High-Value Crops: Sustainability and Climate Change (4)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:38 PM GMT on September 21, 2011

Share this Blog
9
+

High-Value Crops: Sustainability and Climate Change (4)

In the past three articles (Sustainability 1, Sustainability 2, Sustainability 3) I have been exploring the relation between climate change and sustainability. I have focused on the interface between different communities and the conflicts that arise as people push and shove different agendas. There are many issues at play, and when you think about climate change and sustainability, and bring in population and consumption, there are many things that are done in the spirit of sustainability that don’t address climate change – and are, perhaps, not really sustainable.

It is my belief that disentangling the issues at the interfaces will, ultimately, lead to more people engaging in the pursuit of solutions to the challenges of climate change – rather than dismissing the climate issue as unimportant – at least, to me, right now, for this problem. For this final entry in the series I want to start with a local discussion about genetically modified sugar beets. (Bet you did not see that sentence coming.)

First, I don’t know exactly where I sit on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). There are many complex issues, including serious issues of ethics and social justice. Within the realm of climate change, some argue that one of our major adaptation strategies will be new GMO crops that are more heat and drought tolerant. Or, perhaps, to counter the spread of malaria by GMO mosquitoes. Enhanced removal of carbon dioxide by GMO plants? We could argue perhaps GMOs are some sort of fast evolution.

I want to talk about something far smaller. Beets. The arguments around here, Boulder County, Colorado, center on Roundup Ready Beets (for and against). Roundup is an herbicide, and the genetically modified beets definitively allow both less use of herbicides and fossil fuels – hence, cost reduction. According to the articles I linked above, the vast majority of the commercial sugar beet farmers have quickly embraced the GMO sugar beets. The argument in Boulder County is whether or not these beets should be allowed on county land that is leased for agricultural use. This leads, naturally, to discussions of local agricultural, organic farming, sustainability and things that are “good for the climate.” (Some local press coverage Boulder Weekly, Letters in Response)

The place I want to bring this blog is specifically, “high value crops.” One of the arguments that came forward is that rather than allowing GMOs, that local farmers could grow high-value crops, such as organic vegetables. It is argued that this supports local farmers and sustainability. (I cannot resist pointing out that the farmers who desire to plant GMO beets are also “local.”) It is pointed out that since, at least to some extent, that organic farming replaces the use of herbicides and fossil fuels with jobs for crop tenders. Hence it is good for the local workforce and, well, climate change.

The key to this argument is “high-value” crops. The organic and local vegetables that flow from Boulder County, definitely, require a population that can pay a high cost. This does not mean that the small local farmers are getting wealthy. It also does not mean that a large local workforce is being supported – many of the local farms have aggressive volunteer and education programs. The high cost represents a price that is indicative of the cost of raising crops in a region that is water-stressed, with a short growing season, with shifts between too hot and too cold, with more than its share of grasshoppers, magpies, rabbits and coyotes. And, the local farmer also needs to either be able to live in the region that can afford high-value crops.

High-value: High-value implies wealth, and in the here and now, wealth is correlated with energy use which is correlated with burning fossil fuels. The wealth that supports the ability to buy high-value crops follows, directly or indirectly, from the use of fossil fuels. Therefore the ability to buy high-value crops comes with a large carbon footprint. Therefore the argument that the small, local farm that generates high-value produce is climate friendly is, in the here and now, a hollow argument. In fact, if I wanted to make a climate-based argument, anything that requires less fossil fuel is more climate friendly. Perhaps, GMOs.

When I teach climate change problem solving, I advocate that my students try to organize the problem along three axes: time, is it near-term or long-term; space, is it local or global; and wealth, rich or poor. Wealth is the difficult axis. It represents consumption, how you think about mitigation and adaptation, and environmental justice. Earlier research shows that the wealthier a country is the less concerned they are about climate change. That’s a useful sociological consideration.

There are many issues that we conflate to support what we believe and what we want. (I also teach how do we separate what we know, we believe, we want.) We link things casually that make sense. When we think about sustainability and climate change, we have to think about our imperative to succeed, to consume. We live in a world where economic growth is required by policy, demanded by people, and economic growth means consumption. It gets back to energy and fossil fuels. To have a sustainable planet with more than 7 billion consuming humans, we have to decouple energy from carbon dioxide emissions. To address climate change we will have to figure out how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We might even need GMOs.
r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 159 - 109

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

158. Xandra
10:17 PM GMT on September 28, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
An interesting read, especially for Nea, who is fond of stating that Monckton knows not of which he speaks:

This is more interesting,

The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton


A point-by-point evisceration of Monckton put together by Professor John Abraham
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
157. Skyepony (Mod)
5:17 PM GMT on September 28, 2011
As for the bee decline. That reddish stuff that Bayer pretreated seeds (like corn) with kills bees. Seen that first hand. Bees are weak. Studies are looking like several factors are causing their collapse. So could be iron broadleaf killer bayer makes too.. There is some really good research on GMO & Bee death out there. Different gene spices causing different problems.. Like the gene to cause the crop to produce terminator seeds.. Seeds that won't grow if replanted are causing a colon cancer type problem in bees & killing them. Wunder why colon caner in people have been on the rise?

& what about patenting life? When you can't keep your crop's seeds to sew again next year your hurting Agriculture as a whole. Plus these genes float away on the air in pollen & fall out of trucks to the side of the road & grow. We've set things free that the ramifications are beginning to look not so good in so many ways.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 163 Comments: 37841
156. Skyepony (Mod)
5:07 PM GMT on September 28, 2011
Spathy~ Monsanto has spent alot of money trying to convince people Roundup is safely applied to your food..that this does no harm.. Please look at independent research, what real universities are saying & published papers. The evidence is overwelming. It's another version of the tobacco companies saying smoking isn't bad for your health..

Source for the following...Thousands and thousands of acres in the United States are being sprayed annually with nearly 50 million pounds of Roundup, a broad-spectrum herbicide designed to kill any plant it hits, unless the plant has been genetically altered to tolerate the chemical. Roundup has accounted for half of Monsanto's corporate profits in recent years. Now the company has expanded its Roundup market by genetically engineering "Roundup Ready" soybeans, corn, and other crops.Monsanto's advertising campaigns have convinced many people that Roundup is safe, but the facts simply do not support that conclusion. Independent scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial insects, birds and mammals. Plus it destroys the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter. And although Monsanto claims that Roundup breaks down into harmless substances, it has been found to be extremely persistent, with residue absorbed by subsequent crops over a year after application. Roundup show adverse effects in all standard categories of toxicological testing, including medium-term toxicity, long-term toxicity, genetic damage, effects on reproduction, and carcinogenicity. Here is some of the research that demonstrates the ways that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, adversely affects plants and animals:

In a study conducted by T.B. Moorman and colleagues at the USDA Southern Weed Science Laboratory in Stoneville, Mississippi, glyphosate reduced soybeans' and clover's ability to fix nitrogen. A study conducted by G.S. Johal and J.E. Rahe of the Center for Pest Management at Simon Frase University in Burnaby, British Columbia, found that glyphosate made bean plants more susceptible to disease. At Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, D. Estok and colleagues found that glyphosate reduces the growth of beneficial soil-dwelling mycorrhizal fungi. Moving up to mammals, sperm production in rabbits was diminished by 50 percent when they were exposed to glyphosate, in research conducted by M.I. Youset and colleagues at the University of Alexandria in Egypt and the University of Tromso in Norway. Brand-new evidence suggests that Roundup may cause cancer. The study, published in Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis (vol. 31 pp. 55-59, 1998), found that an unidentified chemical in Roundup caused genetic damage in the livers and kidneys of mice exposed to the herbicide. The researchers believe additional experiments are needed to determine which chemical in the Roundup mixture is causing the damage. They point out that this will be very difficult because "the precise composition of the mixture...is not available due to protection by patent regulation." In other words, Monsanto doesn't have to reveal to the public exactly what chemicals are in Roundup. In California, where pesticide-related illness must be reported, Roundup's active ingredient (glyphosate) was the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers, and the most common cause of pesticide illness in landscape workers. According to two New Zealand toxicologists, the symptoms experienced by workers exposed to Roundup included eye and skin irritation, headaches, nausea and heart palpitations.

More here..

The reason food is cheaper is because we are employing machines, chemicals & the energy of oil to produce it.. It all can be grown organically..it would put millions back to work & do wonders for our topsoil & environment.

Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 163 Comments: 37841
155. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:49 PM GMT on September 28, 2011
Quoting greentortuloni:


I think the first ripples of the tech. sing. are coming. The fact is that, aside from housing, medicene (et all) and food, no one needs a hell of a lot of hte crap that we produce.

Aside from all the other reasons, this is why i don't take all the worries about liberals using global warming to back door socialism from the right wing idiots very seriously. It's coming anyway, of a sort. As technology raises the bar higher and higher (fewer jobs that computers can't do better than us) and more and more people become unemployable, more and mroe people will become socialists.


We were warned, back in the 70's, that as robotics replace workers in manufacturing that there will be fewer employable people. Economies are based upon consumption. Consumption ends when there are too few left that are able to afford "the luxuries", in life. While trying to increase short term profits, you are ending the viability to sell your product(s), in the future. We all may want that big house on the hill and will work to get it but, when the money you receive is insufficient for you to so, the big house on the hill is never built. When the big house on the hill is never built, you loose the ability to create wages for those that will build and maintain that house. When only a few are allowed to afford that big house on the hill you loose the sustainability of being able to continue to live in that big house. Pretty soon, we all see a lot of empty houses and no one being able to afford them.

Computers have been better able to design and control robotics. Computers have helped us do our work but, at the same time, reduced the requirements for having a workforce. In a sense, the dog is chasing its own tail. What has not yet been understood is that the tail, once caught, can be a very painful experience. ... When the base of the pyramid crumbles, the top will fall. Just my thoughts.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
154. greentortuloni
3:33 PM GMT on September 28, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I hear all that you say and I cannot disagree with you, to any real extent. The way I see it, there are two ways to accomplish what you want:

1. End all government.

2. End all professional lobbyist.

The first one does no one any good except for those that chose anarchy. The second one can and should be done and everyone benefits, except for the special interest groups. Elect anyone you wish to any public office you wish. Let me control the special interest groups and the professional lobbyist. Let us see who controls policy.

What timing. I just found this article:

"Voting is worthless"


I think the first ripples of the tech. sing. are coming. The fact is that, aside from housing, medicene (et all) and food, no one needs a hell of a lot of hte crap that we produce.

Aside from all the other reasons, this is why i don't take all the worries about liberals using global warming to back door socialism from the right wing idiots very seriously. It's coming anyway, of a sort. As technology raises the bar higher and higher (fewer jobs that computers can't do better than us) and more and more people become unemployable, more and mroe people will become socialists.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
152. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:23 PM GMT on September 28, 2011
Quoting spathy:
Sorry but I must continue.
Just as the average Joe cant figure out a convoluted pesticide label,The average Legislator cant possibly know all the tens of decades worth of legislation that has preceded him or her.
They will never look very deeply to see if some law preceded there idea. They will hardly ever look to see how there new feel good law may contradict previous law. What they are trying to accomplish might be a grand idea.
But the companies that these laws will effect know full well what doors are opened by confusion and contradiction of legislation.
Gov has gotten too big.
Just like President Obama promised.
There needs to be a complete overview of the myriads of legislation and streamline it.
Because trust me!!!!!
The Big Corps that so many rail against?
They know the laws and know exactly how to confuse and manipulate a do good legislator.
It starts with tax reform and it continues with legislative review.
That is the only way to separate Gov from Business.
Trust me on this.
The more convoluted the myriad of laws, the more Gov and Business will play on each-other and result in us the public and the environment getting screwed!
Gov needs to be brought down to brass tax.
Simplification leads to less abuse and confusion.
This is the only path that can possibly lead to a clear path forward for America.
Additional legislation,more obfuscation,continued confusion and contradiction are not going to clear a path for prosperity and clean solutions.
Think about it please.


I hear all that you say and I cannot disagree with you, to any real extent. The way I see it, there are two ways to accomplish what you want:

1. End all government.

2. End all professional lobbyist.

The first one does no one any good except for those that chose anarchy. The second one can and should be done and everyone benefits, except for the special interest groups. Elect anyone you wish to any public office you wish. Let me control the special interest groups and the professional lobbyist. Let us see who controls policy.

What timing. I just found this article:

"Voting is worthless"
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
146. Neapolitan
2:13 AM GMT on September 28, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
An interesting read, especially for Nea, who is fond of stating that Monckton knows not of which he speaks:

Link

Oh, I'm far from the only one who calls Monckton out on his absolute denial of science. Now, I started to read Monckton's whiny woe-is-me post to which you linked, but after watching him refer to the one-time small market TV weatherman and college dropout as "great", calling literally anyone who disagrees with him a troll, and saying that every AGWT-supporting climate scientist is a fraud and a charlatan, I didn't bother reading any further. I couldn't.

The most laughable line of Monckton's spittle-flecked rant: "WattsUpWithThat is now the place where (in between the whining and whiffling and waffling of the trolls) true science is done." "Best Science Blog"? Not a chance. But "Best Humor Blog"? WUWT has my vote! ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13536
144. JBastardi
1:47 AM GMT on September 28, 2011
An interesting read, especially for Nea, who is fond of stating that Monckton knows not of which he speaks:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
140. cyclonebuster
1:09 AM GMT on September 28, 2011
Dr. Rood have you figured out how to cool our planet off back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
139. Patrap
12:37 AM GMT on September 28, 2011
Phunny,,no mention of How the , well what about the Damn Bees?

Did anyone ever consider how all this Crap Soup would affect them.

Just a thought.


Food to ponder as you eat your Broccoli.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128290
138. Skyepony (Mod)
10:34 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Ricky~ I heard the GMO sales bit at Clemson Univ in the early 90s. Kinda lured me into the genetics dept til I got a closer look. It's all for money. & some of it is pretty questionable about what's being spliced in there too. Up front it sounded like we'd try to develop crops for warmer, more bugs, less water. In reality they were working on Roundup ready soybean. So they can sell more roundup. It's not good for you to spray your food with round up before you eat it.. Next was splicing a sort gene in to corn to express the bacterial Bt toxin. Top University officials says this is causing a type of fungus to grow around & infect the digestive & reproductive tracts of animals fed it. FDA is ignoring it. While the worms, like the weeds have mutated into superweeds or resistant worms. Diversity in seed has plummeted as Big AG spread across the world. A few years ago Mexico protested for months, planting a thousand varieties of corn in public places while having Big Ag replace their diversity with a seed they have to buy every year. The little farmer has now been put out of work there too. A story that has happened just about the world over now. The GMO pollen is crossing on the wind with organic, turning organic seeds GMO & the Big Ag lawyers are then suing the little farms for stealing their patented seed. If we want to survive climate change seems odds would be better with diversity of seed..GMO is killing that for us. They are even buying the mom & pop seed businesses & shelving their seed.

Big Ag has been getting this ride from the govt, from the universities developing seeds for them instead of open pollinating better varieties for the public to the govt paying farmers to plant big Ag crops & paying to ship them across the country to compete with the same crop just local (Oranges on a subsidized ride from CA to FL is good example).. the subsidies is unreal & what they are making.. this "processed food" that you can buy at a grocery, it's making people sick. The diabetes, Fibromyalgia, stomach, ADHD, food allergies, obesity & etc..medically this cost is draining our society & making Big Pharm rich.

Early 1990s there wasn't so many small farms as there is today, so this move toward local sustainable does grow more local with more families employed on an acre or something traditionally smaller than a farm of the last 80years. These are the types of food that don't go for a ride to get processed into "food" to be drove to the grocery like that field of sugar beets was.

Big AG would like you to believe you have to be rich to eat real food & like that some how isn't going to be sustainable either.. Grow your own, grow with a friend or a neighbor. Zoning laws need to change. Gardens shouldn't be outlawed anywhere there is a little space for them, same for chickens & such. Learn to can. We have been uneducated about how to provide ourselves with food. I was surprised how many "weeds" in my yard were considered summer salad 100years ago, before I was conditioned to kill my local food & live "rich" by buying processed food from across the world. Odd now it has gone full circle where you are rich if you eat like a poor hillbilly.

I hope you look into this alot farther before you decide which might be better. GMO sounded like a great idea but has been a nightmare as far as what food we leave our kids, what we are feeding our kids & ourselves. Food used to heal & sustain us..now many pay an arm & a leg to take Pharmaceuticals so they can eat the food they have been conditioned to eat & told they can afford...while the oil is burnt to make it cheap.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 163 Comments: 37841
137. Patrap
9:31 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
The temp dropped below 32 on Saturday in Barrow, AK for the first time since June 29th. 85-day streak > 32 is longest on record! Previous record 68 days. The average temperature over the streak was 41.9°. The September average temp has been 5.2 degrees above normal.

Average first freeze is September 7th in Fairbanks - have not had a freeze yet. This is the 6th year in a row the first freeze has taken place after September 20th.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128290
136. yonzabam
8:10 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting Patrap:
It's Globally Hot,and getting hotter annually.



True, that.


Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2925
135. Doxienan
3:47 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
I would like to know what your kind of people means.

I care about the environment because I care about living beings. I want clean air and water. I want to believe that there is a safe future for my children and grandchildren, not a world where there is war on every continent over food, land, clean water and resources. If we continue to burn fossil fuels and pillage the land in the process of getting it, I don't see much of a future for us.

I am doing my part to make the future better for all children, but I am disgusted by the wasteful society I see around me. I am frugal and am proud of it. What's wrong with that?
Member Since: April 28, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 53
134. Patrap
3:30 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
It's Globally Hot,and getting hotter annually.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128290
133. greentortuloni
3:28 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting robodave:
I find it real odd how your kind of people KNOW that we will continue to use fossil fuels for the next several decades and will even admit that it's a bridge to the future, yet, anytime a project comes up to do just that, you scream angrily in protest. Here's an idea: expend your energy building the alternative energy future that we will transition to in the next 100 years. That's productive and what an honest genuine person will do. No screaming, no complaining, just doing; accomplishing something.

A good dose of reality is needed. Due to the extensive use of oil and natural gas, production cannot keep up pace with demand unless new projects are undertaken. In order for fossil fuels to be a bridge to the future so that we can transition to alternatives, we must start new coal power plants, oil drilling operations and so on. NOT doing so would have far worse effects to our economy, and thus, our transition to alternatives. A beaten up economy, that's hemorrhaging jobs, is not interested in alternatives, nor can it afford to educate its citizens so that they can make the transition. To successfully educate citizens and keep our economy at a modest pace we have to keep drilling.

The same thing applies to coal power plants.

You want to put the cart before the horse; that's the problem. You're losing touch with reality.

Not to mention any domestic production is better than depending on a foreigner. Far too much of "our" business is done on foreign lands, with little regard for the environment or the people. If we truly care about the environment, we would be pushing for domestic product OR we would be applying a tax to imports so long as foreigners do not meet the standards in place for the environment and people.


Actually, you are putting the fart before the arse, as they might say in dear old blighty. We alarmists are screaming for a reason. THe people screaming about the alarmists are screaming because.....?

They never give a reason. Or rather, occasionally a reason is given: cap-and-trade, liberal plot to create socialism (yes becasue this is the best way and we all secretly communicate through Peruvian nose flutes), or some other scam. But none are the real reasons. Alterntive energy won't hurt the US economy, far from it. It is new technologies and new jobs - or it would be if the politicians got out of the way.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
132. martinitony
3:21 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting robodave:
I find it real odd how your kind of people KNOW that we will continue to use fossil fuels for the next several decades and will even admit that it's a bridge to the future, yet, anytime a project comes up to do just that, you scream angrily in protest. Here's an idea: expend your energy building the alternative energy future that we will transition to in the next 100 years. That's productive and what an honest genuine person will do. No screaming, no complaining, just doing; accomplishing something.

A good dose of reality is needed. Due to the extensive use of oil and natural gas, production cannot keep up pace with demand unless new projects are undertaken. In order for fossil fuels to be a bridge to the future so that we can transition to alternatives, we must start new coal power plants, oil drilling operations and so on. NOT doing so would have far worse effects to our economy, and thus, our transition to alternatives. A beaten up economy, that's hemorrhaging jobs, is not interested in alternatives, nor can it afford to educate its citizens so that they can make the transition. To successfully educate citizens and keep our economy at a modest pace we have to keep drilling.

The same thing applies to coal power plants.

You want to put the cart before the horse; that's the problem. You're losing touch with reality.

Not to mention any domestic production is better than depending on a foreigner. Far too much of "our" business is done on foreign lands, with little regard for the environment or the people. If we truly care about the environment, we would be pushing for domestic product OR we would be applying a tax to imports so long as foreigners do not meet the standards in place for the environment and people.


What does the phrase "your kind of people" really mean?

I believe those "people" are a cult of death. If they were honest they would say it out loud right here right now. They would espouse population control and euthanasia right here right now because that is truly what they require to save the snail darter and the rest of the Earth. "your kind of people" in my opinion, refers to a bunch of hypocrites who avoid saying what they really want for fear of being despised for what they truly are.

If you don't believe you fit into the above category, then you must be ignorant of the facts. Green energy, until it is dramatically improved, leads to poverty and poverty kills people. China is ahead of the USA in production because they have founds fools in Europe and here who will buy the product that they produce using the cheap coal they buy from us and burn over there producing that product.

The truth is that we have time, many decades at least and probably a century or more before before the warming you believe we cause does more damage than the "cure" you propose.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
131. AlwaysThinkin
3:20 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yes. I had heard that the damage to flooded farm lands would take years to recover from. The report did not say anything about heavy metals and toxins that could be contained in the flood waters. I wonder how strong of an issue this will be.


I was kind of wondering that too. That and oil and gas runoff. Just a mess all around. On the positive though may be all that farmland out of production for a few years will halt the growth of the dead zone in the gulf for awhile. Always the silver lining and all that :).
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
130. Neapolitan
3:16 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting robodave:
I find it real odd how your kind of people KNOW that we will continue to use fossil fuels for the next several decades and will even admit that it's a bridge to the future, yet, anytime a project comes up to do just that, you scream angrily in protest. Here's an idea: expend your energy building the alternative energy future that we will transition to in the next 100 years. That's productive and what an honest genuine person will do. No screaming, no complaining, just doing; accomplishing something.

A good dose of reality is needed. Due to the extensive use of oil and natural gas, production cannot keep up pace with demand unless new projects are undertaken. In order for fossil fuels to be a bridge to the future so that we can transition to alternatives, we must start new coal power plants, oil drilling operations and so on. NOT doing so would have far worse effects to our economy, and thus, our transition to alternatives. A beaten up economy, that's hemorrhaging jobs, is not interested in alternatives, nor can it afford to educate its citizens so that they can make the transition. To successfully educate citizens and keep our economy at a modest pace we have to keep drilling.

The same thing applies to coal power plants.

You want to put the cart before the horse; that's the problem. You're losing touch with reality.

Not to mention any domestic production is better than depending on a foreigner. Far too much of "our" business is done on foreign lands, with little regard for the environment or the people. If we truly care about the environment, we would be pushing for domestic product OR we would be applying a tax to imports so long as foreigners do not meet the standards in place for the environment and people.

No. The reality--that is, the true, scientific, unspun, non-Fox news reality--is that for the inhabitants of this planet to avoid certain catastrophe, we must start moving away from fossil fuels NOW, and in a big way. So every time some shortsighted and intellectually bereft persons start salivating over all the money they will make robbing the earth of its limited and wholly unsustainable resources, and does so while completely ignoring thousands of scientists and a million screaming warning sirens, well, that gets my dander up. It's my planet to, you know, and yours, and your family's. It belongs to all of us, not just whoever has the most drilling equipment or gets a lease first. Some may choose to foolishly disbelieve it, but there is more to life than profit; there's more to environmental stewardship than simply awarding mineral rights to the highest bidder. There's more. And I feel pity for those who don't/won't/can't see that.

Accepting the fact that fossil fuels are with us for the moment out of necessity is one thing. Assuming that that fossil fuel status quo can and should be maintained for the next many decades because there's money to be made is something quite different. People should really try not to confuse the two.

FWIW, I would hope that by this point there weren't enough gullible people left to believe any Big Energy corporation or the politicians they own when they claim "job creation" as the impetus for again prolonging society's sad reliance on fossil fuels. I realize that's the same banner under which many a crime or injustice is being perpetrated these days, but no one really believes it, do they? I mean, seriously? That's like a big city street pimp claiming he does what he does just so fewer women are unemployed.

Right.

Uh-oh

By the way: 2010-2011 Winner of Oxymoron Of The Year: "clean coal".
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13536
129. robodave
2:17 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

[snark]
Well, that's great! Sounds like a lot of money will be made by Big Energy, and all folks have to do to get a little bit of it is sell their birthrights and their souls to the Gods of Fracking! The best part, though, is that all of that carbon to be ripped from the beneath pulverized and perforated and polluted landscape will simply disappear into the environment without doing one bit of harm! GO BIG OIL!!!

On a related note, I think everyone should henceforth get their science news from denialist*-written articles in business magazines. That way we can all learn about climate without any of that pesky "truth" stuff getting in the way...
[/snark]

Future generations are going to look upon this current insanely crass one as perhaps the most scientifically-ignorant ever. And rightly so, as evidenced by the anti-science blather in the linked-to article.

* - Surprised?
I find it real odd how your kind of people KNOW that we will continue to use fossil fuels for the next several decades and will even admit that it's a bridge to the future, yet, anytime a project comes up to do just that, you scream angrily in protest. Here's an idea: expend your energy building the alternative energy future that we will transition to in the next 100 years. That's productive and what an honest genuine person will do. No screaming, no complaining, just doing; accomplishing something.

A good dose of reality is needed. Due to the extensive use of oil and natural gas, production cannot keep up pace with demand unless new projects are undertaken. In order for fossil fuels to be a bridge to the future so that we can transition to alternatives, we must start new coal power plants, oil drilling operations and so on. NOT doing so would have far worse effects to our economy, and thus, our transition to alternatives. A beaten up economy, that's hemorrhaging jobs, is not interested in alternatives, nor can it afford to educate its citizens so that they can make the transition. To successfully educate citizens and keep our economy at a modest pace we have to keep drilling.

The same thing applies to coal power plants.

You want to put the cart before the horse; that's the problem. You're losing touch with reality.

Not to mention any domestic production is better than depending on a foreigner. Far too much of "our" business is done on foreign lands, with little regard for the environment or the people. If we truly care about the environment, we would be pushing for domestic product OR we would be applying a tax to imports so long as foreigners do not meet the standards in place for the environment and people.
Member Since: August 9, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 147
128. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:24 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting AlwaysThinkin:
On the subject of soil

Receding Missouri River reveals badly damaged land
Link

Not good.


Yes. I had heard that the damage to flooded farm lands would take years to recover from. The report did not say anything about heavy metals and toxins that could be contained in the flood waters. I wonder how strong of an issue this will be.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
127. Neapolitan
12:52 PM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
Here's what is happening without Al Gore and Congress's wasteful cronyism and Solyndra. Thought you might want to know.
In The Real World

[snark]
Well, that's great! Sounds like a lot of money will be made by Big Energy, and all folks have to do to get a little bit of it is sell their birthrights and their souls to the Gods of Fracking! The best part, though, is that all of that carbon to be ripped from the beneath pulverized and perforated and polluted landscape will simply disappear into the environment without doing one bit of harm! GO BIG OIL!!!

On a related note, I think everyone should henceforth get their science news from denialist*-written articles in business magazines. That way we can all learn about climate without any of that pesky "truth" stuff getting in the way...
[/snark]

Future generations are going to look upon this current insanely crass one as perhaps the most scientifically-ignorant ever. And rightly so, as evidenced by the anti-science blather in the linked-to article.

* - Surprised?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13536
126. martinitony
9:48 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Here's what is happening without Al Gore and Congress's wasteful cronyism and Solyndra. Thought you might want to know.
In The Real World
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
125. cyclonebuster
9:42 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
More EPA "feel good" environmental regulations. They would cost the taxpayer billions, add thousands of new government workers, stifle the economy, and are impossible to enforce. Ms. Jackson also forgot to mention they would do nothing to prevent so-called "global warming."

Link


So what it can save us 10s of trillions caused by Co2 damage if the GHGs are eliminated.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
124. greentortuloni
8:32 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
More EPA "feel good" environmental regulations. They would cost the taxpayer billions, add thousands of new government workers, stifle the economy, and are impossible to enforce. Ms. Jackson also forgot to mention they would do nothing to prevent so-called "global warming."

Link


From teh article: "The petitioner suing the EPA is the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, a trade group reportedly linked to domestic chemical companies."

I hate regulations as much as anyone. I just happen to think that the problem is worse than the cure.

Where do you think that all the people complaining about the cost of regulation/suing the EPA live in respect to the pollution generating facilities they want to be unregulated? Far away would be my guess...(I realize this is for CO2 which is everywhere but financial distance counts as much as geographic distance.)

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
123. AlwaysThinkin
4:11 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
On the subject of soil

Receding Missouri River reveals badly damaged land
Link

Not good.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
122. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:16 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


You are right on the tablet. Maybe there is a projector version?

Ohhhh, this is soooooo old, but I still want one :)



Gnight~~~~~~~~~~


Gnight. A pleasure talking with you.

Do you have anything by Steppenwolf?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
121. Ossqss
3:05 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The collective, as in everyone in the room. Umm, blog. The Borg Identity, so to say. ;-)

A 24" tablet would be nice but, does that not defeat the purpose of a small, easy to carry appliance?


You are right on the tablet. Maybe there is a projector version?

Ohhhh, this is soooooo old, but I still want one :)



Gnight~~~~~~~~~~
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
120. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:52 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
108, my apologies for not seeing your post earlier.

Quoted~ The collective?

"Thank you, Ossqss. The collective is much wiser than the one. At least when it comes down to problem solving on a large scale."



BTW, nice 24" tablet the captain has at the beginning ª¿ª,,,, I want one :)


The collective, as in everyone in the room. Umm, blog. The Borg Identity, so to say. ;-)

A 24" tablet would be nice but, does that not defeat the purpose of a small, easy to carry appliance?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
119. Ossqss
2:28 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
108, my apologies for not seeing your post earlier.

Quoted~ The collective?

"Thank you, Ossqss. The collective is much wiser than the one. At least when it comes down to problem solving on a large scale."



BTW, nice 24" tablet the captain has at the beginning %uFFFD%uFFFD%uFFFD,,,, I want one :)

Please get me a docking station at either 6 or 8 of 9..........

I should add ( as a courtesy ) for those with respectable protection. This site, the only site I have been connected to tonight, provided 3 attempts of unauthorized access. Just keep that in mind if you use free security applications.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
118. Ossqss
12:58 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting Doxienan:


My metal roof is being installed as I post. I ordered 'solar panel blue' so that the solar panels will blend in. I haven't decided which type of solar PV to install. The flexible type comes in rolls which fit between the seams and has self adhesive backing. It would be nearly invisible on the roof. The standard PV panels can attach easily on the roof's seams and are more efficient.




Interesting, please let us know how it works out. Our committee just approved the use of metal roofing for our neighborhood.

I had also been tinkering with the use of a sort of vascular honeycomb metal roofing, hard piped, for heating water. Plastic panels, connections, and piping just doesn't do to well in the long run on roofs.

Aside from a slate roof, metal provides the most longevity and also can get you Cat 5 roof certification levels. Not getting that with shingles.

Good luck to you on that new roof.

I just wonder about the self adhesive backing. I know nothing lasts very long in Florida with direct exposure to the Sun, let alone storms. I hope they figured it out.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
117. cyclonebuster
12:51 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting Doxienan:


My metal roof is being installed as I post. I ordered 'solar panel blue' so that the solar panels will blend in. I haven't decided which type of solar PV to install. The flexible type comes in rolls which fit between the seams and has self adhesive backing. It would be nearly invisible on the roof. The standard PV panels can attach easily on the roof's seams and are more efficient.




I like solar also. Sadly it is not 24/7/365!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
116. Doxienan
12:33 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Quoting theshepherd:
107. Ossqss


In reality, here is one of my suggestions. Every roof installation from now forward be comprised of 50% solar material and be backfed into the grid.


Yup...one of my suppliers offers an excellent metal/solar roof installation option including a $5000 rebate...but then I'm sure all the whiz kids on here already have one on order....or do they just talk about it?


My metal roof is being installed as I post. I ordered 'solar panel blue' so that the solar panels will blend in. I haven't decided which type of solar PV to install. The flexible type comes in rolls which fit between the seams and has self adhesive backing. It would be nearly invisible on the roof. The standard PV panels can attach easily on the roof's seams and are more efficient.


Member Since: April 28, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 53
115. cyclonebuster
12:24 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
Dr. Rood have you figured out how to cool our planet off back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
114. theshepherd
12:00 AM GMT on September 27, 2011
107. Ossqss


In reality, here is one of my suggestions. Every roof installation from now forward be comprised of 50% solar material and be backfed into the grid.


Yup...one of my suppliers offers an excellent metal/solar roof installation option including a $5000 rebate...but then I'm sure all the whiz kids on here already have one on order....or do they just talk about it?
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10084
113. theshepherd
11:54 PM GMT on September 26, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
After watching my sniffer on this site, I am amazed at the attempts to control the posts. LOL, desperation in the end!



It's laughable :))
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10084
112. Ossqss
9:27 PM GMT on September 26, 2011


Heads up folks. This just pinged into my phone. First one of these I have viewed in some time. G4 levels......

Official Space Weather Advisory issued by NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center
Boulder, Colorado, USA

SPACE WEATHER ADVISORY BULLETIN #11- 4
2011 September 26 at 03:00 p.m. MDT (2011 September 26 2100 UTC)

**** EARLY AUTUMN GEOMAGNETIC STORM ****

A Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) that erupted from NOAA Active Region 1302
on Saturday September 24 in conjunction with an M7 strength solar
flare, arrived this morning at 1237 UT (8:37am Eastern Time). It has
kicked off moderate (G2) geomagnetic storms for low latitudes, but high
latitudes are seeing severe (G4) levels of activity. Aurora watchers
in Asia and Europe are most favorably positioned for this event, though
it may persist long enough for viewers in North America. The bulk of
the CME missed the Earth, meaning the storm intensity and duration are
less than what they would have been in the case of a direct hit.
Region 1302 remains capable of producing more activity and will be in a
favorable position for that activity to have impacts on Earth for the
next 3-5 days.

Data used to provide space weather services are contributed by NOAA,
USAF, NASA, NSF, USGS, the International Space Environment Services
and other observatories, universities, and institutions. More
information is available at SWPC's Web site http://swpc.noaa.gov




------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
111. JBastardi
8:24 PM GMT on September 26, 2011
Now I will agree that the South Central portion of the US is lacking in rainfall in a bad way, but it would seem that in the 21st Century man would have the foresight to plan for such conditions by the storage and distribution of water. It seems the residents of TX have had the foresight, but environmentalists have thwarted that planning through lawsuits under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act among others. How typical? Instead of totally blaming "climate change" on drought conditions and the horrible results, perhaps the warmists should place some of the blame where it's due? The drought conditions are not "unprecedented," and, were it not for the plethora of lawsuits protecting the spotted minnow worm, areas that sometimes see below-average rain might better handle the conditions. It's very strange that Gaia worshipers are more concerned with the welfare of a worm than that of man.

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
110. JBastardi
8:15 PM GMT on September 26, 2011
More EPA "feel good" environmental regulations. They would cost the taxpayer billions, add thousands of new government workers, stifle the economy, and are impossible to enforce. Ms. Jackson also forgot to mention they would do nothing to prevent so-called "global warming."

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
109. Patrap
7:10 PM GMT on September 26, 2011
solarham.com





Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA,
Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force.
Updated 2011 Sep 25 2205 UTC

Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity
SDF Number 268 Issued at 2200Z on 25 Sep 2011

IA. Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 24/2100Z
to 25/2100Z: Solar activity was high. Regions 1302 (N12E36) and
1303 (S28W79) each produced three M-class flares. The largest was
an M7/2N at 25/0450Z. A partial halo CME was observed at 24/1936Z
in LASCO C2 imagery which was likely associated with the M3 flare
from Region 1302 that occurred at 24/1921Z. The event had an
associated Type II (1369 km/s) and an approximate plane of sky speed
of 800 km/s using LASCO C3 imagery. Two more CMEs were observed at
25/0236Z and 25/0312Z off the Southwest limb in LASCO C2 imagery,
however they are not expected to be geoeffective.

IB. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to continue
at high levels with a chance for isolated X-class flares from Region
1302.

IIA. Geophysical Activity Summary 24/2100Z to 25/2100Z:
The geomagnetic field was mostly quiet. A sudden impulse (SI) was
observed at the ACE spacecraft at approximately 25/1106Z. The IMF
Bt increased from approximately 5 nT to 10 nT while the field
density increased to around 7 p/cc. The greater than 10 MeV protons
event that began at 23/2255Z reached a peak of 27.3 PFUs at 25/2030Z
and continues to remain above the 10 PFU threshold.

IIB. Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is
expected to be at unsettled to minor storm conditions with major
storm periods possible at high latitudes on day 1 (26 September) due
to activity from the CME associated with the M7 flare that occurred
at 24/1320Z. Mostly unsettled conditions are expected on days 2-3
(27-28 September) due to continued activity from the CME as well as
a possible glancing blow from a weak CME on day 3. The greater than
10 MeV proton flux is expected to continue to remain above threshold
for the next three days.

III. Event Probabilities 26 Sep-28 Sep
Class M 80/80/80
Class X 40/40/40
Proton 99/99/80
PCAF yellow
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128290

Viewing: 159 - 109

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.