Reforesting with balls of charcoal embedded with seeds

[freebeard]

freebeard isn't trying to convince people to agree with him, only to be less certain about everything; especially the things people have clearly gotten wrong.

Are you sure?

Me- I'm always trying to spark discussion that expands my understanding or at least illuminates areas of ignorance; with an emphasis on philosophy ('why' is at least as important as 'how').

I just try to use big words. Evistate. Whithersoever.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

The woodpeckers seem like the simplest solution.

If aircraft created more shade... "Flying bum" airship concept updated with motors powered by fuel cells alongside diesel engines.

So far, the arithmetic for climate change indicates that the 'ounce of prevention' will be superior in all ways compared to any ' pound of cure' geo-engineering scenarios.
The Green New Deal cost one soda-pop/day/capita.
It's the cheapest way out, and guarantees efficacy.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The Green New Deal cost one soda-pop/day/capita.

Is this size and/or bottling method dependent? Or is 1 big gulp supermegga 64oz equal to a 6 ounce mini bottle of Coke?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'll need further definition of notional and non-persons to fully understand the argument.

That said, I'll point out that there is not The Environment. There are environments which are better suited for certain organisms and those which are less habitable. Since homosapiens are the sole posessors of value, and are the only creatures capable of forming them, I place a higher importance on their environment(s).

No other creature can be thought of as "superior" because no other creature can conceive of such an idea.

The part we're in agreement with is that being at the top of the food chain and being the only ones to possess morality, we're solely responsible for the stewardship of all creatures on earth. Where we might differ is that I proclaim it good that things like bugs and spiders not live inside my house, or that cheetahs not roam in cities. 1st priority is to eliminate undesirable organisms from infesting the human environment, and 2nd priority is protecting organisms we value, in that order.

Ability to create a positive change requires accumulation of means. You can't protect something well if your needs aren't satisfied in abundance. This is the stumbling block of many bleeding hearts; the willingness to sacrifice oneself (or others) to aid in the cause of something else. That's not an effective strategy because you don't rescue something stuck in the quicksand by standing in it yourself. The firmer footing one has, the greater their means to lend aid. This is the whole concept of Jordan Peterson; to clean your room first before attempting to clean the room of others.

1) I argue that there is only one 'Environment.'
2) It's what we evolved within.
3) It is not divisible.
4) It exists only as a singularity, relying on all its myriad components with which to properly function.
5) I argue that the very arguments of the 'Julian Simon/Bjorn Lomberg' faction are what created the climate crisis in the first place.
6) While perhaps the apex predator, in the aggregate, I'm forced to rate humans below pond scum for what the accumulations of means has meant globally.
7) 'Value' is costing us the planet according to the latest UN Climate Report. We've already hit irreversible tipping points now.
8) I know of no other life form that will wittingly destroy the place they live, and that of their neighbors.
9) 'Stewardship' looks like corporate dominance and submission, for faceless day traders, speculating on a planetary scale, with no consequences.
10) all the 'undesirable' as well 'desirable' organisms are doomed because of the Gospel of Wealth.
11) No organism can exist outside the environment in which it evolved.
12) Failure to comprehend the 'non-linearity', exponential-growth nature of the issue doesn't arrest the 'growth' of the problem.
13) The 'Environment' is just going to transmogrify within positive feedback loops, like a brakeless S-P, 69-car freight train full of fertilizer, descending Cajon Pass on a collision course with the City of San Bernardino at 160-km/h, on top of a shallow, 14-inch pressurized CAL-MET fuel pipeline.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

So far, the arithmetic for climate change indicates that the 'ounce of prevention' will be superior in all ways compared to any ' pound of cure' geo-engineering scenarios.
The Green New Deal cost one soda-pop/day/capita.
It's the cheapest way out, and guarantees efficacy.

Where'd you get that "arithmetic"?

Taking the lowest estimate of the cost of GND puts the cost at $50T over 10 years. That's 5T per year. Spreading that cost over every citizen we're at $42/day. You're overpaying for your pop.

At the high end of the estimate, it's 100T over 10 years, and doubles the daily per capita cost to $84/day. I'm not sure if that factors in interest, but it certainly doesn't factor in opportunity cost.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/ho...new-deal-cost/

William Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2018 for his work on estimating the economic effects of global warming. He estimates a 2-4% economic loss by the end of the century (80 years from now). We're expected to have 300%+ GDP growth in those 80 years.

The maths suggest we'll be more capable to not only mitigate the effects of climate change 80 years from now, but we'll have more wealth and more advanced technology to possibly reduce CO2 concentrations, should we choose to do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QyXduteiWE&t=227s

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Is this size and/or bottling method dependent? Or is 1 big gulp supermegga 64oz equal to a 6 ounce mini bottle of Coke?

I used convenience store retail price and sales tax for a plastic-bottled, 20-oz, carbonated soft drink as the metric for daily cost. Something an individual might experience on any given day.
( I need that Pacific Ocean filled to the brim with plastic for that drive, from L.A., to the Kona Coast)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Where'd you get that "arithmetic"?

Taking the lowest estimate of the cost of GND puts the cost at $50T over 10 years. That's 5T per year. Spreading that cost over every citizen we're at $42/day. You're overpaying for your pop.

At the high end of the estimate, it's 100T over 10 years, and doubles the daily per capita cost to $84/day. I'm not sure if that factors in interest, but it certainly doesn't factor in opportunity cost.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/ho...new-deal-cost/

William Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2018 for his work on estimating the economic effects of global warming. He estimates a 2-4% economic loss by the end of the century (80 years from now). We're expected to have 300%+ GDP growth in those 80 years.

The maths suggest we'll be more capable to not only mitigate the effects of climate change 80 years from now, but we'll have more wealth and more advanced technology to possibly reduce CO2 concentrations, should we choose to do so.

1) In 2019, $8.206103295-trillion was the number they were kicking around.
2) Spread over 30-years.
3) I divided by 30 to get the annual contribution.
4) Divided that by 365 to get the daily contribution.
5) Then divided that by 325,719,178 US population to get the daily per capita contribution ( 126,247,743 'families' )
6) I may have refueled at a LOVES Truckstop recently, and purchased a 20-ounce Berkshire Hathaway product, remembering the out-the-door price of $2.30. ( I use the urinal at KROGER when I come to town, and pass Star Bucks, observing a line of customers queued up in line to spend $5 on a cup of Joe, so I may me underestimating 'painless' discretionary spending )

[freebeard]

shade

So far, the arithmetic for climate change indicates....

...and we're back to one of those days.

A dirigible could be a mothership to the fleet of drones that replace, or at least supplement the Woodpecker population.

[aerohead]

That gets the prize! I love it.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) In 2019, $8.206103295-trillion was the number they were kicking around.
2) Spread over 30-years.
3) I divided by 30 to get the annual contribution.
4) Divided that by 365 to get the daily contribution.
5) Then divided that by 325,719,178 US population to get the daily per capita contribution ( 126,247,743 'families' )
6) I may have refueled at a LOVES Truckstop recently, and purchased a 20-ounce Berkshire Hathaway product, remembering the out-the-door price of $2.30. ( I use the urinal at KROGER when I come to town, and pass Star Bucks, observing a line of customers queued up in line to spend $5 on a cup of Joe, so I may me underestimating 'painless' discretionary spending )

The most well known advocate of GND is AOC, and according to her we had 12 years to implement the GND or perish (that was like 2 years ago). That would explain a 10 year amortization schedule and not 30. Regardless, most of the costs are an annual expenditure and not something that can more easily be paid for by extending the payment period over decades.

Who was "they" and do you have a source for the $8T figure and 30 year plan?

Continued supply chain issues, labor shortages, and political turmoil are going a long way towards slowing CO2 emissions along with economic health. It's been a tiny glimpse for those advocates of GND and should warm their hearts and renew their resolve. Amplify the financial decline by a factor of 10x, and I believe one could claim "mission accomplished".