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)105. There's a big problem with powering down, though: It's still a "silver bullet" type situation.
Trade in hemp won't make the global situation better
and the land you describe as "places where normal food crops would have a hard time" is called "agricultural land".
No, because normal food crops grow well in agricultural land.
1. We will continue to grow, and we can support Business as Usual (BAU) into the foreseeable future either because resources are infinite, or by leveraging technology. This group consists of consumers, capitalists, neo-liberal economists, resource extractors, and other believers in the status quo.
2. We must stop growing, but we can keep what weve got now by making some Green changes in how we live, again using technology. Steady Staters, Zero growth proponents, sustainable development proponents, environmentalists, and climate change advocates live here in the idea of reform. The Resilience Alliance, with its emphasis on retaining the same controls and function in reaction to systemic change, is probably also in this category? But if we try to keep what weve got, is there room for the basic structural and cultural changes that need to be made to adapt?
3. Our economies will contract to match declines in resources, and we must adapt proactively if that decline is to be orderly. Descent, Degrowth, Transition, and PWD groups have this world view of transformation. Most in this category also believe that orderly descent will require relative socioeconomic equality. Perspectives on economic collapse vary, with doomers as the most extreme.
The sad thing is, is that 2 and 3 really won't work, either(especially not 3, it's just as fantastical as 1, if not perhaps even more so.). Here's a number 4 solution:
4. We cannot continue to support Business as Usual where dirty fuel usage as concerned. We must transition to cleaner energy as quickly as possible, and certainly, reducing population growth would help. And the sooner these, and certain other things are done, the better off humanity will be in the long run. Collapse of any kind is not inevitable, and a better world is possible, but only if we act; If we allow ourselves to believe that the worst is inevitable, then surely, we will fail. But if we make a stand, then change is possible.
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