Quote:
|
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.
|
Well...yes, it will. provided the 'magic wand' you invoked is RBFuller's
Design Science Revolution. How about 1/3 to 1/4 the emissions and 1/3 to 1/4 the resource demands?
Quote:
|
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.
|
What—you want to make biochar out of coal? Let us know what you think of this:
Cool Planet | The only company producing carbon negative fuels based on plant photosynthesis to remove CO2 from our atmosphere
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arragonis
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.
|
What they get instead is pesticide resistance and non-viable seeds.
That shifts me away from neutral.