I always want to reply with that chart on every post about some magical new climate technology. Nothing really matters until we stop pulling carbon-based fuels out of the ground and lighting them on fire. That’s it. That’s the only thing that matters. Wind and solar are great but we’re still approving gas/coal/oil projects, at least globally.
It’s like with the water crisis in the American West. They guilt trip individuals into feeling bad about taking showers but it’s like 80% agriculture. And the majority of that is for animal feed. (I’m not saying everyone go vegan. That’s about as unrealistic as asking everyone to stop fucking to keep the population from growing. I’m saying don’t grow alfalfa in the fucking desert and then blame people who bathe.)
Nothing really matters until we stop pulling carbon-based fuels out of the ground and lighting them on fire.
I say it all the time. The only possible way to keep carbon from outside the carbon cycle from entering the carbon cycle is to stop taking carbon from outside the carbon cycle and putting it into the carbon cycle. No amount of coal plant filtration or growing trees or building wind farms will take carbon from inside the carbon cycle out of the carbon cycle.
400 ppm is too much, and the mechanisms for putting that carbon in the ground is gone and never coming back. The best we can possibly do is stop making it worse, and we won’t, because everyone wants to have a whole chicken in their fridge that’ll end up rotting because the availability of goods, whether we’ll actually consume them or not, is the most important thing in the world.
…but on the chicken part. Do people really routinely overstock on perishable items? Like, you can misjudge, but if you keep throwing food out because it’s gone bad, surely you’d adjust your purchasing habits?
You would think, but yes, a lot of people really do routinely buy more perishables than they need.
I owe my perspective on it to this essay. It doesn’t talk about money wasted when food goes bad, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I read it—I didn’t just pay $1.86 for those green onions, it also cost me $1.86 worth of green onions when I threw them away.
People don’t even notice how much money they waste on food they never ate because once that 2 lbs of bacon is in their fridge, they no longer assign a dollar value to it. When that bacon goes bad without even being opened, they didn’t lose $10, they lost 2 lbs of bacon, and the thought that enters their head is “I should get more bacon”
This is an excellent point. The energy transition is more accurately an energy addition. Some renewables on top of a still-increasing pile of burning fossil fuels.
Same with EVs. More are being sold every year but more ICE cars are being sold, too.
Until the fossil fuel industry actually shrinks, things are hopeless.
where did you get this data? it can’t possibly be right
edit: it’s robbed of context. it’s only illustrating water use in the Colorado River basin, and even at that is being misleading: for instance, corn silage is a byproduct of grain corn. that water doesn’t magically re-enter the water table if we don’t feed it to cattle, but by feeding it to cattle, we are able to reclaim some of that water use.
I skimmed this and clicked a few of the references. it does use poore-nemecek 2018, so I’m skeptical of all of the other data that’s included. of course going through a piece the size that you linked to evaluate it for its scientific integrity is a project all onto itself and I’m at work at the moment. I encourage you to look at the methodology for each of the claims made in your link.
I always want to reply with that chart on every post about some magical new climate technology. Nothing really matters until we stop pulling carbon-based fuels out of the ground and lighting them on fire. That’s it. That’s the only thing that matters. Wind and solar are great but we’re still approving gas/coal/oil projects, at least globally.
It’s like with the water crisis in the American West. They guilt trip individuals into feeling bad about taking showers but it’s like 80% agriculture. And the majority of that is for animal feed. (I’m not saying everyone go vegan. That’s about as unrealistic as asking everyone to stop fucking to keep the population from growing. I’m saying don’t grow alfalfa in the fucking desert and then blame people who bathe.)
I say it all the time. The only possible way to keep carbon from outside the carbon cycle from entering the carbon cycle is to stop taking carbon from outside the carbon cycle and putting it into the carbon cycle. No amount of coal plant filtration or growing trees or building wind farms will take carbon from inside the carbon cycle out of the carbon cycle.
400 ppm is too much, and the mechanisms for putting that carbon in the ground is gone and never coming back. The best we can possibly do is stop making it worse, and we won’t, because everyone wants to have a whole chicken in their fridge that’ll end up rotting because the availability of goods, whether we’ll actually consume them or not, is the most important thing in the world.
renewables does replace carbon cycle addition energy. We need energy. We don’t need nationalist or national oligarch energy.
You’re not wrong.
…but on the chicken part. Do people really routinely overstock on perishable items? Like, you can misjudge, but if you keep throwing food out because it’s gone bad, surely you’d adjust your purchasing habits?
You would think, but yes, a lot of people really do routinely buy more perishables than they need.
I owe my perspective on it to this essay. It doesn’t talk about money wasted when food goes bad, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I read it—I didn’t just pay $1.86 for those green onions, it also cost me $1.86 worth of green onions when I threw them away.
People don’t even notice how much money they waste on food they never ate because once that 2 lbs of bacon is in their fridge, they no longer assign a dollar value to it. When that bacon goes bad without even being opened, they didn’t lose $10, they lost 2 lbs of bacon, and the thought that enters their head is “I should get more bacon”
This is an excellent point. The energy transition is more accurately an energy addition. Some renewables on top of a still-increasing pile of burning fossil fuels.
Same with EVs. More are being sold every year but more ICE cars are being sold, too.
Until the fossil fuel industry actually shrinks, things are hopeless.
Seeing those alfalfa farms all over my desert state turns me into an extremist.
you mean this?
Some rich fuck: That looks like a sick place to build a VAC’d Golf course!
There are huge vegetarian populations though (think about India), app it’s not completely against human nature…
It’s not, but it takes something akin to a religious conversion to move large populations off meat.
People get really defensive about it. Like it’s kind of shocking. If you told me I had to stop eating almonds, and gave a good argument, I’d listen.
I’m “hopefully” that the upcoming food/water wars might do the trick. But not too hopeful…
where did you get this data? it can’t possibly be right
edit: it’s robbed of context. it’s only illustrating water use in the Colorado River basin, and even at that is being misleading: for instance, corn silage is a byproduct of grain corn. that water doesn’t magically re-enter the water table if we don’t feed it to cattle, but by feeding it to cattle, we are able to reclaim some of that water use.
It’s kinda bizarre how people are brainwashed to think that this isn’t a thing…
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/devastating-water-footprint-animal-agriculture/163485/
I skimmed this and clicked a few of the references. it does use poore-nemecek 2018, so I’m skeptical of all of the other data that’s included. of course going through a piece the size that you linked to evaluate it for its scientific integrity is a project all onto itself and I’m at work at the moment. I encourage you to look at the methodology for each of the claims made in your link.
The NY Times. Here’s a gift link:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/22/climate/colorado-river-water.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lE4.44Qi.Vu9I48wSDsmh
Edit: they cite this study in Nature Sustainability: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0483-z
I found the nature article that is the source.
here
They said water in the American west then showed an image of water use. Critical thinking gooooooo