This is a new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation. As always, please be respectful of other commentators and try to avoid using repetition to make your points. Discussions related to the physical Earth System should be on the Unforced Variations threads.
244 – Kevin
Yes EV sales are increasing. I’m all for them, contrary to Ray’s comment at 243 – they’re just not ready for me yet. Problems they need to solve are: increase range, lower price, winter range, charging point availability (similar to gas stations) to allow long trips, grid capacity problems, etc.
Current list of EVs with cost and range:
https://evtide.com/evs
Power grid challenges:
https://www.fleetcarma.com/impact-growing-electric-vehicle-adoption-electric-utility-grids/
nigelj: we are trying to discourage fossil fuel burning and excessive air travel
AB: WHY on earth would one want to discourage air travel???? It is one of the most efficient way to travel from A to B, though with a caveat:
Jets are stupid. Go with a simultaneous combined cycle prop plane and air travel is solved.
Mr Know it all @251
“Problems they need to solve are: increase range, lower price, winter range, charging point availability (similar to gas stations) to allow long trips, grid capacity problems, etc.”
The Nissan leaf is one of the lower cost models, and still has a 150 mile range, which is pretty good. Most people should be able to get by with a 150 mile range, as studies show most people use their cars almost entirely for short trips.
What are your needs such that you would need a longer range? Are you a travelling salesman or something? If so, buy a frigging hybrid and stop complaining!
The prices on your list are only retail prices. There’s a federal $7,500 income tax credit available, and many states have further incentives as below. So something like the Nissan Leaf can be purchased for near $20,000. The tax credit is still available, even with Trump’s tax changes. You are so badly informed: I don’t even live in America, and I know this stuff.
pluginamerica.org/why-go-plug-in/state-federal-incentives/
Wear a jumper in winter. You won’t die without electrically heated seats.
Why would a grid capacity problem worry a car purchaser? If demand increases, more generation will be built.
Oh its so tempting to be really sarcastic.
Scott Strough, thanks for those links. I’m familar with some of that information, but others may not be.
I agree trees have very limited potential to sequester carbon. Right now, approx. 30% of human CO2 emissions go into photosynthesis. So for example to sequester 60% of emissions forests would require doubling the area of the planet planted in forests, which is huge and is simply not viable, because the land is simply not available. With population expected to soar to 10 billion, there won’t be much land to spare for forests. Its enough of a battle just preserving what forests are left.
And that’s before we get to problems of carbon saturation, as appears to be happening in some forests.
Planting additional trees is basically only going to nibble away at a few % of emissions. IMO the only sense in planting forests would be on hilly land that cannot be used for crops or grazing lands. This can make sense anyway for erosion control and obviously theres also a need for timber for construction and paper. But I think the area of potential land would be limited. I stand to be corrected.
The future of natural sinks has to be soil carbon under crops and grasslands, because the potential area is huge, and doesn’t have to be increased.
“BP Says The World Only Has 53 Years Of Oil Left, Should You Panic?”
https://jalopnik.com/bp-says-the-world-only-has-53-years-of-oil-left-should-1602354842
The article points out these are known and declared reserves, and it’s probably more. But discoveries of large oil fields have been steadily declining in recent decades, even including deep sea oil I think.
But for the sake of argument, let’s realistically assume there’s 100 years of oil left globally. There’s also about 100 years of Natural gas left in America as well, and I assume its similar globally.
The point being that some people are debating climate change, and whether to stop using oil, when in just 100 years or maybe less, we will be forced to stop using oil anyway as supplies dwindle, and prices escalate dramatically. People have to get their heads around this. A 100 years is not a long time.
Electric cars are inevitable, so now is as good a time as any to transition to this technology, and renewable energy.
nanoflowcell.com for any/all transportation issues. Electricity to power the nanoflowcell vehicle system has to come from Offshore wind. Problem is, it is barely deployed at this point, 5 turbines near block island and more going up south west of long island. If we deployed offshore wind on the east coast stretching from Maine to Georgia we would have 4 times as much electricity as we currently produce from every source in the USA. Where are the american companies to provide that offshore wind? We need the offshore wind because of the solar tariff, there are very few solar panels that are 100% made in the USA… maybe that number will increase because of the tariff but who knows?! Additionally we have to stop all fossil fuel emission, which means the end of a multi trillion dollar industry. I’ve had the idea for a while with no way to deploy it, why doesn’t the fossil fuel industry take all its cash and begin the offshore wind industry? Where do entrepreneurs play into this? It’s such a massive operation to begin and the upstart cost is huge. Not to mention 2036 or sooner for runaway climate change.. I will be 47.
#254 nigelj says:
23 Jan 2018 at 8:53 PM
Scott Strough, thanks for those links. I’m familar with some of that information, but others may not be.
I agree trees have very limited potential to sequester carbon. Right now, approx. 30% of human CO2 emissions go into photosynthesis. So for example to sequester 60% of emissions forests would require doubling the area of the planet planted in forests
Forests cover 31 percent of the world’s land surface, just over 4 billion hectares. (One hectare = 2.47 acres.) This is down from the pre-industrial area of 5.9 billion hectares.
I think 1.9 billion hectares pre-industrial… and much more if you go back farther, is hardly “very limited.” Add in that we can include many areas not used for forestation at all in future Food Foresting, a necessary change for a resilient food shed, etc., etc., and that trees are only *part* of the carbon sequestered in forests, I think it’s definitely something to do and is far from minor.
You need to understand agroforestry, food forests, the role of mycorrhiza, and a woody food sources better.
Killian @257
The trouble is much of that 1.9 billion hectares has since been turned into crop lands, so planting more forests would encroach on crop lands. This would not make a lot of sense, except maybe as shelter belts.
The BECCS study I referenced above found planting more forests is rather limited in terms of potential areas. They have crunched the numbers and researched the issue in depth.
Having said that, I don’t oppose planting trees. I don’t think its an either / or situation, its more complicated than that. Obviously there can be some combination of forest sinks, and crop land / grazing land related sinks, and it all varies from country to country depending on geography etc.
But there’s no doubt that there’s going to be a lot of pressure on land, and food is going to obviously be the priority. Anyone game to claim I’m wrong? Didn’t think so. This is another reason why we simply have to reduce population growth or we will all be eating laboratory made meat, or something horrible like that.
The advantage of sequestering carbon using regenerative style farming is the land is already there in vast quantities.
253: “What are your needs such that you would need a longer range? Are you a travelling salesman or something? If so, buy a frigging hybrid and stop complaining!”
Some of us have distant family that we like to visit every so often. A 150 mile range would work with one or two service station stops, or I can go by train and bicycle, but other people’s situations are different. Who is complaining anyway, the point is that if the EV costs as much or more but doesn’t provide the same utility with the same convenience, people will purchase the FF vehicle.
255 – nigelj
Good article on oil. Comments are as good or better than the article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-23/art-berman-it-or-not-future-remains-all-about-oil
Adam Lea @259
“the point is that if the EV costs as much or more but doesn’t provide the same utility with the same convenience, people will purchase the FF vehicle.’
Fair comment. But studies show the majority of people do mostly short trips, and only the occasional long trip once or twice a year. In those instances they might consider hiring a rental car for a long trips, or getting a bus. Sometimes it just takes a small lifestyle change that adds virtually no inconvenience. We get set in our ways, me included.
We also demand such perfect convenience these days, and get so impatient if something is even slightly slow or troubling.
But yes, if you do a lot of long trips its an issue. In this instance a hybrid may be the best option, unless you can afford a top of the range Tesla with very long range.
A lot of these things have been pointed out to Mr KIA before, but he just keeps repeating his script.
More recharging stations will appear with time. It’s unrealistic to expect a perfect network instantly appearing. Unfortunately there are people with political agendas and vested interests opposed to charging stations, especially if they use tax payer money.
However electric cars can be charged at home overnight and studies show most people do that even if there’s a recharging station locally available. Charging stations are more of an issue for people who take long trips or use a car a great deal. All Im saying is of you are thinking of buying an electric car, dont be put off by lack of charging stations, try and think through whether its really the issue it seems. It may not be an issue for many people.
Mr. Know It All @260
Thanks for the oil article. It is along the same lines of the article I referenced.The comments posted are interesting, but nothing particularly new on the whole (although I only did page one).
I think the world is probably close to peak oil. There have been false alarms, but its coming. Oil is essentially a finite resource, with the science showing that new oil creation is incredibly slow. Fracking is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and as your article noted discoveries of big new fields have declined.
I was surprised that Rex Tillerson believes the Russian’s “abiotic theory” of oil creation, being the theory for the uninitiated that oil is created by geological pressure squeezing rocks deep in the earths crust. Needless to say this theory is not generally accepted.
Personally I don’t think abiotic oil creation makes much sense chemically. Even if abiotic oil creation worked, the rate of oil creation would probably be incredibly slow.
Coal is clearly created from plant material, because of fossilised remains etc appearing in coal, so its not a great leap of faith to believe oil is created from remains of small ocean creatures.
In any event every square inch of the planet has been explored for oil, and it has been found that discoveries correlate with certain surface geological features, and remember this is regardless of the way the oil is ultimately created. There just simply aren’t endless massive oil fields left undiscovered. There maybe a small number offshore, but even there a lot of exploration has already been done.
#258 nigelj said Killian @257
The trouble is much of that 1.9 billion hectares has since been turned into crop lands, so planting more forests would encroach on crop lands.
Food forests. Please, try to not stay too focused on one point. It’s tedious.
Adam Lea, #250–
That’s quoted for the upgraded Tesla Model 3, which will set you back $44,000.
I’m not going to try to suss out what constitutes a ‘similar spec’ for your purposes, but here are a bunch of other vehicles at a similar price point:
https://www.iseecars.com/cars/new-cars-under-45000
You can save $9K, though, if you’re willing to settle for the standard battery pack, which gives you “…an estimated range of 220 miles and will go from 0 to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds…”
http://www.topcarsplus.com/2018-tesla-model-3-reviews-and-rating/
And here’s what you get at that price point in a FF vehicle (just a few instances):
https://blog.iseecars.com/best-luxury-cars-under-35000/
Scott Strough,
“…is the liberal, not me.”
I never thought you were a “liberal”, I assume you are just selling your snake-oil using whatever meme is convenient. I am just debunking the meme, or the mythology, about FDR.
How you connect minimum wage wage with soil sequestration is beyond me, though. The only thing that makes sense is that you like FDR because his policies supported the exploitation of farm laborers?
But the idea of world-wide co-operation that is part of your plan, as well as Killian’s, is completely unrealistic, which was my main point.
What I really don’t understand is touched on by a comment from someone (that I can’t find now because of all the spam) about cap-and-trade being suited to your idea. Why are you not just offering your technology to the Koch Bros, Exxon-Mobil, Vladimir Putin, that new Saudi dictator…?
Wouldn’t it make obvious business sense for those entities to buy up land and institute your carbon sequestration practices?
1. They have more than enough money for that, and they can hire the top soil scientists to optimize the process.
2. Rapid draw-down will eliminate the risk that their fossil fuel assets will become stranded.
3. As the soil becomes richer and richer (you said 10 years, I believe?) with fewer costs for external inputs, this will be a massive profit center for them, in addition to their continued, unregulated, sales of fossil fuels.
If I were any of those guys, and my top scientists told me it would work, I would be all over it. How come they are not?
Killian @263
I wouldn’t class “food forests” in the same sense as what is normally defined as a forest in the climate sense, for example clusters of pine trees.My understanding is food forests are cascading levels of fruit trees and crops.
Food forests do however make sense to me as a food resource system, and means of absorbing CO2, and fruit trees last more than 30 years. Good natural agricultural systems like this all happen to also be good for the climate, which should be telling us something.
Zebra @265 and previous
“I am just debunking the meme, or the mythology, about FDR.”
Zebra finds some faults with FDR’s policies, so tells us the new deal was complete nonsense. This flawed logic is remarkably similar to climate denialists finding some problem with some detail of agw theory, and telling us the whole thing is therefore invalidated. A more rational assessment of FDR’s New Deal is the benefits vastly outweighed the problems.
“But the idea of world-wide co-operation that is part of your plan, as well as Killian’s, is completely unrealistic, which was my main point.”
Zebra also raises a strawman suggesting S Strough’s regenerative farming ideas requires world wide cooperation. They don’t. Its just a useful idea being promoted just as Zebras lower population is a useful idea being promoted. Both face equal challenges in terms of convincing people and both have value.
“Why are you not just offering your technology to the Koch Bros, Exxon-Mobil, Vladimir Putin, that new Saudi dictator…?”
I have no objection to exploring the possibility, but here’s the counter argument:
Even if they thought it was profitable to support regenerative farming, their emotive world view might get in the way. It would just be too much.
And it’s unlikely that regenerative farming would be more profitable than conventional farming, “in the short term” which is why this sort of thing has not already attracted the corporate sector. It probably needs some form of tax payer support, if its to grow fast enough to be a factor as a carbon sink.
“Rapid draw-down will eliminate the risk that their fossil fuel assets will become stranded.”
This is a good observation, but they just aren’t that smart or lateral thinking. Just look at how similar sensible or crafty ideas are routinely rejected by the American political right.
Anyway, while I hear where Zebras coming from, that not all the corporates are bad, and the profit motive can lead to good results, the thought of the Koch brothers anywhere near permaculture is pretty horrifying.
#265 zebra brayed I assume you are just selling your snake-oil… But the idea of world-wide co-operation that is part of your plan, as well as Killian’s, is completely unrealistic… that I can’t find now because of all the spam
Calling honest effort snake oil is not spam?
Calling for solving climate via population is realistic, but changing farming and using less is unrealistic?
That’s not spam.
Given nothing you have to suggest is in any way going to happen nor is it viable, and every post you make insults someone, the spam is all from you. Nobody else is spamming… well, you and KIA.
#258 nigelj said Killian @257
The trouble is much of that 1.9 billion hectares has since been turned into crop lands, so planting more forests would encroach on crop lands.
Agroforestry. Again.
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2012/08/benefits-of-tree-on-livestock-farms/
Planting trees among “crop lands”
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2012/07/benefits-of-trees-on-arable-farms/
And, food forests can be of many different types and functions. Once again, you simply do not understand what you speak of. Separating out all these types of land use is a VERY BAD IDEA.
The BECCS study I referenced above found planting more forests is rather limited in terms of potential areas. They have crunched the numbers and researched the issue in depth.
No, they haven’t. Show me where they have integrated permaculture -type design in their analses. They have not. Thus, they, and you, have no idea what you are talking about.
I don’t oppose planting trees. I don’t think its an either / or situation, its more complicated than that.
This is the onlycorrect things you’ve said, but glad to see it. But I disagree: One should never think in terms if planting trees, but in terms of designing ecosystems.
But there’s no doubt that there’s going to be a lot of pressure on land, and food is going to obviously be the priority.
Thus, it would be stupid for most people to not include food forestry where you get any number of foods from the same space by stacking functions. Food forests are among the most productive spaces.
The advantage of sequestering carbon using regenerative style farming is the land is already there in vast quantities.
Trees *are* regenerative-style design.
#255 nigelj said “BP Says The World Only Has 53 Years Of Oil Left, Should You Panic?”
The article points out these are known and declared reserves, and it’s probably more. But discoveries of large oil fields have been steadily declining in recent decades, even including deep sea oil I think.
But for the sake of argument, let’s realistically assume there’s 100 years of oil left
The analyses that actual measure and model the use of what exists *are* the realistic argument. Go read theoildrum archives.
Oil “left” is meaningless. Long before the oil is gone the decline begins, and probably already has. Certainly it already has with light sweet. But BP and others don’t like to break out the total barrels of oil equivalent to its components anymore so people can;t see these things.
The problems start when the decline sets in, and, actually, before because mitigation against and adjustment to decreasing per capita energy takes significant time to avoid massive disruption. See the Hirsch Report.
The point being that some people are debating climate change, and whether to stop using oil, when in just 100 years or maybe less, we will be forced to stop using oil
This is so close to denial, it hurts my brain to read it. Get a clue about cumulative emissions and concentrations. Not going to lead you by the nose. Go find it and figure out why your statement above is worse than nonsense, it’s denialism.
Zebra,
Forget about FDR, you are not capable of understanding the point anyway as you have completely missed it yet again.
The second part of you post asks a pretty good question. Yes there are investment funds that are investing in this already. 100’s of millions of acres already doing this and much of that land and infrastructure was paid for by investment funds expecting a good profit whether there is a price on carbon or not. Even if AGW was not even a thing, we would still see this happening because it is profitable by itself. In particular, the Saudis are leading the way in investing in agricultural infrastructure in general and sustainable ag systems in particular.
In the US we are still spending billions of dollars and massive regulatory burden to prevent this course of action. Even so with so much governmental influence, there are sectors that actually are expanding anyway. Again, because it brings more profit to the farmer.
I can’t tell you why domestic petroleum companies haven’t jumped on board en mass yet, like insurance companies did with reforestation in decades past. I proposed the very thing to three petroleum companies last year. They refused to even discuss it at all. Apparently they are similar to you, wagons circling their camp and firing on all outsiders, without even trying to find out if the outsiders are friendly or not.
#260, KIA–
For that article to prove correct over time, the “learning curve” on EVs and battery tech would have to pretty much stop in its tracks, stat.
IMO, it ain’t gonna happen.
What will happen is an ongoing softening of demand for oil, as gasmobiles become less and less competitive on cost.
I don’t know how fast it’s going to happen, and I’m not sure to what extent autonomous vehicles will take a leading role in helping drive the transition. I’m not sure to what extent the whole paradigm of individual ownership will be subverted in favor of TaaS, or if so on what time scale, exactly.
But I am convinced that the cost equation between ICEVs and EVs will invert, and I suspect it will be rather sooner than most people anticipate.
Good thing, too; 100 years of oil production/consumption at current levels would be a mistake of potentially existential consequence. Oil is something like a third of current global emissions, so 100 years of oil at contemporary levels would be like locking in current emissions for 33 years.
That’d bust the carbon budget, without even allowing for any other emissions from any other source.
Killian @277
You completely missed the point of what I said. Or maybe I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t suggesting we can go on using oil, simply that its going to run out anyway in 50 – 100 years, so we might as well transition to other energy sources now.
And the article I referenced was quite explicit about 50 years being on known reserves. It’s therefore reasonable to assume we will make some more discoveries, although IMO they will be limited, when you look at all the evidence. Whether its 50 – 100 years, it’s not far away.
I always look at things as accurately as possible, rather than being excessively pessimistic, or optimistic. I’m a realist.
Killian @269
“Planting trees among “crop lands”
Yes good idea, but I already said “shelter belts” have benefits as a carbon sink.I am aware of the issue actually.
But anyway, in an ideal world you could probably get a pretty useful mix of trees and crops. And unlike some people, I think ideals are useful things.
Regarding tee planting and regenerative farming in general, the issue is really more of an implementation issue, in terms of persuading people, spreading the word, and educating people, and government incentives. If we want a reasonably rapid deployment, it will need government level incentives and promotion of some sort. If we simply wait for the word to spread on regenerative farming, or market forces to work their ‘magic’ it will be a very slow process. Ideally I prefer personal initiative, but in emergency situations you need the power of the state sometimes.
In fact the new government in my country has a huge tree planting scheme partly funded by government, using spare land etc and the long term unemployed. This is more of a carbon sink project.
Kevin McKinney @272
“But I am convinced that the cost equation between ICEVs and EVs will invert, and I suspect it will be rather sooner than most people anticipate.”
Have a listen to Tony Seba below. Its a little bit hyped and over optimistic, but he has an excellent grasp of the principles and background facts, and relationship to renewable energy trends.
“The electric vehicle disruption. End of oil by 2030. Tony Seba’s Clean Disruption Keynote presentation at the Swedbank Nordic Energy Summit in Oslo, Norway, March 17th, 2016.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Jg1IJ68_g
In the News
Nearly 200 years of research confirms that humans are the primary cause of present-day climate change, which, as vast amounts of evidence show, seriously threatens our way of life — indeed, for many people, their very survival.
In 2017 both BP and Royal Dutch Shell forecast a global temperature rise of a horrific 3 to 5 degrees by 2050! Both companies support the Paris agreement. Last November Shell told investors it plans to cut the net carbon footprint of its products roughly in half by 2050.
Researchers continue to find new evidence that climate change is happening faster and with more dangerous consequences than previously predicted. […]
This is our time to act; the longer we wait, the greater the damage, and the more costly and less effective any solution will be. We must stop burning fuel largely responsible for climate change as quickly as possible.
http://www.gainesville.com/opinion/20180126/john-ward-climate-change-science-is-long-established
California governor pushes for 5 million zero-emission cars — Reaching the goal will require that 40 percent of vehicles sold in 2030 be clean, said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, up from about 5 percent now.
“We think that’s a very reasonable proposal,” Nichols said. “It’s not a stretch.”
Brown’s plan would extend subsidies to help people buy emission-free vehicles. It seeks to have 250,000 electric-vehicle charging stations and 200 hydrogen fueling stations. That’s an increase from about 14,000 charging stations and 31 hydrogen stations.
http://www.gainesville.com/news/20180126/california-governor-pushes-for-5-million-zero-emission-cars
[In 2016, there was a total number of approximately 14.5 million automobiles registered in California therefore 5 million ~ 30% by 2030. figures vary as usual.]
HICEV — the hydrogen internal combustion engine is simply a modified version of the traditional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle
Fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen gas to power an electric motor. Like other EVs, fuel cell cars and trucks can employ idle-off, which shuts down the fuel cell at stop signs or in traffic. In certain driving modes, regenerative braking is used to capture lost energy and charge the battery.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/how-do-hydrogen-fuel-cells-work
Nuclear Hydrogen Production Technology
https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC57/GC57InfDocuments/English/gc57inf-2-att1_en.pdf
Applications for HTR-PM include direct replacement of coal-fired power plants, while its heat could be used for desalination of seawater for human consumption, production of hydrogen, or a wide range of other high temperature heat applications in industry.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China-plans-further-high-temperature-reactor-innovation-1909171.html
(experts/proponents say) VHTR is excellent for Electricity generation with higher efficiency, Wide range of process heat application, By steam, co-generation, By helium, hydrogen production, Site can be close to end user because of safety, So, VHTR can expand the range of nuclear application, besides electricity
https://www.gen-4.org/gif/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-06/2-2_vhtr_report_to_symposium_1505.pdf
So, what if all transportation vehicles/engines currently using diesel, petrol/gasoline, LPG, or Natural gas were over-time progressively converted to either purely rechargeable EVs
or Hydrogen Fuel Cell EVs
or Hydrogen Fueled HICEVs
or HYBRID rechargeable EVs combined with Hydrogen Fuel Cell/HICEVs
between 2030 to 2050 across the entire world?
By how much would something like that reduce CO2ppm in the atmosphere long term than it otherwise would have been tracking bau and the FF projections out to 2050 at present?
#258 nigelj said Killian @257
The trouble is much of that 1.9 billion hectares has since been turned into crop lands
Not for food.
#258 nigelj said Having said that, I don’t oppose planting trees. I don’t think its an either / or situation, its more complicated than that. Obviously there can be some combination of forest sinks, and crop land / grazing land related sinks, and it all varies from country to country depending on geography etc.
Do you have no idea what a permaculturist does? Seriously, who the hell is it you think you are talking to? LOL… It’s either comedy or pulling my hair out with you. Dude, go back and read everything posted under Killian or ccpo so you can stop making me aware of things I said up to a decade earlier.
and food is going to obviously be the priority. Anyone game to claim I’m wrong? Didn’t think so.
It’s the food supply, stupid. – Me, 2011.
And, everything a permaculturist does is related in some way to stabilizing the food supply.
The advantage of sequestering carbon using regenerative style farming is the land is already there in vast quantities.
BUT, we are not stuck with **only** what is currently under use. And, simplicity would require a complete rejiggering of community structures and locations, so inherent in all this is rebuilding soils all over the planet. We are FAR beyond just croplands in the end. Imagine if the entire planet were like Amazonia in pre-Columbian times. Imagine all that terra preta. Imagine the American plains again meters deep in rich soils. This is what the BECCS imbeciles don’t know, don’t get, and don’t include. It’s why those of us that know laugh at the estimates of soil sequestration: We know it can, and should, happen virtually everywhere.
We CAN be down to <300 ppm within 20 years. It's a choice. Recognizing it is a CHOICE has important psychological and rational effects, the most important of which is to get people to understand the solution is in the mirror, not Washington, nor any other capital, legislature, etc.
Some reading on sustainability:
“Decline and fall, Worrying signs that civilisation is starting to collapse”
New Scientist, 20 Jan 2018, page 29. (I assume its also on their website)
“Modeling sustainability: population, inequality, consumption, and bidirectional coupling of the Earth and Human Systems”
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/3/4/470/2669331
Killian 268,
“calling honest effort snake oil is not spam?”
No, it isn’t.
From wikipedia:
“Newsgroup spam is a type of spam where the targets are Usenet newsgroups. Spamming of Usenet newsgroups actually pre-dates e-mail spam. Usenet convention defines spamming as excessive multiple posting, that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages).”
Here I am referring to excessive posting (and wordiness) by individuals, (which requires lots of scrolling to try to find a salient comment, when I can’t remember who posted it).
The current competition for Spam King is between you, nigel, and Thomas. Someone (again, I can’t remember who) has been keeping a tally and we will learn who the winner is at the end of the month.
It’s about quality over quantity, and focus over ranting. If you stop and think about what you are writing, you are less likely to make such an elementary mistake.
Scott 271,
I am going with Ockham on this one. I think your ideas are rejected because real scientists don’t see any merit in them at the scale you are talking about.
Everyone romanticizes the concepts; I have a nice pile of compost myself, but the math is the math and the science is the science, and I have a garden, not a farm that supplies food to others.
BTW, if there really are massive investments in this, could you give a reference or two?
Scott: Hate to say it, but even the arseholes who are funding the “Merchants of Doubt” would benefit as long as they made wise moves.
AB: “Saudia Arabia and Kuwait can pump a barrel of oil for less than $10, on average. Iraq can produce oil for about $10.70 per barrel.” Nov 24, 2015 CNN Money
So unless you can beat $15/barrel oil, you ain’t driving them out of business.
And fracked gas is sitting in already drilled wells waiting for market conditions. Given that it’s now essentially free (other than the sunk cost) it’s going to be marketed, period.
Lots of fossil fuel producers can drop their price at will because most of the price is artificial. Stockholders will grumble, but they’d absolutely scream if their cash cows didn’t just slow the milk but turned into albatrosses.
Unless some sort of world government is ready to take out quite a few governments and corporations by force, this train is going to chug along…
zebra @281
“I am going with Ockham on this one. I think your ideas are rejected because real scientists don’t see any merit in them at the scale you are talking about.”
What a dismally uninformed, ludicrous claim. The last IPCC report supported soil sequestration of carbon using regenerative farming. Just because aspects of it are debated on this website, doesn’t mean the basic science is wrong.
Zebra accuses people of spamming, and says “Usenet convention defines spamming as excessive multiple posting, that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages).”
Does this include Zebras 20 plus posts on “smaller population” that all say almost exactly the same thing?
Killian @278
1) I have no idea what you said on this website 10 years ago, because I have only been reading it for about a year. I have no intention of going back to find out.
2) Sometimes when I respond to peoples comments, I say things for the benefit of other people reading. Like we do when challenging climate denialists. Half the time you tell me things I already know, but I don’t get all upset about it. You have been told by about 10 people not to take things so personally.
I must admit BECCS doesn’t make much sense to me.
Zebra,
So now you are saying that Dr Christine Jones, Prof. Rattan Lal, Dr Gregory J. Retallack, Prof Richard Teague, and on and on and on are not real scientists? Seriously? So anyone under the level of say Einstein is not a real scientist? Really? You are so far out of line it is ridiculous.
“If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’.” Dr. Christine Jones
http://www.amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-shortCV.pdf
“Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal
https://senr.osu.edu/sites/senr/files/imce/files/CVs/2016/Lal_CV2016.pdf
“Some past farming practices have aided greenhouse gas release. However,
modern grassland agroecosystems are a potential carbon sink already under
intensive human management, and carbon farming techniques may be useful
in curbing anthropogenic global warming.”
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/gregr/detailed-webpage/curriculum-vitae/
“Collectively, conservation agriculture supports ecologically healthy, resilient agroecosystems and simultaneously mitigates large quantities of anthropogenic GHG emissions.”
http://agrilife.org/vernon/files/2012/11/Teague2pageCV-2011.pdf
Nice try at attacking the sources I use but you are failing because the reputation of these scientists is excellent and some even leaders in their respective fields.
Now for the math. I have posted it countless times. Total of land used to produce food: 4,911,622,700 ha x 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr = 24,558,113,500 tonnes CO2e/yr.
So very roughly 24- 98 Gigatonnes annual CO2 sequestration potential in the agricultural soils long term by simply changing our methodology for growing food.
That does not include a roughly equal acreage of desertified land no longer suitable for producing food that Allan Savory proved can be restored to fertility with similar improvements in rangeland management.
So your claim is what? You are not capable of doing math? That the top soils scientists are not real scientists? Or is it really that you are just another ignorant minion following the Merchants of Doubt obfuscation campaign? Namely that AGW can’t possibly be real, and even if it was, we can’t possibly fix it anyway.
I have news for you. AGW is real, and we can fix it. Not only that but we can fix it at a net profit. So we should. Ignorant posts like your do not belong on a serious climate blog.
Yes we can reverse Global Warming.
It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies.
It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.
1)Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
2)Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
3)Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone, Allan Savory’s Operation Hope etc. where appropriate and applicable.
a little review
Scott: “We can reverse AGW right now, and so we should do it right now.” a post with refs worth reading: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/forced-responses-jan-2018/comment-page-5/#comment-689939
Bill H: “2018 must be the year that a managed decline of fossil fuel production is agreed to and begun.” a post with refs worth reading: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/forced-responses-jan-2018/comment-page-5/#comment-689930
Moi: “Cut off the head of the snake, etc.” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/forced-responses-jan-2018/comment-page-5/#comment-689567
208 nigelj says: “Thomas @201, good idea on global agreements on no new coal mines [CUT PRODUCTION] etc. This is clear cut policy that gets right at the source of the problem, and seems the obvious first step.” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/forced-responses-jan-2018/comment-page-5/#comment-689601
Killian: “It’s why those of us that know laugh at the estimates of soil sequestration: We know it can, and should, happen virtually everywhere. We CAN be down to under 300 ppm within 20 years. It’s a choice.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/forced-responses-jan-2018/comment-page-6/#comment-690112
PhD scientist, Charles Massey has been gathering stories from farmers around Australia about farmers who are increasing their productivity, ironically often by doing less. This segment was originally broadcast on 24 October 2017.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/a-rural-insurgency/9236594
speaks about carbon sequestration in agricultural pastoral soils in Australia. Saying the maths suggests that selecting only 15% of the (agricultural?) land surface in Australia, and then increasing the soil carbon by a mere 1% (or was it 1% per annum?) that this would sequester an amount of CO2 emissions equivalent to all of Australia’s carbon emissions since white settlement 1788.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/forced-responses-jan-2018/comment-page-4/#comment-689440
and
Challenging the status quo on traditional forms of farming and hoping to give others the courage to change http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2014/08/29/4077203.htm
and
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2013-05-22/when-sustainable-isnt-enough/4703050
Michael’s study topic for his 2011 Nuffield Scholarship was, ‘Sustainable and Regenerative Agriculture.’
MOI: [according to this study, based on previous studies/reports] The amount of Land Use CO2 contribution to +Temps, is 50% of the total amount of Fossil Fuel CO2 contribution.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/forced-responses-jan-2018/comment-page-4/#comment-689424
281 zebra says: re Scott 271, I am going with Ockham on this one. I think your ideas are rejected because real scientists don’t see any merit in them at the scale you are talking about.
Oh really? Beware that razor blade Z!
2002: Cited by 2487 Papers
This paper reviews the literature for the influence of land use changes on soil C stocks and reports the results of a meta analysis of these data from 74 publications. The meta analysis indicates that soil C stocks decline after land use changes from pasture to plantation (−10%), native forest to plantation (−13%), native forest to crop (−42%), and pasture to crop (−59%). Soil C stocks increase after land use changes from native forest to pasture (+ 8%), crop to pasture (+ 19%), crop to plantation (+ 18%), and crop to secondary forest (+ 53%).
Wherever one of the land use changes decreased soil C, the reverse process usually increased soil carbon and vice versa.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x/full
24 Jun 2010
An increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 280 ppmv in 1750 to 367 ppmv in 1999 is attributed to emissions from fossil fuel combustion estimated at 270±30 Pg C and land use change at 136±55 Pg. Of the emissions from land use change, 78±12 Pg is estimated from depletion of soil organic carbon (SOC) pool. Most agricultural soils have lost 50 to 70% of their original SOC pool, and the depletion is exacerbated by further soil degradation and desertification. The restoration of degraded soils, conversion of agriculturally marginal lands to appropriate land use, and the adoption of recommended management practices on agricultural soils can reverse degradative trends and lead to SOC sequestration. Technological options for SOC sequestration on agricultural soils include adoption of conservation tillage, use of manures, and compost as per integrated nutrient management and precision farming strategies, conversion of monoculture to complex diverse cropping systems, meadow-based rotations and winter cover crops, and establishing perennial vegetation on contours and steep slopes. The global potential of SOC sequestration and restoration of degraded/desertified soils is estimated at 0.6 to 1.2 Pg C/y for about 50 years with a cumulative sink capacity of 30 to 60 Pg. The SOC sequestration is a costeffective strategy of mitigating the climate change during the first 2 to 3 decades of the 21st century. While improving soil quality, biomass productivity and enhanced environment quality, the strategy of SOC sequestration also buys us time during which the non-carbon fuel alternatives can take effect.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713610854
and
http://www.jswconline.org/content/54/1/374.short
The C sequestration potential of any soil depends on its capacity to store resistant plant components in the medium term and to protect and accumulate the humic substances (HS) formed from the transformations or organic materials in the soil environment. The sequestration potential of a soil depends on the vegetation it supports, its mineralogical composition, the depth of the solum, soil drainage, the availability of water and air, and the temperature of the soil environment. The sequestration potential also depends on the chemical characteristics of the soil organic matter and its ability to resist microbial decomposition. When accurate information for these features is incorporated in model systems, the potentials of different soils to sequester C can be reliably predicted. It is encouraging to know that improved soil and crop management systems now allow field yields to be maintained and soil C reserves to be increased, even for soils with depleted levels of soil C. Estimates of the soil C sequestration potential are discussed.
https://journals.lww.com/soilsci/Abstract/2001/11000/Sequestration_of_Carbon_By_Soil.10.aspx
2010 Research highlights
Our meta-analysis based on data from 69 paired-experiments indicated that: ▶ Cultivation with conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT) resulted in comparable soil C loss comparing with adjacent natural soils. ▶ In most cases, adopting NT did not increase the total C in the soil profile. ▶ Climatic conditions and fertilization did not significantly regulate the response of soil C to the adoption of NT. ▶ However, the type of crops and cropping systems caused variations in soil C change after adopting NT. Compared with CT, NT in double cropping systems significantly increased soil total C, while NT in single cropping systems with more diverse crop types could lead to net reduction in total soil C.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880910002094
1997 – waaay back incl author R Lal.
By itself, C sequestration in agricultural soils can make only modest contributions (e.g. 3-6% of total fossil C emissions) to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. However, effective mitigation policies will not be based on any single ‘magic bullet’ solutions, but rather on many modest reductions which are economically efficient and which confer additional benefits to society. In this context, soil C sequestration is a significant mitigation option. Additional advantages of pursuing strategies to increase soil C are the added benefits of improved soil quality for improving agricultural productivity and sustainability.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1997.tb00594.x/full
2004
Realistically, agricultural soils in EU-15 can sequester up to 16–19 Mt C year−1 during the first Kyoto commitment period (2008–2012), which is less than one fifth of the theoretical potential and equivalent to 2% of European anthropogenic emissions. We identified as most promising measures: the promotion of organic inputs on arable land instead of grassland, the introduction of perennials (grasses, trees) on arable set-aside land for conservation or biofuel purposes, to promote organic farming, to raise the water table in farmed peatland, and—with restrictions—zero tillage or conservation tillage.
Efficient carbon sequestration in agricultural soils demands a permanent management change and implementation concepts adjusted to local soil, climate and management features in order to allow selection of areas with high carbon sequestering potential.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706104000254
and 2004 R Lal
Some cultivated soils have lost one-half to two-thirds of the original SOC pool with a cumulative loss of 30–40 Mg C/ha (Mg=megagram=106 g=1 ton). The depletion of soil C is accentuated by soil degradation and exacerbated by land misuse and soil mismanagement. Thus, adoption of a restorative land use and recommended management practices (RMPs) on agricultural soils can reduce the rate of enrichment of atmospheric CO2 while having positive impacts on food security, agro-industries, water quality and the environment. A considerable part of the depleted SOC pool can be restored through conversion of marginal lands into restorative land uses, adoption of conservation tillage with cover crops and crop residue mulch, nutrient cycling including the use of compost and manure, and other systems of sustainable management of soil and water resources. Measured rates of soil C sequestration through adoption of RMPs range from 50 to 1000 kg/ha/year. The global potential of SOC sequestration through these practices is 0.9±0.3 Pg C/year, which may offset one-fourth to one-third of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 estimated at 3.3 Pg C/year. The cumulative potential of soil C sequestration over 25–50 years is 30–60 Pg. The soil C sequestration is a truly win–win strategy. It restores degraded soils, enhances biomass production, purifies surface and ground waters, and reduces the rate of enrichment of atmospheric CO2 by offsetting emissions due to fossil fuel.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706104000266
2004 Abstract
The carbon sink capacity of the world’s agricultural and degraded soils is 50 to 66% of the historic carbon loss of 42 to 78 gigatons of carbon.
The rate of soil organic carbon sequestration with adoption of recommended technologies depends on:
soil texture and structure,
rainfall,
temperature,
farming system,
and soil management.
Strategies to increase the soil carbon pool include:
soil restoration,
and woodland regeneration,
no-till farming,
cover crops,
nutrient management,
manuring and sludge application, i
mproved grazing,
water conservation,
and harvesting,
efficient irrigation,
agroforestry practices,
and growing energy crops on spare lands.
An increase of 1 ton of soil carbon pool of degraded cropland soils may increase crop yield by:
20 to 40 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) for wheat,
10 to 20 kg/ha for maize,
and 0.5 to 1 kg/ha for cowpeas.
As well as enhancing food security, carbon sequestration has the potential to offset fossil fuel emissions by 0.4 to 1.2 gigatons of carbon per year, or 5 to 15% of the global fossil-fuel emissions.
Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security
by R. Lal
Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
E-mail: lal.1@osu.edu
Science 11 Jun 2004:
Vol. 304, Issue 5677, pp. 1623-1627
DOI: 10.1126/science.1097396
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5677/1623
On these numbers alone = ~0.5 parts per million of carbon dioxide less per year between now and eternity
– or reducing the current annual growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere by ~25% every year, year on year, decade on decade.
Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate … – Lal – Cited by 4054
R Lal, et al, may take offense at being falsely described as not being a “real scientist.”
I might just go and ask him.
Rattan Lal
Professor of Soil Science
lal.1@osu.edu
614-292-9069
Office:
422B Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 43210
Dr. Lal Awarded Sustained Achievement Award. Aug 9, 2017. Dr. Lal has been awarded the 2017 Sustained Achievement Award by the Renewable Natural Resrouces Foundation. The award recognizes a long-term contribution and commitment to the protection and conservation of natural resources by an individual.
Isn’t it amazing?
In order to say something worthwhile one has to use words to say it.
Go figure!
This first quote should have been in bold:
24 Jun 2010 – The global potential of SOC sequestration and restoration of degraded/desertified soils is estimated at 0.6 to 1.2 Pg C/y for about 50 years with a cumulative sink capacity of 30 to 60 Pg.
The SOC sequestration is a cost effective strategy of mitigating the climate change during the first 2 to 3 decades of the 21st century.
While improving soil quality, biomass productivity and enhanced environment quality, the strategy of SOC sequestration also buys us time during which the non-carbon fuel alternatives can take effect.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713610854
Citations
Ali Mekki, Fathi Aloui, Sami Sayadi. (2017) Influence of biowastes compost amendment on soil organic carbon storage under arid climate. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 0:ja.
Hua Wang, Jinlu Zhang, Kai Wu, Fang Ni. (2017) Measuring the rhizodeposition of carbon by rice: an approach based on carbon flux observations. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 63:5, pages 499-506.
Timothy E. Crews, Lee R. DeHaan. (2015) The Strong Perennial Vision: A Response. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39:5, pages 500-515.
Rodrigo Vargas, Fernando Paz, Ben de Jong. (2013) Quantification of forest degradation and belowground carbon dynamics: ongoing challenges for monitoring, reporting and verification activities for REDD+. Carbon Management 4:6, pages 579-582.
David M. Edelstein, David J. Tonjes. (2012) Modeling an Improvement in Phosphorus Utilization in Tropical Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 36:1, pages 18-35.
Timothy M Lenton. (2010) The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Management 1:1, pages 145-160.
Rob Carlton, Pete Berry, Pete Smith. (2010) Impact of crop yield reduction on greenhouse gas emissions from compensatory cultivation of pasture and forested land. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8:3, pages 164-175.
Xiangwei Han, Atsushi Tsunekawa, Mitsuru Tsubo, Shiqing Li. (2010) Effects of land-cover type and topography on soil organic carbon storage on Northern Loess Plateau, China. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science 60:4, pages 326-334.
Rasim Koçyiğit, Buket Yetgin Uz. (2010) Long-Term Cultivation Effects on Biological C and N Fractions in a Fluvaquentic Haplustolls of Semi-arid Region of the Northern Turkey. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 41:6, pages 757-767.
Bharat M. Shrestha, Øystein B. Dick, Balram Singh. (2010) Effects of land-use change on carbon dynamics assessed by multi-temporal satellite imagery in a mountain watershed of Nepal. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science 60:1, pages 10-23.
S. I. Plasynski, J. T. Litynski, H. G. McIlvried, R. D. Srivastava. (2009) Progress and New Developments in Carbon Capture and Storage. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 28:3, pages 123-138.
Naruo Matsumoto, Kobkiet Paisancharoen, Tomoyuki Hakamata. (2008) Carbon balance in maize fields under cattle manure application and no-tillage cultivation in Northeast Thailand. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 54:2, pages 277-288.
Qingzhong Zhang, Ruidong Huang, Wenliang Wu, Xuejun Liu. (2008) Estimating Soil Organic Carbon at Equilibrium Using a Logistic Model. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 39:5-6, pages 627-640.
J. J. Jiménez, R. Lal. (2006) Mechanisms of C Sequestration in Soils of Latin America. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 25:4, pages 337-365.
G. V. Subbarao, O. Ito, K. L. Sahrawat, W. L. Berry, K. Nakahara, T. Ishikawa, T. Watanabe, K. Suenaga, M. Rondon, I. M. Rao. (2006) Scope and Strategies for Regulation of Nitrification in Agricultural Systems—Challenges and Opportunities. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 25:4, pages 303-335.
R. Lemus, R. Lal. (2005) Bioenergy Crops and Carbon Sequestration. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24:1, pages 1-21.
Articles from other publishers
Xubo Zhang, Zhigang Sun, Jian Liu, Zhu Ouyang, Lianhai Wu. (2018) Simulating greenhouse gas emissions and stocks of carbon and nitrogen in soil from a long-term no-till system in the North China Plain. Soil and Tillage Research 178, pages 32-40.
Rolf Sommer, Birthe Katharina Paul, John Mukalama, Job Kihara. (2018) Reducing losses but failing to sequester carbon in soils – the case of Conservation Agriculture and Integrated Soil Fertility Management in the humid tropical agro-ecosystem of Western Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 254, pages 82-91.
M. Hoffmann, M. Pohl, N. Jurisch, A.-K. Prescher, E. Mendez Campa, U. Hagemann, R. Remus, G. Verch, M. Sommer, J. Augustin. (2018) Maize carbon dynamics are driven by soil erosion state and plant phenology rather than nitrogen fertilization form. Soil and Tillage Research 175, pages 255-266.
[ SNIPPED ]
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/713610854?scroll=top&needAccess=true
272 – Kevin
Agree, EVs will grow in popularity over time. As oil becomes more expensive, that will speed up their popularity – assuming we remain prosperous enough to have cars.
279 – nigelj
This is another article where, apparently, they say the same thing over and over. This was said repeatedly: “Over the last two centuries, the impact of the Human System has grown dramatically, becoming strongly dominant within the Earth System in many different ways.” Kind of obvious, eh? It’s what a certain talk-show host might call psychobabble. I suspect there will be a big collapse alright – but no one can predict with certainty what will be the cause or when it will happen. The entire article can be summarized as: there are too many humans! I think we all know that, but nonetheless, the leftists in the USA (and the EU) want open borders with unlimited numbers of people moving in and consuming stuff just like the citizens of those areas. Leftists are geniuses. NOT!
Depressing times. Sometimes I just wanna be Charly.
Anyway, in the spirit of trying to find solutions, trying to think of ways for people to make a difference I began a while back to think of places where people can invest their money. After Googling I found that there are a bunch of investment houses that bill themselves as “green” or SRIs (socially responsible investing) and ESGs (environmental, social governance) complete with the right feel good words, lovely pictures of nature and smiling people. Usually the same firm names come up in searches again and again. And there are lots of articles on financial sites about them and how good one can feel investing with with them. But looking deeper, it became clear to me that their green credentials are lacking, to say the least. Here’s an example, Green Century. Look at their holdings and tell me what there is going to make any real difference to the environment…
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=GCEQX
Yet after researching they were one of the so-called greenest I could find! What these companies that call themselves “green” seem to have in common is that they don’t invest in certain bad things, e.g. fossil fuels and tobacco. Hmm, fine. But where’s the environmental positive there?
When I was about to give up in frustration I was told by someone, rather reluctantly (because she’s not an official advisor and thus not allowed to give investment advice) about one place in particular called Green Alpha. Now compare their holdings to Green Century’s.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=NEXTX
Here’s their investment philosophy, words that match their holdings:
http://greenalphaadvisors.com/investment-thesis/
That’s more like it.
Nothing to disclose here. I don’t work for G.A. nor am I an advisor, so do your on research. There are others. See the following links:
http://www.ethicalmarkets.com
https://www.openinvest.co
https://www.ussif.org
Anyway, as it was so hard for me to find them I thought I’d pass this along.
#280 zebra said “calling honest effort snake oil is not spam?”
No, it isn’t.
Yes, it is, when it is day after day, month after month, year after year.
You are spam.
#273 nigelj said Killian @277
You completely missed the point of what I said. Or maybe I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t suggesting we can go on using oil, simply that its going to run out anyway in 50 – 100 years, so we might as well transition to other energy sources now.
You did imply we could keep using oil over that span. I pointed out your folly: LONG before that ends there are massive problems, so saying we have oil for another 50 or 100 years means nothing. A meaningless stat.
It’s therefore reasonable to assume we will make some more discoveries, although IMO they will be limited
Not just limited, meaningless. Doubling the available supply shifts the curve mere years, a few decades at most.
it’s not far away.
The only point you made that was both accurate and germane.
I always look at things as accurately as possible
No, you don’t. That you think you do is part of your problem with analysis.
#274 nigelj said Planting trees among “crop lands”
Yes good idea, but I already said “shelter belts”
I didn’t say shelter belts.
In fact the new government in my country has a huge tree planting scheme… This is more of a carbon sink project.
Thus, a mistake.
#281 zebra said Scott 271,
I am going with Ockham on this one. I think your ideas are rejected because real scientists don’t see any merit in them at the scale you are talking about.
…but the math is the math and the science is the science
“The scientists” said every major new thinker or area of knowledge or opposing fact was “the science.” Denialists still are. Citing scientists on regenerative systems is like citing The Inquisition on the teachings of Christ. They don’t know what they don’t know. They’re coming along, but still far behind the curve. Like you.
This seems like a good wide ranging recent paper …. Conclusions: “Additional investments in SOC research is needed to better understand the agricultural management practices that are most likely to sequester
SOC or at least retain more net SOC stocks.”
aka more work must be done to establish viable comparative data, and defined protocols need to be followed.
March 28, 2014
Experimental Consideration, Treatments, and Methods
in Determining Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates
Numerous approaches to estimate the amounts and rates of SOC sequestration
as a result of a switch to NT systems have been published, but there is a con-
cern regarding protocol for assessing SOC especially for different tillage systems.
Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to: (i) define and understand con-
cepts of SOC sequestration, (ii) quantify SOC distribution and the methodology
of measurements, (iii) address soil spatial variability at field- or landscape-scale
for potential SOC sequestration, and (iv) consider proper field experimental
design, including pretreatments baseline for SOC sequestration determination.
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/pdfs/78/2/348
fwiw
Nigel, #275–
Thanks for the link. However, my thinking is already influenced by Tony Seba’s more formal work in the RethinkX transportation report:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/591a2e4be6f2e1c13df930c5/1494888038959/RethinkX+Report_051517.pdf
(Yes, this is the same link I’ve already posted a couple of times, so if you’ve already seen it, feel free to give it a pass.)
I don’t take it as gospel–and it already (rightly) allows for considerable uncertainty in terms of timing, given that policy choices yet to be made will significantly affect the matter–but on the other hand, I’ve yet to hear a serious argument why this couldn’t or won’t happen.
I acknowledge that Killian argues forcefully that it is a dangerous distraction from simplification, but that does not mean that it couldn’t or won’t happen. It does mean that if he is correct, then it *shouldn’t* happen. However, at present I don’t think his simplification can or will happen on a large scale first, and therefore I see the prospect of a 70% cut in emissions from transportation as a highly useful step on the road toward a) survival, and b) true sustainability.
In fact, I tend to see TaaS as being itself a form of simplification (or–acknowledging the technical and computational sophistication involved–at least efficiency), in that it would result in a massive downsizing of the auto industry–resource demands and carbon footprint included–with no loss of utility in terms of personal mobility. In fact, there’d be a gain in utility, since you’d be able to get around just as well, while paying much less–the estimate in the report being around $5K per household per year on average for the US, IIRC.
It’s one of the things that causes me not to accept Zebra’s assessment that there’s a zero chance of getting to carbon-neutral in 20 years. (Sorry not to have remarked on that sooner, Z, but I’ve been mulling over what I really think about that.) Admittedly, it’s a tall order, and hard to imagine, but then nonlinear change is *always* hard to imagine. To be fair, I think it’s more likely that we’ll see serious emissions reductions over the next 2 decades, but that we won’t wrestle the beast quite to the ground by then.
We’ll still be in a fraught, difficult and dangerous–but not hopeless–situation, I thiink–but one in which the parameters will have shifted significantly compared with today’s reality.
#279 nigelj said “Modeling sustainability: population, inequality, consumption, and bidirectional coupling of the Earth and Human Systems”
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/3/4/470/2669331
Or you could have read my work from 2008, posted on my blog in 2009:
http://aperfectstormcometh.blogspot.kr/2009/05/perfect-storm-world-simulation-peak-oil.html
I would really, really like to believe that best practices in ag could re-sequester at least some carbon, but this study does not seem very…optimistic…about that prospect:
10.1016/j.agee.2012.08.011
Soil carbon lost from Mollisols of the North Central U.S.A. with 20 years of agricultural best management practices, Gregg R. Sanford et al. , Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, v162, pp 68 et seq.
…
“While NT management strategies, inclusion of perennial crops, manure, and grass pasture all had beneficial effects on the C stocks at WICST, none of the six systems sequestered atmospheric C when the entire 90 cm profile was considered. These results are consistent with finding at the WICST mirror site in southern WI, as well as with others …”
(thanks to sidd at asif for this link)
Kevin M 295,
Kevin, I have acknowledged your writing skill in the past, and here we have another example… but that doesn’t make it any less rhetoric.
“fraught, difficult, and dangerous”
Seriously?
Tell that to the climate refugee children 100 years from now, who are dying because we didn’t “wrestle the beast quite to the ground”.
Either you (and all the others) are serious about how serious this issue is, or not. Stop being equivocal, and stop the Nirvana thinking.
One of my first physics-related jobs involved looking at a potential cause of an airline crash. I didn’t make much of a contribution, still a student, but I learned about the concepts involved in design of critical systems, like redundancy. Look, we can build a commercial airliner with one engine, and rely on that engine never failing. It’s not a good idea!
So, I know I’ve asked before, and still await an answer: What’s your Plan B? What if I am correct, and the trajectory of climate disruption is as I have described:
Mitigation, Adaptation, Sustainability. What’s the plan?
And BTW, Kevin, “difficult to imagine nonlinear change”, coming from you to me???
KIA 290: The entire article can be summarized as: there are too many humans! I think we all know that, but nonetheless, the leftists in the USA (and the EU) want open borders with unlimited numbers of people moving in and consuming stuff just like the citizens of those areas. Leftists are geniuses. NOT!
BPL: Immigration and emigration only affect the distribution of people, not the total number. KIA is a genius. NOT!
Killian: saying we have oil for another 50 or 100 years means nothing. A meaningless stat.
AB: True, but saying that we have 50-100 years (or whatever it is) of oil currently booked as assets is a humungus stat.