The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[niky]

Originally Posted by sendler

Ruminent livestock such as cows are an important piece of the puzzle in a permaculture homestead. They can make use of hilly land for grazing that cannot easily be used to grow crops and turn it into meat and milk. And they bring back NPK fertilizer in their dung for use in the crop fields. Hogs can thrive and grow on food scraps and waste trimmings that humans can't readily eat. Free range Chickens venture out to feed on pest grubs and insects and turn them into eggs and meat.

I used to ride home from school in a truck full of pig slop.

Not the most pleasant way to get home, but that food waste was put to good use.

Too bad rezoning and urbanization made the local pig farms move out.

C'est la vie.

[oil pan 4]

I saw a local news article about pig farmers in Las Vegas NV going around to all the buffets to collect their old buffet food for pigs so the food didn't just all go in the trash.
It required the use of a commercial box truck with lift gate to go around and collect all the old food in one go.
They did this 4 times a day.
Breakfast, lunch time, dinner and midnight.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That's the point sendler is always making; that wealth and consumption are the same thing. Any person who is wealthy is also a large consumer.

The logical conclusion then is that if you want to reduce consumption, there are only 2 ways to go about doing it:

1. Reduce population
2. Reduce wealth

So the environmental "problem" isn't that we aren't all driving EVs and using LED bulbs, it's that we're rich and prolific.

People living in the US are the 1%, including those we consider "low income".

The rate of population growth is in decline, so I tend to believe technology will allow us to live in relatively high standards of living until population naturally peaks; perhaps somewhere around 10 billion. From there we will face the opposite population crisis; aging populations with declining numbers.

In the future, reproduction will be more about making a decision, and less about impulsiveness.

I would add energy efficiency as #3.
Some pervert the Jevon's Paradox to argue against this,but even Stanley Jevons was incorrect in his logic concerning efficiency and consumption.
Efficiency can be used as an excuse to just use more,leading to zero overall conservation,but it's conditional.
In 1974,I went from 18-mpg,to 41-mpg overnight,with off-the-shelf technology.
If I could get into a TESLA Model-3,I could be at 170 mpg-e within 6-months.

[oil pan 4]

$6,700 got me a leaf that gets over 120mpge driving mostly on the highway.
All I had to do was buy it and there are plenty more where that one came from.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I would add energy efficiency as #3.
Some pervert the Jevon's Paradox to argue against this,but even Stanley Jevons was incorrect in his logic concerning efficiency and consumption.
Efficiency can be used as an excuse to just use more,leading to zero overall conservation,but it's conditional.
In 1974,I went from 18-mpg,to 41-mpg overnight,with off-the-shelf technology.
If I could get into a TESLA Model-3,I could be at 170 mpg-e within 6-months.

Efficiency sometimes has a large positive benefit at reducing consumption and sometimes doesn't. Home appliances/electronics have gotten more efficient over the years, and as a result, per capita electrical use has gone down slightly.

The thing is, if the entire US started driving 50 MPG cars instead of our (20 MPG?) vehicles, we'd what, forstall global warming by a couple months? Then as demand for fuel dropped and supply increased, the price would plummet. With relatively cheap fuel, other countries where most people don't own a vehicle would start buying them and driving.

I'd say that with global demand for petrol, reducing consumption in any 1 geographic location will do little to affect overall consumption in the long term.

That said, I'm all for efficiency for efficiency's sake. There's no point in consuming something needlessly.

[sendler]

Jevons' paradox is applicable to technology advances. Some of which bring about an improved efficiency over a previous machine or process. But has more historically been applied regarding new machines and processes which replaced muscle power with fossil energy inputs. New machines and gadgets that use energy to do what humans and beasts used to do manually. So technology advancing is a vector for more primary energy use.
.
Humans can do .6kWh of work in an eight hour day. But the energy footprint of an average person in the USA has an additional 200 energy slaves (mostly fossil) tied up in their day to day existence. Due to all of these "advancements".
Of course we (USA) are now 50 times wealthier than kings and queens of 400 years ago.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There's no point in consuming something needlessly.

Louis C.K. stops eating when he hates himself.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Efficiency

If the USA electrified all personal transportation and gained an efficiency improvement of 2/3, we would reduce primary energy consumption by only 10%.
.
Embodied energy. Scale.
.
Such a long way to go. Before liquid fuel becomes prohibitively expensive to build the things we need to ease more gently down from overshoot.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Ah, conspiracy theories. You periodically hear about people who invent something that would significantly reduce petroleum usage and the oil companies buy their patent, possibly suing them into bankruptcy first. While that definitely sounds like a conspiracy theory, I do think that it is possible.
While I was catching up on everyone arguing with Oil Pan, a lady came to visit Mom, and it seems like she was excited about a video she saw on Facebook. Some lady found out that her son with autism lacked a hormone called Secretin, they injected him with it, his symptoms reduced more and more, until he was "Normal." The full story is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Sokolski (except Wikipedia says improvements only lasted about six weeks and additional doses did not do anything)

This says there were sixteen placebo-controlled randomized trials demonstrating zero benefit from Secretin: https://www.quackwatch.org/04Consume.../secretin.html

I have not been able to find any pro-Secretin videos on YouTube, but I did find this against it, giving the same information as that webpage: https://youtu.be/JaR4zpdtvdk

The lady said "Of course the studies did not show any benefit! The pharmaceutical companies want to sell drugs!"

Couldn't they sell Secretin?

Here is a Princeton article about it: https://www.princeton.edu/~actin/doc...tACure_000.pdf

Basically the article seems to be based on this line:


However, it seems the entire thing is just an explanation of what Secretin is and how it works.



Pharmaceutical companies to the rescue!

Aren't oil and pharmaceutical companies two of the largest political donors? Wouldn't it be in their financial interest to bury anything that risks their profits?

Dr.Michael Gregor,of 'How Not To Die',in his book,talked about:
*Randomized
*Double-blind
*Placebo-controlled
*Large-cohort
*Peer-reviewed
Clinical trials as the gold standard for research.
And he basically does not recommend any 'supplements',short of say:
*a vitamin-D3
*iodine
*one other,if you were a vegan,but I'm brain dead,sorry.

[Xist]

Vitamin B12?