Google gives up on renewables

[Grant-53]

We can talk about what other folks should or could do but at our house economics and value management meet in the adage, "Waste not, want not." The trick is to find the critical cause and affect relationships. God only knows what the optimal population of Sri Lanka should be in fifty years. My decisions and choices may have short term effects or they may have long term effects as part of an aggregate. I must choose without complete knowledge. At some point supply and demand will make substituting one product for another a viable change. The task is to make the change in an orderly and safe manner.

[niky]

Originally Posted by IamIan

What is your basis for this rather extreme type of catastrophic extraordinary conclusion/expectation ??

Well...



Biodiversity is a resource we're rapidly exhausting. While most people won't mind the loss of species that were already uncompetitive and unfit... those that were fit and competitive before human development destroyed their habitats, invading species introduced by humans crowded them out or human economic activity hunted them to extinction... we might just miss.

*Biodiversity is a resource because having our eggs in a whole lot of baskets helps the biosphere survive environmental shocks like asteroid strikes and Ice Ages. Humanity is one of the biggest environmental shocks to hit the Earth in recent times... if, say, an Ice Age, catastrophic temperature rise or an asteroid strike were to occur in the near future, it's a fair bet the effects would be much worse than otherwise.

-

Larry Niven's "Time Traveller" series, as collected in the book: "Rainbow Mars" has a very cheery take on this. Basically the only species left on Earth (outside of zoos and arboreums) are people and food yeast.

Not a very cheery way to live.

-

Long story short: we're already in the midst of a mass extinction event. While some species have recovered in isolation thanks to conservation efforts, there are several high profile species that may not see the next decade.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

I disagree .. as they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... and I have not yet seen sufficient extraordinary evidence that would justify that degree of extraordinary claim.

You know, that applies equally well to the extraordinary claim that the world can sustainably support vast numbers of humans. Where's the evidence?

What is your basis for this rather extreme type of catastrophic extraordinary conclusion/expectation ??

Accumulated CO2 from burning fossil fuels will cause the temperature to rise to a level which won't support mose life. Seef for instance the Permian-Triassic extinction event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian...tinction_event ), for which the most plausible (IMHO, anyway) explanation involves the volcanically-induced burning of large coal deposits.

Originally Posted by niky

Larry Niven's "Time Traveller" series, as collected in the book: "Rainbow Mars" has a very cheery take on this. Basically the only species left on Earth (outside of zoos and arboreums) are people and food yeast.

A literary device, unfortunately. In the real world it'd be rats, maybe. Humans, no. But on the bright side, ocean vent communities probably won't even notice, and thermophile bacteria will have lots of new ecological niches to expand into :-)

[NeilBlanchard]

If we humans can figure out how to live without producing waste, then we would be like every other form of life on the planet - and we would be fine.

Can there be too many trees?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by niky

Long story short: we're already in the midst of a mass extinction event. While some species have recovered in isolation thanks to conservation efforts, there are several high profile species that may not see the next decade.

Except that doesn't cover the degree of the claim that was made.

Take that up several orders of magnitude.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Indeed, I think we are experiencing the beginnings of such a catastrophic failure right now. Without major changes, I fully expect most vertebrate life to be extinct within a thousand years or so.

In all the entire history of the earth .. there has not been that magnitude of global extinction that was claimed ... not from ICE ages .. not from dinosaur ecosystem collapse ... not from asteroid impacts ... not from super-volcanoes ... etc ... none of them.

Is it possible ... sure ... the whole planet could be wiped out by a number of cosmic events ... but that's not the same as the human caused , degree of extinction claimed in as short a period as 1,000 years.

- - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

You know, that applies equally well to the extraordinary claim that the world can sustainably support vast numbers of humans. Where's the evidence?

#1> "Vast" is way too vague .. 1 million might be called 'vast' by one person ... 1Billion by another ... 1 Trillion by a 3rd ... etc.

#2> Depending on the quantification of #1 ... no one might be making the claim... thus it would be mute.

#3> I don't think they are equal claims.
You are claiming an unprecedented level global extinction.
vs
Some un-specified qty of people being sustainable.

#4> Even if we assumed they were equal magnitude of claims ... that doesn't make either one correct by default ... nor wrong by default ... extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof to support it .. There is no ... Person A's extraordinary claim is correct by default until dis-proven.

#5> I've pointed out what is actually happening ... thus none of those are extraordinary claims ... rate of population growth % has been declining for over 40 years (true) ... Current resources in many areas are mostly used for luxury items (true) ... many of those area of significant growth % decline are areas that spend some of the most resources on luxury items (true) , ie the reduction is not from lack of resources... we do not currently utilize all the global space , resources, etc that would be possible for us to use (true)... meat eating humans consume more resources (larger ecological impact) than non-meat eating humans (true) .. etc.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Accumulated CO2 from burning fossil fuels will cause the temperature to rise to a level which won't support mose life.Seef for instance the Permian-Triassic extinction event

Not good enough to reach the magnitude of the claim made.

You're claiming a greater total magnitude event of global extinction ... and more than 1,000x faster ... and without some of the contributing factors that were part of that event.

If anything ... that event is actually evidence against the degree of extraordinary extinction event claimed.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

In the real world it'd be rats, maybe.

Every species of rodent are vertebrates.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If we humans can figure out how to live without producing waste, then we would be like every other form of life on the planet - and we would be fine.

The vast % of our 'waste' we already have the technology and have already figured out how to do just that... we just don't choose to do so right now... eventually we might not be able to sustain that 'luxury'... or better yet , maybe we'll do it even if before we are 'forced' to.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Can there be too many trees?

As a matter of fact, yes :-) Ever seen an area that's been burned or logged, and thousands of seedlings sprout? And as they grow, they crowd each other out, so that in a few years you have a dense stand. Then most of them die off, shaded out by the strongest or luckiest, and you have a patch that's mostly standing dead timber. A good place for me to get firewood, but likely to burn to the soil in the next fire.

While if you've ever seen a patch of old-growth forest of the same type of trees, they will generally be giants, fairly widely spaced.

Originally Posted by IamIan

I've pointed out what is actually happening ... thus none of those are extraordinary claims ... rate of population growth % has been declining for over 40 years (true) ...

This frankly seems like extraordinary blindness. It doesn't matter what the growth rate is. As long as it's a positive number, the population still grows. You're also ignoring the mountains of evidence showing that current population levels and practices are not sustainable. You are, it seems to me, just indulging in a lot of hand-waving, arguing that a bunch of 'and then a miracle occurs' changes will allow a larger population to be supported, but give us absolutely no reason to think that those miracles will appear on schedule.

we do not currently utilize all the global space , resources, etc that would be possible for us to use (true)...

But we over-use many resources that are limited, and not replaceable by others.

You're claiming a greater total magnitude event of global extinction ... and more than 1,000x faster ... and without some of the contributing factors that were part of that event.

Yes, because the fossil carbon burning of today is happening at least 1000x faster - a few centuries vs several hundred thousand years. The more rapid shock would, I think, produce more drastic results.

[NeilBlanchard]

In the end though, James - since there is no waste in Nature - nothing bad comes from having "too many" trees.

That's my point.

[P-hack]

so, it is just like too many humans then?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

This frankly seems like extraordinary blindness.

If you think that pointing out what is actually happening (or has already happened) as being extraordinary blindness ... that's your opinion .. I disagree.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

It doesn't matter what the growth rate is.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As long as it's a positive number, the population still grows.

I'm not aware of anyone saying otherwise.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

You're also ignoring the mountains of evidence showing that current population levels and practices are not sustainable.

Incorrect.
I am not ignoring any such thing.

Quiet the contrary ... I've already written (in this discussion) the opposite of this claim about me.... From Post #24:

Originally Posted by IamIan

I don't think anyone is claiming it already is sustainable in it's current form today.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

You are, it seems to me, just indulging in a lot of hand-waving, arguing that a bunch of 'and then a miracle occurs' changes will allow a larger population to be supported, but give us absolutely no reason to think that those miracles will appear on schedule.

Your 'perception' is incorrect.
I am not doing that.

I do not recall ever claiming ... 'and then a miracle occurs' ... I also fail to see why I would give reasons for something .. like miracles ... that I never claimed would happen in the first place ? ... Or why you would even expect me to do that ?

Is there some specific claim (I actually made) that you want a reason / evidence / explanation for ??

I don't mind trying to give that to you .. but I'm not psychic .. You have to help me a bit to know what specific claim (I made) , you want this additional reason / evidence/ explanation for.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But we over-use many resources that are limited, and not replaceable by others.

Who claimed otherwise ?

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Yes, because the fossil carbon burning of today is happening at least 1000x faster - a few centuries vs several hundred thousand years. The more rapid shock would, I think, produce more drastic results.

Bold added.

It is possible you might be correct ... but .. your opinion might also be incorrect... hardly extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim.

Sense we have actual data showing periods in earth's past where the atmospheric CO2 level reached up to as high as ~7,000 ppm during the Cambrian area ... vs the ~400 ppm of today ... and even at ~7,000ppm there was not the magnitude of extinction event you describe.

Given the historical record (of what has happened) ... in order to exceed the CO2 levels that didn't produce the magnitude of extinction event you describe ... we would have to also assume peak oil , peak coal , peak (fossil fuel) ... pretty much won't happen for several hundred more years ... and you would have to assume we abandon our trends for increasing ability and amounts of RE.

The data of what we have been and are doing disagrees with the RE assumption ... and I am not aware of a peak Fossil fuel prediction that would push it out that far.

Further the CO2 levels during the Triassic extinction event you pointed to only reached a maximum of ~2,000 ppm ... sense ~7,000 ppm did not trigger the same kind of extinction event ... that actually looks to be evidence that the bulk of the Triassic extinction event you sited ... was actually not primarily the result of just the CO2 increase itself .. one of many contributing factors , sure.