This is going to shake the confidence of quite a few here. Or, it should.
Capitalism and global sustainability are incongruous with one another, according to a recent paper for the UN’s 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report…
researchers said it would be necessary to implement a global Marshall plan… such a plan would mean cooperation between countries around the globe to collectively restructure society
Collectively. Like… in a Commons-based egalitarian governance? Ya don’t say.
The jobs could be modeled to serve the transition to sustainability and to build capacities to adapt to climate change: for example, installing decentralized energy solutions and preparing for floods
Installing decentralized energy systems… in 2008 I suggested 500 billion in grants could remake America’s energy infrastructure to renewables, all via DIY/community energy projects creating a massively distributed grid.
When Fee and Dividend came up, I suggested that be the vehicle for funding.
The only viable solution to attain a goal of zero emissions is, according to the paper, for humanity to use substantially less energy.
Substantially less energy. Why? Nothing is as fungible as oil. Much cannot be done without oil. Renewables and FFs are not a 1:1 trade off. Energy per capita will drop dramatically, and has been dropping since 1985 or so. Less energy equals a simpler system, period.
“KIWI – short stumpy round creature so full of shit it cannot fly. :-)”
Ok the non flying aspect is an embarrassment, but at least we aren’t populated with dopey looking kangaroos hopping around, and moth eaten looking pretend bears.
zebrasays
#293 alan2102,
Alan, I often suggest that people go for quality over quantity, and your first paragraph illustrates what seems like someone who is writing faster than thinking.
You said lower population doesn’t necessarily result in lower per capita energy use, but your “counterexample” was a case where a larger population could reduce energy use, which doesn’t contradict what I said at all.
If you disagree that the situation I describe (30 million) would result in lower per capita energy use, you have to focus on that situation, and explain why.
That’s what I asked you to do, but instead you are rambling on about lettuce and canals. I’m happy to discuss those things at some point but only if we are beginning on the same page.
Killiansays
Re #397 nigelj said Killian @386, the only lying going on is you telling us your theory does not mean humans living essentially like primitives, when it plainly does.
To the willfully stupid, yes.
A reasonable level of technology? If the resources do not exist, how do you have your reasonable level of technology? They may exist today, but they will not exist at some point. Because they are finite. Your genius argument is: I want it, so I will do it. Resources don’t matter.
Now, please ignore this arrogant know-it-all know-nothing.
Killiansays
Re #389 alan2102 said Resource limits do not exist, because technology.
This is not accurate. No matter what tech you get up to, ALL systems have losses. The absolute best you can hope for with tech is to extend the time until you run out.
I think in your broken logic it’s this simple: Not in my lifetime, so who gives a shit?
I was going to go through the various fallacies you engage in, but at the core your argument comes down to what I wrote above: Limits don’t really exist, and certainly not for you, so… carry on!
“A new study finds that well-established, low-tech land management practices like planting cover crops, optimizing grazing and sowing legumes on rangelands, if instituted globally, could capture enough carbon from the atmosphere and store it in the soil to make a significant contribution to international global warming targets. When combined with biochar and aggressive emissions reductions, the sequestered carbon in agricultural and grazing lands worldwide could lower global temperatures by nearly half a degree Celsius.”
This is going to shake the confidence of quite a few here. Or, it should.
Collectively. Like… in a Commons-based egalitarian governance? Ya don’t say.
Installing decentralized energy systems… in 2008 I suggested 500 billion in grants could remake America’s energy infrastructure to renewables, all via DIY/community energy projects creating a massively distributed grid.
When Fee and Dividend came up, I suggested that be the vehicle for funding.
Substantially less energy. Why? Nothing is as fungible as oil. Much cannot be done without oil. Renewables and FFs are not a 1:1 trade off. Energy per capita will drop dramatically, and has been dropping since 1985 or so. Less energy equals a simpler system, period.
https://gritpost.com/un-paper-capitalism/
Carrie @395. You carry on like Trump at times.
“KIWI – short stumpy round creature so full of shit it cannot fly. :-)”
Ok the non flying aspect is an embarrassment, but at least we aren’t populated with dopey looking kangaroos hopping around, and moth eaten looking pretend bears.
#293 alan2102,
Alan, I often suggest that people go for quality over quantity, and your first paragraph illustrates what seems like someone who is writing faster than thinking.
You said lower population doesn’t necessarily result in lower per capita energy use, but your “counterexample” was a case where a larger population could reduce energy use, which doesn’t contradict what I said at all.
If you disagree that the situation I describe (30 million) would result in lower per capita energy use, you have to focus on that situation, and explain why.
That’s what I asked you to do, but instead you are rambling on about lettuce and canals. I’m happy to discuss those things at some point but only if we are beginning on the same page.
Re #397 nigelj said Killian @386, the only lying going on is you telling us your theory does not mean humans living essentially like primitives, when it plainly does.
To the willfully stupid, yes.
A reasonable level of technology? If the resources do not exist, how do you have your reasonable level of technology? They may exist today, but they will not exist at some point. Because they are finite. Your genius argument is: I want it, so I will do it. Resources don’t matter.
This is unintelligent.
Shush.
Examples of “primitive” life:
https://bealtainecottage.com/
https://youtu.be/r3k2LTdZqn8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu3iigwGNgY
https://youtu.be/ng-VskDFPpM
https://youtu.be/XnTqhayGWrw
https://theselightfootsteps.com/2014/01/10/permaculture-for-urban-homes-and-small-spaces/
http://urbanhomestead.org/
http://www.potkettleblack.com/natbild/canelo.html
Now, please ignore this arrogant know-it-all know-nothing.
Re #389 alan2102 said Resource limits do not exist, because technology.
This is not accurate. No matter what tech you get up to, ALL systems have losses. The absolute best you can hope for with tech is to extend the time until you run out.
I think in your broken logic it’s this simple: Not in my lifetime, so who gives a shit?
I was going to go through the various fallacies you engage in, but at the core your argument comes down to what I wrote above: Limits don’t really exist, and certainly not for you, so… carry on!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180829143834.htm
“A new study finds that well-established, low-tech land management practices like planting cover crops, optimizing grazing and sowing legumes on rangelands, if instituted globally, could capture enough carbon from the atmosphere and store it in the soil to make a significant contribution to international global warming targets. When combined with biochar and aggressive emissions reductions, the sequestered carbon in agricultural and grazing lands worldwide could lower global temperatures by nearly half a degree Celsius.”