Earth's Sustainability

For topics unrelated to bush walking or to the forums.

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby GPSGuided » Thu 21 Apr, 2016 8:20 pm

Saudi is playing a futile and short term game. Their dominance in US politics is numbered as the US strategically moves away from Middle East oil and as alternative energy technologies start to take off. Russia, Venezuela and other oil producers are the collaterally damaged in this dirty game. Given the economic and political structure of Saudi Arabia, I'm just waiting to see how much longer they can sustain their national cost base and the indulgent royal family. It's gun powder material!

Coming back to Earth's sustainability, the word 'sustainability' is a word that can defined many ways but oil will necessarily play a diminishing role as we move forward across the next 50 years.
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby maddog » Thu 21 Apr, 2016 8:56 pm

G’day GPS,

Demand for oil grows, the price goes up, we search for more, we find more, reserves increase, production increases and price falls. Just ask an unemployed geologist. The Saudis once had power, shale oil has changed this. Should the Saudis, the Russians, or others again conspire to restrict supply, and increase price, shale oil extraction will be ramped up. Not to mention that stored electricity is beginning to look viable to power automobiles. Throughout history technology has provided us solutions; the stone-age did not end for lack of stones.

So, looking forward, we probably need electricity more than we need oil to improve our lives. All of them. Coal, nuclear and hydro can supply plentiful electricity and do so cheaply, right now, with no subsidies. Other renewables may meaningfully contribute eventually, but are they necessary into the foreseeable future? If you are connected to an electricity grid the short answer is no.

The handwringer’s favourite bogie, global warming, has failed to deliver the promised calamity. An unverifiable ‘science’ built on computer modelling, it is a gift that keeps giving until doomsday finally arrives. One day. But really, if given the choice between a hairshirt and a holiday we pick the holiday, so do any of us really believe? And does science not inform us that CO2 is a plant food, that most plants have evolved in a CO2 rich world, and the plants are hungry for more?

And on that note, with Giddy, back we go the Amazon. If you look to the facts, and not just a shocking number, you will find that of the 0.0009% of the Amazon rainforest being cleared each year, the majority is for substance agriculture and cattle ranching. Not palm oil and genetically modified ‘Franken-foods’. Giddy, you will have to look elsewhere for your crisis.

G’day Lachlan,

Yet again we have a really big scary number, another really big scary number. But what is of most interest is the fertility rate. As it falls, so will the population over a generation or two. In the greater scheme of things this is really not too long a time. This is a very simple principle. How should we ensure the fertility rate drops in those pockets of the world where it is still a problem? Should we subscribe to the discredited theories of Malthus (war, famine, plague)? To fertility control and forced family planning? Or to strategies that have been shown to work regardless of the culture to which we belong; poverty reduction and education?

What’s your pick?

Cheers,

Maddog.
maddog
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:10 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby LachlanB » Thu 21 Apr, 2016 9:10 pm

Yes, in the very long term fertility is the more important factor. However, that graph suggests that there will be negligible population decrease in the next 84 years. That's certainly more than "a generation or two", and that's only for the population to stabilise in the lower population estimates. For it, based on these trends, to begin to decrease will be even longer still. In the mean-time, we will have had a massive population impacting on the planet. Perhaps in the greater scheme of things, no 100-200+ years isn't a long time, but it is certainly longer than many of our already stressed natural systems can cope with.

There's a reason big, scary numbers keep coming up. It's because there are a lot of people on the planet, and we all use a lot of resources. The big numbers reflect an equally big problem. I don't have any answers to the problem; however for people to actually recognise that we have a global population problem would go a long way to addressing it. A Malthusian catastrophe is no solution, however if humanity doesn't adapt, it could become a product of our short-sightedness.

Edit: Oh, and describing Malthus as discredited could be taking it too far. Malthus' error lies in his extrapolation of his theories, not the theories themselves. It's a bit harsh to describe all of someone's work as irrelevant simply because he couldn't read the future of industralisation and how it might impact his predictions. Here's an interesting piece about that:
http://theconversation.com/can-the-eart ... ture-43347
LachlanB
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon 21 Apr, 2014 5:07 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby Giddy_up » Thu 21 Apr, 2016 10:08 pm

Hey Maddog, I'm really not sure what planet you have been living on mate, some reality for you about all those little subsistence farmers in the Amazon tinkering away with their hoes

http://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/soy



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
causa latet, vis est notissima
User avatar
Giddy_up
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2013 5:34 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby peregrinator » Thu 21 Apr, 2016 10:50 pm

Content removed. I'll stick with my earlier decision to refrain from useless discussion.
peregrinator
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Fri 15 Apr, 2011 2:50 pm
Region: Victoria

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby Giddy_up » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 9:41 am

peregrinator wrote:Content removed. I'll stick with my earlier decision to refrain from useless discussion.


Wished you hadn't, the bit I was reading was very sage :)
causa latet, vis est notissima
User avatar
Giddy_up
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2013 5:34 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby maddog » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 1:03 pm

G'day Lachlan,

In regards to the overall population, as stated, it will fall with a declining fertility rate and we have no reason to believe that the world will not survive in the interim. To hasten the decline in fertility living conditions need to be addressed because we know this works. Malthus, and his contemporaries, are discredited because their prophecies have failed to materialize and their measures do not control populations. The facts are very clear.

Giddy,

From the journal Nature (2015), an article which contradicts the nonsense you peddle:

Brazil has waged a successful war on tropical deforestation, and other countries are trying to follow its lead
...
The deforestation rate here last year was roughly 75% below the average for 1996 to 2005 — just shy of Brazil's pledge to achieve an 80% reduction by 2020. The country has managed this feat while increasing the amount of food it produces, much of it for export to a growing and hungry world.
...
Brazil's experience suggests that humanity has a chance to control agricultural expansion and preserve the planet's most diverse ecosystems...


Pergie,

Your post was off topic so it is no surprise you removed it. I must admit I am always surprised when people feel the need to comment on a thread or posts in which they profess no interest. Precious people make for dull forums, a little debate livens things up, so perhaps you should dismount from your high horse.

Cheers,

Maddog.
maddog
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:10 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby GPSGuided » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 1:24 pm

Maddog, you know that pulling out one single scientific article is insufficient evidence for a definitive proof, right? Per science, there'll always be contradicting articles to pick.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby maddog » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 1:28 pm

G'day GPS,

So its a good thing that Nature ranks above most then. No?

Cheers,

Maddog.
maddog
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:10 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby Giddy_up » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 1:41 pm

Maddog you seem happy to forget what is already lost to us all through poor management, those millions of hectares of pristine rainforest, gone. You then say that it's all ok because we have slowed the rate of clearing to an acceptable rate, what rot!!

You then throw up that they have improved their production systems and are now growing more off the same hectare, well that's an easy case to make because the plant breeders (GM) are selling new improved varieties. This is finite I can tell you and you can only get a plant to do so much. The other scary thing is that the harvested seed can't be resown. It won't grow true to type and so we are losing the important genetic material of plants through our greed. We are producing billions of tonnes of seed that can't be resown to grow anything. A clever trick used by plant breeders to ensure you need to buy seed from them next year and the year after that, nice way to sustain profit.

There is a common belief that these highly productive areas that you tout are now in decline because the clearing in these regions has tipped the balance in the climate there and they now no longer enjoy the high rainfall that was once so fortuitous to their production system. So it's not sustainable.

Throw off the blinkers son, the world is not doing so well financially or environmentally and the two are now intrinsically linked. You call us "doomsdayers", I think we are realists who know change is coming and it's not pretty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
causa latet, vis est notissima
User avatar
Giddy_up
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2013 5:34 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Earth's Sustainability

Postby GPSGuided » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 1:54 pm

maddog wrote:So its a good thing that Nature ranks above most then. No?.

No discount on Nature and it's good that articles from respected journals are being referenced in our discussion. However, individual articles should still be treated as a single reference. We need a body of evidence for a sound conclusion, especially on these environmental and social issues which invariably have tremendous variability.

Btw, I appreciate the civil discussion we have here. May not change what one cares to admit, but it's always good to hear opposing opinion and reasoning.
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby maddog » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 4:08 pm

G'day GPS,

In regards to the evidence there is plenty of it around and the Nature article is fairly representative of the credible sources. On environmental issues, though we will continue to make mistakes here and there, we have a lot to be proud of. Things are getting better, for more and more people, great tracts of land are being set aside for conservation, many environmental indicators are improving. Is there work to be done? Of course. But for most of us, by any rational measure, there has never been a better time to be alive. It is strange that rather than celebrate successes, while urging vigilance, so many greens would prefer to imagine impending catastrophe.

And I agree - it is an interesting subject providing the opportunity for a healthy exchange of views.

Giddy,

There are problems with the economic system by scarcity is not one of them.

GM crops have the potential to be very, very good, or less so. With reference to potential genetic pollution and legal issues these concerns can be managed through regulation. But outright denial of the potential benefits is certainly not the position of a rational mind - it is a dark age mentality. Feed the world - more food on less land is a good thing.

Back to the issue at hand.

maddog
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:10 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby GPSGuided » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 4:15 pm

maddog wrote:But for most of us, by any rational measure, there has never been a better time to be alive...

This is where the contention is.

Are you talking about 'better for human' or better for the environment? I'd suggest that the environment is under significant stress and it's not a good time for the planet as a whole at this time. In my mind, 'sustainable' means it's good for the everyone and we clearly aren't at that pivot right now.
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby LachlanB » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 5:33 pm

Maddog,
Just a note about that piece from Nature. It is not an article in the scientific sense of the word. It is from Nature's News and Comment section, and is more an article in the newspaper sense of the word (although, to be fair, it is a fairly rigourous example of the latter). A scientific paper published in the same edition of Nature is Global Effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity (Newbold et al, 2015), which is suggesting that human activity is causing major declines in species richness worldwide.

Brazil has been somewhat successful in decreasing deforestation in the Amazon, as Tollefson suggests. But, it's success hasn't been replicated across the whole basin. For instance, deforestation is predicted to increase in parts of the Peruvian Amazon (Bax, Francesconi and Quintero (2016)). Plus, the area deforested in the Brazillian Amazon is still massive; an area of around equivalent size to Wollemi National Park (5,000km2) was being deforested a year in 2012 (Börner, Marinho and Wunder (2015)). The only way 5000km2 lost every year can be considered a success is when it is compared to what the previous rates were. The problem is, as Tollefson recognises, that Brazil is only one jurisdiction, and the success needs to be replicated in other countries (like Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo).
LachlanB
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon 21 Apr, 2014 5:07 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby maddog » Fri 22 Apr, 2016 6:52 pm

G’day Lachlan,

I understand the nature of the article and the journal it was published in.

Brazil’s share of the Amazonian rainforest is of the interest as it is by far the largest part. Giddy’s figure of 5000km2, despite claims of great magnitude, is in itself a number neither large nor small. Context is provided by the total area, of which the cleared forest is a very small part. As stated, as a percentage of the Amazonian rainforest as a whole it represents 0.09%, of Brazil’s share 0.15%.

Imagining a population induced environmental catastrophe in the Amazon is a strange choice given the evidence encourages rational optimism. You might have better luck with the Congo.

Cheers,

Maddog.
Last edited by maddog on Sat 23 Apr, 2016 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
maddog
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:10 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby stepbystep » Sat 23 Apr, 2016 7:08 am

The clock is ticking and we are all screwed. Be it next year next decade next century or sometime after that. Humans aren't overly important and the earth will flick us off at some point. In the meantime make it as liveable for the next generation as possible. The end.

Edit: And get off your computers and go somewhere beautiful, and then defend its beauty.
The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders ~ Edward Abbey
User avatar
stepbystep
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7707
Joined: Tue 19 May, 2009 10:19 am
Location: Street urchin
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby maddog » Sat 23 Apr, 2016 9:51 am

G’day SBS,

I agree that humans have a propensity to exaggerate their impact on the planet. I also agree with your decision to avoid being precise with your date for the coming apocalypse. After all, many of your fellow prophets have got themselves into a bit of a pickle with firm dates. Jehovah’s Witnesses and environmental luminaries first among equals in this regard. Take, for example, predictions from Earth Day 1970.

Also of interest: Earth Day co-founder killed, composted girlfriend

Cheers,

Maddog.
maddog
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:10 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby GPSGuided » Sat 23 Apr, 2016 10:50 am


Is this actually relevant to the topic?
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby maddog » Sat 23 Apr, 2016 11:31 am

G'day GPS,

It’s an aside GPS, as we wait to discuss the population and environmental issues of the Congo. It is worth noting that the society of prophets quickly distanced themselves from the Unicorn. Any association was obviously bad publicity. While such a strategy is understandable, it is at the same time somewhat hypocritical. We should not forget this is movement that openly supports the views of Malthus.

Cheers,

Maddog.
maddog
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:10 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Earth's Sustainability

Postby GPSGuided » Sat 23 Apr, 2016 11:57 am

Maddog. We are not signing up to any party or group but the foundation and reasoning eg. Bikies may protest for the environment but doesn't mean anyone for environmental protection have to join a bikie group (with due respect to bikies).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Previous

Return to Between Bushwalks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests