[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The runoff from farms can be solved - different chemicals and fertilizers can be developed and used, the waste can be caught and run off prevented. The cost of doing that, even on a major scale can be estimated and implemented. IMHO if that is causing damage then it should be done, and the polluters made to pay, and ultimately the consumers of their products via the prices they charge.

They can be reduced through more careful application. Fertilizers only become run off when they are not utilized by the crops. That can be addressed directly or as part of avoiding climate change

Addressing climate change will reduce fertilizer and pesticide run off because N2 fertilizers that are not utilized ultimately contribute to atmospheric NOx. That's in addition to the CO2 released through their production. The pesticides likewise cause CO2 release through their production.

Price the emissions (banning might not be possible yet - longer term we will probably see the N2 fixing bacteria ^ - we're going to need GM) and there is stronger incentive to more directed and lower use. It may be more economic to accept lower yields by not using them, so trading off a reduced short term yield for sustained yield into the future. (Assuming lower later yields due to climate change are inevitable absent reduced greenhouse gas emissions now.)

Without the hits from climate change, ecosystems can cope better.

Is it possible to work out a GW/CO2 response which would work as well ? And if so how much would it cost, who would implement it and when ?

The cost of not avoiding AGW is so much greater than doing so even a simple analysis shows that it has to be avoided.

Take another example, you want to protect wildlife ? Me too. Habitats are under threat. Why ? Because people on the "edge" will start to exploit those areas for a living. Give those people an alternative, like a factory or an office, or a skill, or a trade - and they will leave those areas alone.

And despite what you might think about quality of life and living out of town, those in the developing world just want what we have - good pay, good healthcare and a future for their kids. They don't debate whether GM food is good or not, they just want food and clean water.

Solving that one globally is about 1/52nd the estimated cost of solving "climate change" even if it was possible.

And if we solve it then we also solve the growth in global population - did you notice the rate of increase has slowed ?

Wave your magic wand so that the undeveloped world becomes developed right now. Do you think that any of the environmental and resource problems we are facing, at the current (much lower) level of consumption, will have been solved? With three or four times the emissions and three or four times the resource demands? Development alone won't work.


Re. biochar. That may be needed as a re-sequestration process (for CO2) but it makes no sense to dig up ancient Carbon in one place, burn it and then spend more money and effort to try to bury the Carbon again elsewhere. Far better not to release the ancient Carbon in the first place.