[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

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

But directly you can estimate the cost. Via "addressing" CC, nope.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

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.

But not using them reduces yield, oh hang on...

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

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.

Well developing GM means CO2, and also quite a few people here don't like GM in any way shape or form - Personally I'm neutral. Whilst we have a choice to go organic or not in the rich first world if you offer a farmer in Africa a crop than can withstand drought better, needs fewer fertilizers, yields more, and extracts less nutrients from the soil I doubt he or she would say no.

With that lower yields mean higher food prices. Higher food prices mean those on the edge will expand their use of land into more wilderness areas.

We can outlaw it all you like but it will happen, and wildlife dies and wilderness is gone.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

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

A simple analysis using IPCC data says the opposite apparently

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

And Lord Stern was wrong in so many areas. The guy he quoted the most in his report says his report is pish.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

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.

I'm talking incremental growth, without Greenpeace imposing only renewable power and WWF taking land (sometimes by force) for Palm Oil, if we could do it in one go that would be superb but we can't.

Without this how do you propose to solve population growth ? People getting richer have fewer kids because they all survive. Did you notice world population growth is slowing as the world is getting richer ? If not using this way then how - bottom line, who dies and who decides who dies ? If it is based on emissions and consumption then surely our kids should die first - so is going to go with that idea ? Not me.

How do you propose to solve environmental pollution ? Wealthier countries impose emissions standards (clean air act, anti smog, restrictions on fertilizer use and run off as good examples, there are more) and can afford the costs required to abide by them. They can also provide clean water.

How do you propose to protect wilderness ? Poor people use more and more land or hunt more and more wildlife to survive, wealthier people living in cities don't. Wealthier countries also protect wildlife areas, wildernesses and impose standards on anyone doing anything in them.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

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.

Partially agree - CCS makes no sense at all, which is why nobody is doing it. uk.gov offered £1bn (of taxpayers money) for a working CCS "pilot" - everyone backed out. Norway cancelled their full size proof of concept too because it was also barkingly mad expensive with little return.

Unless you have a magic herd of unicorns we will be digging up the ancient carbon and turning it into CO2. Personally I would rather we did that in the most efficient way possible, not by burning it in a field full of Diesel generators acting as backup for useless and bl00dy expensive renewables.