‘Earthworm Dilemma’ Has Climate Scientists Racing to Keep Up(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
‘Earthworm Dilemma’ Has Climate Scientists Racing to Keep Up
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-soil-climate.html
81 comments
According to this paper, about 10,000 times as much CO2 is emitted by the forest floor than N2O. So, even though N2O is more potent, the CO2 is a bigger deal (and changes in it are therefore a bigger deal as well).
https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/90/4/541/3064404
See table 4. Note that NO2 efflux is measured in mg and CO2 is measured in g.
https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/90/4/541/3064404
See table 4. Note that NO2 efflux is measured in mg and CO2 is measured in g.
Hey, thanks for that reference. You're right, but the 300x potency of N2O vs CO2 and the sheer unknowns lurking in our understanding of the "earthworm problem" still make this worth investigation, in my opinion.
Additionally, at the risk of being pedantic and because I'm a stuck-up academic, I want to point out that your reference is studying a temperate forest. This is relevant not only because species composition and climatic regimes present in temperate forests (decidious trees, high species diversity, high nutrient availabilty, moderate climates) differ markedly from those of boreal forests (coniferous trees, low species diversity, low nutrient availability, extreme climatic seasonality). There's good reason to believe that this difference has a corresponding shift in the GHG emission regimes of the respective forestlands, which you can see here [0]. Additionally, boreal forests are the earth's largest terrestrial ecosystem [1], which makes this potential difference quite relevant.
Your point is well taken, though -- it's important to triage effort in facing a complicated global challenge.
[0]: https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/X08-209#.XOLSAF... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga
Additionally, at the risk of being pedantic and because I'm a stuck-up academic, I want to point out that your reference is studying a temperate forest. This is relevant not only because species composition and climatic regimes present in temperate forests (decidious trees, high species diversity, high nutrient availabilty, moderate climates) differ markedly from those of boreal forests (coniferous trees, low species diversity, low nutrient availability, extreme climatic seasonality). There's good reason to believe that this difference has a corresponding shift in the GHG emission regimes of the respective forestlands, which you can see here [0]. Additionally, boreal forests are the earth's largest terrestrial ecosystem [1], which makes this potential difference quite relevant.
Your point is well taken, though -- it's important to triage effort in facing a complicated global challenge.
[0]: https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/X08-209#.XOLSAF... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga
It depends on how big is the base rate of emission of N2O for boreal forest, if it was negligible before an increase of 42% is certainly not good but might not be catastrophic.
Not sure I have too much to add to the discussion but I do have a question – what do the people who know the most about climate change think we (consumers) should do? There seem to be few coherent lobbying efforts; the people best known for accurate science (IPCC) have no information that I can find about what an average human should be doing to help fight the good fight; it all just feels so impossible.
Does anyone here have any links or suggestions? I've done a small amount of work on "raising awareness" (https://twitter.com/ipccbot) but it seems like everyone either knows and cares or knows and doesn't care. A lot of the climate news feels like climate news porn – so the earthworms are freaking scientists out, what does that mean for me? Can I help the scientists? Are there places I can donate? Or specific calls to action I can follow to help advocate for saner climate policy? What is that policy?
Does anyone here have any links or suggestions? I've done a small amount of work on "raising awareness" (https://twitter.com/ipccbot) but it seems like everyone either knows and cares or knows and doesn't care. A lot of the climate news feels like climate news porn – so the earthworms are freaking scientists out, what does that mean for me? Can I help the scientists? Are there places I can donate? Or specific calls to action I can follow to help advocate for saner climate policy? What is that policy?
Climate scientist here.
I really resonate with the "climate change porn" bullshit. Drives me crazy, and just makes people numb to it.
The best thing you can do is the thing you're best at doing, and that you're motivated to do. You'll do it well, and others will follow.
If that's too vague, here are some objective suggestions. Might get in trouble for this, but individual action isn't going to fix this problem. I don't really care if you are a vegetarian or a vegan, or whether you buy carbon credits or offset your airplane tickets or whatever other bullshit Wall Street is pushing to get around this problem.
What you should be doing is encouraging systems-level thinking. Get people to understand how top-level governmental decisions (or lack thereof) can lead to a system where carbon is entirely written off as irrelevant in our current economic and political system. Encourage people to think of ways in which, to the best of our ability, lifestyles for all people can be maintained or improved while severely regulating the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
I really resonate with the "climate change porn" bullshit. Drives me crazy, and just makes people numb to it.
The best thing you can do is the thing you're best at doing, and that you're motivated to do. You'll do it well, and others will follow.
If that's too vague, here are some objective suggestions. Might get in trouble for this, but individual action isn't going to fix this problem. I don't really care if you are a vegetarian or a vegan, or whether you buy carbon credits or offset your airplane tickets or whatever other bullshit Wall Street is pushing to get around this problem.
What you should be doing is encouraging systems-level thinking. Get people to understand how top-level governmental decisions (or lack thereof) can lead to a system where carbon is entirely written off as irrelevant in our current economic and political system. Encourage people to think of ways in which, to the best of our ability, lifestyles for all people can be maintained or improved while severely regulating the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Love that idea, but again it's this abstract "change how people think" – who is organizing this collective action? How can I join their existing efforts? My comparative advantage is not public relations / marketing / persuasion, and while I'm going to of course keep trying to make sure the people around me understand the seriousness of the issue, I'm at a loss for how to have a larger impact.
1000% agreed that individual action is not enough, and that we need to get the corporations and governments of the world to make serious changes. But I have no idea what those changes are, or like you say, how we can make them while maintaining or improving lifestyles for all people.
Also, thank you for answering kindly and collaboratively. For some reason I'm just feeling really fed up with climate news porn today and these are all the frustrations and questions I've always wanted to ask.
1000% agreed that individual action is not enough, and that we need to get the corporations and governments of the world to make serious changes. But I have no idea what those changes are, or like you say, how we can make them while maintaining or improving lifestyles for all people.
Also, thank you for answering kindly and collaboratively. For some reason I'm just feeling really fed up with climate news porn today and these are all the frustrations and questions I've always wanted to ask.
Your quest for a large impact is noble, but I encourage you to think more locally. Consider your community first, because it's where you have the most direct levers for change. Hell, you could have a book club. You could write up an e-mail to your friends with the climate policies of relevant political candidates, "just FYI!".
There's a middle ground between "I'm buying local produce for myself" and "I'm quitting my job and chaining myself to an oil tanker."
There's a middle ground between "I'm buying local produce for myself" and "I'm quitting my job and chaining myself to an oil tanker."
I agree with you, but talking to my local community doesn't feel like it has an impact – everyone I know already agrees with me. All the candidates in our local elections claim to be "green"-focused. I'm wondering, where is the guidance for this? All successful social movements have been guided by leaders with clear expectations and guidelines and suggestions for people at every level of the movement to contribute. Seems like incredibly low hanging fruit to set up a "are you doing the right thing for climate change? do these things for these impacts" checklist, but I don't have the expertise to create that myself. Without it, any time anyone asks me how do I know what I'm doing/recommending will have an impact, I'm reduced to saying "someone on the internet who says they're a climate scientist told me so in a comment."
Sure, I get that. Metrics for impact here, as in many social/philanthropic endeavors, are hard to come by.
You're right about the leadership issue, it's one that has plagued the climate conversation ever since Al Gore fell off. Yale Climate has a somewhat old article on this [0], where you may find guidance.
Bottom line is you don't have to believe me. If you're looking for a modern scientist-leader, listen to Dr. Katharine Hayhoe's TED talk ("The most important thing you can do to fight climate change: talk about it" [1]).
[0]: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/03/whose-is-the-... [1]: https://youtu.be/-BvcToPZCLI
You're right about the leadership issue, it's one that has plagued the climate conversation ever since Al Gore fell off. Yale Climate has a somewhat old article on this [0], where you may find guidance.
Bottom line is you don't have to believe me. If you're looking for a modern scientist-leader, listen to Dr. Katharine Hayhoe's TED talk ("The most important thing you can do to fight climate change: talk about it" [1]).
[0]: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/03/whose-is-the-... [1]: https://youtu.be/-BvcToPZCLI
First thing is to bother your politician. I wrote a rather disturbing email to my MP, for which I got an acknowledgement that she would go and look at the IPCC reports. A few relevant facts like >100 million barrels of oil consumed daily, human emission of CO2 in gigatons, and the possibility that we're already past tipping point. It was polite but really not a nice thing to read.
I do phone up product suppliers and ask them why they've overdone the packaging but if it's only me they will ignore me. I've bothered BP over their environmental damage in Africa, and much more. I'll continue to do more but in the end I despair because 90% of people don't care.
Were it not for health problems I'd be out in central london getting arrested with the other 1,000 or so arrests in the past few weeks.
So there's answers. But I've been talking about this, and doing stuff about it, for ~20 years and no-one gave a shit. Now it may be too late. So do as you please.
I do phone up product suppliers and ask them why they've overdone the packaging but if it's only me they will ignore me. I've bothered BP over their environmental damage in Africa, and much more. I'll continue to do more but in the end I despair because 90% of people don't care.
Were it not for health problems I'd be out in central london getting arrested with the other 1,000 or so arrests in the past few weeks.
So there's answers. But I've been talking about this, and doing stuff about it, for ~20 years and no-one gave a shit. Now it may be too late. So do as you please.
Individual action will not in and of itself solve the climate crisis, but I believe it could be a powerful lever to build the critical mass needed to put global warming at the top of our politicians' agendas. We need to convince our families, friends and neighbors that the climate crisis is a big deal. Words are cheap. But if people see us actully making substantive personal sacrifices in our own lives, sacrifices that cannot be merely written off as performative signaling, but that can only be explained by a strongly held belief that climate change is a BIG DEAL, our exhortations will be far more persuasive.
They can't be maintained or improved. People will be forced to accept a lower standard of life as they are switched to less environmentally impacting methods, and will be punitively taxed to cover for the things that it's simply impossible to remove.
We won't see everyone tooling around in their autonomous electric cars. the rich will have Tesla's, and everyone else will probably split the massive cost of an ICE car four ways instead of owning one, or walk everywhere.That's assuming we didn't kill half the jobs off in the USA because now a Burger King Value Meal costs $20, due to cigarette-style sin taxes.
You can systems level think all you like, the problem is when it gets expressed into concrete things. I think people would have to admit that it would be a pretty big qol step down for people...it's just that their solutions dovetail neatly with the way they live their lives already.
We won't see everyone tooling around in their autonomous electric cars. the rich will have Tesla's, and everyone else will probably split the massive cost of an ICE car four ways instead of owning one, or walk everywhere.That's assuming we didn't kill half the jobs off in the USA because now a Burger King Value Meal costs $20, due to cigarette-style sin taxes.
You can systems level think all you like, the problem is when it gets expressed into concrete things. I think people would have to admit that it would be a pretty big qol step down for people...it's just that their solutions dovetail neatly with the way they live their lives already.
> People will be forced to accept a lower standard of life as they are switched to less environmentally impacting methods
This is precisely the kind of Carbon-Rules-All thinking that got us here. There is an implicit assumption that the only way we could have ever gotten to the "place we are today," however you choose to define that, is as a result of the burning fossil fuels.
I implore you to sit with some beer/wine/LSD and contemplate an alternative history in which we never drilled a single oil well but had the same desires for successful civilization. See where you get.
The "system level thinking" I'm talking about is the kind that works to explicitly maintain QOL while strongly curtailing emissions. It's possible, and is actually the only way.
This is precisely the kind of Carbon-Rules-All thinking that got us here. There is an implicit assumption that the only way we could have ever gotten to the "place we are today," however you choose to define that, is as a result of the burning fossil fuels.
I implore you to sit with some beer/wine/LSD and contemplate an alternative history in which we never drilled a single oil well but had the same desires for successful civilization. See where you get.
The "system level thinking" I'm talking about is the kind that works to explicitly maintain QOL while strongly curtailing emissions. It's possible, and is actually the only way.
Off the top of my head:
- Only take a plane when absolutely necessary.
- Live in a city, sell your car and take public transport
- Reduce meat consumption (at least beef and lamb which are a lot worse than the others). You don't need to eat meat every single day. Also try tofu, tempeh and seitan; you may find you like them.
- Vote with this topic in mind, even if it might hurt you financially.
- Only take a plane when absolutely necessary.
- Live in a city, sell your car and take public transport
- Reduce meat consumption (at least beef and lamb which are a lot worse than the others). You don't need to eat meat every single day. Also try tofu, tempeh and seitan; you may find you like them.
- Vote with this topic in mind, even if it might hurt you financially.
Individual action will barely make a dent, to the point where it’s nearly pointless to bother. We need global collective actions and a worldwide tax on carbon emissions.
There's no need to bother paying women equally for equal work at my employer (pointless to bother), what we need is changed laws to ensure women get fair pay in all cases. See how silly this sounds?
How about instead, both.
How about instead, both.
That last one, x1000
The most common refrain I've heard is to reduce meat consumption, and to shift from high-carbon-output meats to lower-output ones. I think the rough order, from highest to lowest, is:
- Beef
- Pork
- Seafood
- Chicken
- Non-meat dietI'm willing to believe you (and I am already doing this!) but can you show me where any climate scientists advocate for consumers to take this kind of action? And model out how supply of these high-carbon-output food sources will be affected by this depending on how many consumers take action? If you don't have the time or interest that's totally fine, but I'm trying to make the point that it's really confusing for me as a consumer to understand what to do about climate change. I really wish the IPCC or other climate groups would get together with a list of actions for regular people, along with the predicted effects of those actions.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat...
The information is widely available. I don't think needing more summaries of it is the problem. The problem is people don't care enough to change their behavior. And food is really tied up with identity, while people covet bad identities.
The information is widely available. I don't think needing more summaries of it is the problem. The problem is people don't care enough to change their behavior. And food is really tied up with identity, while people covet bad identities.
This is not from the IPCC but a multidisciplinary commission that presumably included climate scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_diet
Many high-level decisions fail to take into account lower-level intricacies.
For example, assuming you live in Germany (for the sake of concreteness) and you want to move down the chain from pork to seafood.
1. Are you aware of fish rated as green, yellow or red?
2. Are you aware of other consideration, such as logistics and methods (e.g.: aquaculture vs. wild)?
3. Do you have access to local and sustainable pork (but perhaps not seafood)?
For example, assuming you live in Germany (for the sake of concreteness) and you want to move down the chain from pork to seafood.
1. Are you aware of fish rated as green, yellow or red?
2. Are you aware of other consideration, such as logistics and methods (e.g.: aquaculture vs. wild)?
3. Do you have access to local and sustainable pork (but perhaps not seafood)?
And even if you consider this stuff, most people won't; supporting pork is supporting pork, because pork is fungible. Only the simple approach is viable.
The order in that list may depend on how the animal is farmed. For example, in some countries the beef is raised outdoors on grass and the pork is raised indoors.
Interesting; I hadn't seen that list before.
Annoyingly, most of it goes directly against arguments I have seen [1] about how best to reduce animal suffering in the human food chain without everyone going full vegetarian, since one suffering cow can replace an awful lot of suffering chickens even if you percieve individual chickens as "less conscious".
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-meat...
Annoyingly, most of it goes directly against arguments I have seen [1] about how best to reduce animal suffering in the human food chain without everyone going full vegetarian, since one suffering cow can replace an awful lot of suffering chickens even if you percieve individual chickens as "less conscious".
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-meat...
What happens when you have 15 billion people eating a non-meat diet?
That's 35 or more years out. First fix the emissions then work on population growth to increase the doubling time. Unless we want to discover the point at which Malthus was right?
They eat vegetables instead. What are you getting at?
Soon, 7 billion living people.
Humans aren't immune to mass dieoffs. We're animals too.
Humans aren't immune to mass dieoffs. We're animals too.
You get a lot of pesticides.
CCL https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ in the US is working towards something, albeit in a mild and incremental way.
They're pushing a carbon tax policy in the house right now https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbo.... It's a little silly since it seems like there's little appetite for a bill like this with conservatives. I still think it's important to try.
I'd say there's a lot of opportunity to do things on a state or local level. Reducing your state's carbon emissions has a real impact. Push for renewable energy sources. Fight to make the process of rezoning for higher density housing easier in your community and improve public transit.
They're pushing a carbon tax policy in the house right now https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbo.... It's a little silly since it seems like there's little appetite for a bill like this with conservatives. I still think it's important to try.
I'd say there's a lot of opportunity to do things on a state or local level. Reducing your state's carbon emissions has a real impact. Push for renewable energy sources. Fight to make the process of rezoning for higher density housing easier in your community and improve public transit.
And in other parts of the world, earth worms are dying in large..
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/after-the-deluge-k...
Earthworms more important than panda if you want to save the earth... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthworms-are-mo...
Earthworms more important than panda if you want to save the earth... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthworms-are-mo...
Earth will be fine, people will not. Climate change sounds innocuous as daylight savings and needs to be rebranded in order to resonate with more people.
The Guardian has decided to do just that https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-.... Now it's 'Global Heating' and 'Climate Crisis'
How about 'The Extinction'
Speaking as a converted climate skeptic, the person who finally convinced me that this is real and serious overdid it and convinced me that we'll be seeing massive famines, extinctions, and widespread death as biomes shift around worldwide in the next 30 years or so, within our lifetimes.
Since the only way to stop this would be to actually reverse damage already done, requiring worldwide effort never seen in history to perform actions that may be scientifically impossible, I think it's safe to say that we're royally fucked.
So why should I even care about this topic, or the planet, if we're all gonna starve to death within our lifetimes or our childrens'?
I'm going to just live my life for pleasure. Can't stop it now anyway. It's THE EXTINCTION. Time to party I guess.
Since the only way to stop this would be to actually reverse damage already done, requiring worldwide effort never seen in history to perform actions that may be scientifically impossible, I think it's safe to say that we're royally fucked.
So why should I even care about this topic, or the planet, if we're all gonna starve to death within our lifetimes or our childrens'?
I'm going to just live my life for pleasure. Can't stop it now anyway. It's THE EXTINCTION. Time to party I guess.
Don't think that person really overdid it much, except for being so specific on the timing. The reality is that no-one knows exactly what the combined effect of climate-forcing factors will be, or when. It could be a catastrophe, or it might not be so bad (as some people fear)
Quite a few things a likely to change though, just as climate change always did; previously fertile lands will likely become deserts, and vice versa. Which means animals and plants all will be on the move, and some will not have time to adapt and perish. Humans are more adaptable, and would not necessarily face an extinction, but the conflicts that follow may be fatal.
Quite a few things a likely to change though, just as climate change always did; previously fertile lands will likely become deserts, and vice versa. Which means animals and plants all will be on the move, and some will not have time to adapt and perish. Humans are more adaptable, and would not necessarily face an extinction, but the conflicts that follow may be fatal.
Well now, you say that.
Do you really think the most skeptical business owners and politicians in the US are going to keep ignoring it and emitting when it's their business, family, state or home that's impacted?
I don't know what it is, I don't know when it will be, but there will be a Pearl Harbor equivalent moment. After which inaction will be as impossible as action today. The moment the crash is apparent and inevitable.
By then it'll cost a fuck load more, and have far harder impacts on everyone's economy and lifestyle, but unless it turns out to be a bad dream, it seems pretty damn certain. Pretty damn certainly in our lifetimes.
You don't prefer the easier option?
Do you really think the most skeptical business owners and politicians in the US are going to keep ignoring it and emitting when it's their business, family, state or home that's impacted?
I don't know what it is, I don't know when it will be, but there will be a Pearl Harbor equivalent moment. After which inaction will be as impossible as action today. The moment the crash is apparent and inevitable.
By then it'll cost a fuck load more, and have far harder impacts on everyone's economy and lifestyle, but unless it turns out to be a bad dream, it seems pretty damn certain. Pretty damn certainly in our lifetimes.
You don't prefer the easier option?
My understanding of the situation is that there is enough damage already done that a significant portion of the population, if not all of it, will be dead in the next half century, regardless of what's done. Didn't you see the new data from Mauna Loa last week? Plus there's the methane runaway theory, and the oceans are desalinating at an exponential rate due to the ever-accelerating glacial melt that is causing a feedback loop.
We go extinct no matter what. Where's the easier option? Good luck to the plankton or whatever that succeeds us.
We go extinct no matter what. Where's the easier option? Good luck to the plankton or whatever that succeeds us.
Can't tell if you are trolling?
I'd love to hear a credible source that says something on the lines of, "My understanding of the situation is that there is enough damage already done that a significant portion of the population, if not all of it, will be dead in the next half century, regardless of what's done."
There are crackpots on each side of the argument (skeptics versus doom). I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I'd love to hear a credible source that says something on the lines of, "My understanding of the situation is that there is enough damage already done that a significant portion of the population, if not all of it, will be dead in the next half century, regardless of what's done."
There are crackpots on each side of the argument (skeptics versus doom). I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The amount of effort that the word's governments are putting into curbing carbon emissions right now rounds to 0. Once we're actually trying on any meaningful scale, then it's worth having debates about whether our politics and policies are all correctly calibrated.
Right now we're still at a stage of getting people to wake the fuck up.
Right now we're still at a stage of getting people to wake the fuck up.
The climate threat
The plastic threat
The self-destruction threat
The AGI threat
Seem like the most important threats to humanity, in order, by my understanding.
The plastic threat
The self-destruction threat
The AGI threat
Seem like the most important threats to humanity, in order, by my understanding.
AGI -> Artificial General Intelligence for anyone else who is scratching their head.
AGI is only a threat if humanity is an end in itself. It'll be a great leap for sentient life.
That's why I said threats to humanity. I agree that it could be a huge leap for sentient life.
IMO it'll likely be a requirement for life beyond the heliopause or even closer to home.
IMO it'll likely be a requirement for life beyond the heliopause or even closer to home.
No need to rebrand. Simply stop using the vacuous phrase 'climate change' (Thomas Sowell has commented to the effect that you won't find a single rational person on Earth who denies that the climate changes) and replace it with actual referenced data (temperature, sea level, state of the poles etc.,) together with a non-cherry-picked historical context so that anyone can see for themselves what is actually happening climate-wise.
Resonance & rebranding would hardly be needed to alert the public if an asteroid was found to be on a trajectory for earth.
Resonance & rebranding would hardly be needed to alert the public if an asteroid was found to be on a trajectory for earth.
[deleted]
This is where it gets hard to fight climate change. As awareness increases, so does funding for "climate change". Now everyone environmental scientist with an issue will link that issue with climate change, with the hopes of drawing press, awareness, and funding. It may or may not actually be an issue, but I think we need to focus on the top causes of climate change first.
I am not sure more science can be an issue, it is still a ridiculous small amount of money compared to defence, debt servicing, etc.
Who knows, someone might find a negative feedback loop for climate change that we could leverage, even in something as improbable as mycology ?
(Likely increasing defence budget is also another way to mitigate climate change if we don't do it in a more civilized way...)
Who knows, someone might find a negative feedback loop for climate change that we could leverage, even in something as improbable as mycology ?
(Likely increasing defence budget is also another way to mitigate climate change if we don't do it in a more civilized way...)
the best negative feedback loop is a depression. Kill the global economy for 20 years and CO2 production will crash.
Ironically trumps tariffs are likely to do more to slow climate change than any other policies.
Ironically trumps tariffs are likely to do more to slow climate change than any other policies.
I wonder if this is true or if we will just use cheaper, dirtier technology to get by?
That depends to an extent on how deep the depression is.
As transportation gets more expensive, after a certain point, solar panels and wind turbines are cheaper to ship around than huge amounts of coal and oil.
However, at a certain point after that, efficient solar panels and wind turbines (not to mention batteries and motors) may become too hard to manufacture due to unavailability of critical materials and components.
If anyone is looking for a big meaty research problem that may influence just how far our technological society might fall, either work on non-rare replacements for rare-earth elements (semiconductor dopants, magnets, etc.) or on ways to shorten the supply lines (eg. economically/sustainably extract them from ordinary dirt or seawater, perhaps with synbio).
As transportation gets more expensive, after a certain point, solar panels and wind turbines are cheaper to ship around than huge amounts of coal and oil.
However, at a certain point after that, efficient solar panels and wind turbines (not to mention batteries and motors) may become too hard to manufacture due to unavailability of critical materials and components.
If anyone is looking for a big meaty research problem that may influence just how far our technological society might fall, either work on non-rare replacements for rare-earth elements (semiconductor dopants, magnets, etc.) or on ways to shorten the supply lines (eg. economically/sustainably extract them from ordinary dirt or seawater, perhaps with synbio).
Idk, I feel like it's all been watered down. It use to be global warming, now it's climate change... none of the old predictions have come true and now everyone and their mother uses the buzz word to hype up whatever it is their interested in getting funded for.
> none of the old predictions have come true
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
I wonder how this interplays with anaerobic decomposition which would produce CH4 (which is many times more potent as a greenhouse gas). I'd expect that the worm activity encourages oxygen consuming bacteria which produce CO2.
Do the benefits earthworms provide for the soil/plants outweight the negatives?
The world is a dynamic system. You can't wind back the clock on anything. People need to let go of their static worldview and accept that change happens. We are continually poking Pandora's Box. What has been let out cannot be put back in.
I think you're right, the question now is do we learn from how it's changed and how we're changing it?
Do we continue to make the planet an ever more unlivable hell-hole because "the world is a dynamic system."
Or do we look at what's happening, learn from it, and try to prevent things from getting worse.
Do we continue to make the planet an ever more unlivable hell-hole because "the world is a dynamic system."
Or do we look at what's happening, learn from it, and try to prevent things from getting worse.
Absolutely we should be trying to do better. But we do that by steering towards a future that is acceptable, not by trying to turn back time to somewhere we used to be.
I apologize for my hostile tone before, I think you and I are on the same page. There does seem to be a lot of hand wringing about the ways thing are changing and little direction on what to do about it.
Can we please start investing in nuclear power again. Pretty please? We've already lost 50 years due to anti-nuclear policies that effectively killed nuclear power in every developed nation not named 'France'.
Wind/Solar necessarily implies doubling-down on natural gas as this is the standard (and only) way to get around the intermittency issue of those renewables. It's no surprise that natural gas companies now lobby for Wind and Solar deployments, and Germany signs multi-decade deals to import Russian gas as they increase their Solar and Wind footprint.
So nuclear, apart from being capable of cutting our CO2 emissions to 0 for power generation, also requires two orders of magnitude less land-use than Solar and Wind deployments. This does nothing for CO2 emissions, but I'm sure wild-life will appreciate less encroachment.
What will it take for environmentalists, and progressives (who push the anti-nuclear Green New Deal) to support nuclear power?
Wind/Solar necessarily implies doubling-down on natural gas as this is the standard (and only) way to get around the intermittency issue of those renewables. It's no surprise that natural gas companies now lobby for Wind and Solar deployments, and Germany signs multi-decade deals to import Russian gas as they increase their Solar and Wind footprint.
So nuclear, apart from being capable of cutting our CO2 emissions to 0 for power generation, also requires two orders of magnitude less land-use than Solar and Wind deployments. This does nothing for CO2 emissions, but I'm sure wild-life will appreciate less encroachment.
What will it take for environmentalists, and progressives (who push the anti-nuclear Green New Deal) to support nuclear power?
I don't understand why this is being downvoted, apart from non-scientific resentments.
Nuclear power will be needed, together with renewables (hydro, wind, solar), to massively increase the chance to shift away from fossil energy.
I've been worried about climate change, CO2 emissions and related material for quite a number of years now, and I've believed that we should have been pushing hard into nuclear power for a long time.
However:
> Wind/Solar necessarily implies doubling-down on natural gas as this is the standard (and only) way to get around the intermittency issue of those renewables.
Can we so lightly dismiss battery storage? It has a ways to go, but its price continues to improve exponentially.
However:
> Wind/Solar necessarily implies doubling-down on natural gas as this is the standard (and only) way to get around the intermittency issue of those renewables.
Can we so lightly dismiss battery storage? It has a ways to go, but its price continues to improve exponentially.
>Can we so lightly dismiss battery storage?
We can because there is no battery storage technology today, nor is one upcoming, that would work on city scale (i.e. store enough energy to power a city and industry outside of ideal wind/solar times). For example, the Tesla-style deployments are only there to even out supply on the order of milliseconds and maybe seconds. That's still something, and does replace natural gas in those specific use-cases, but that's not what we need.
Worse, we don't even know of a battery technology that would be able to store power across seasons or years, as Wind and Solar are very seasonally dependent and may vary in output by an order of magnitude between, say, Summer and Winter. Furthermore, for wind deployments, you usually need to sample multiple years to figure out if the site is good enough because wind output can vary across multiple-years.
That's why wind/solar/natural gas is a package deal today and for the foreseeable future.
We can because there is no battery storage technology today, nor is one upcoming, that would work on city scale (i.e. store enough energy to power a city and industry outside of ideal wind/solar times). For example, the Tesla-style deployments are only there to even out supply on the order of milliseconds and maybe seconds. That's still something, and does replace natural gas in those specific use-cases, but that's not what we need.
Worse, we don't even know of a battery technology that would be able to store power across seasons or years, as Wind and Solar are very seasonally dependent and may vary in output by an order of magnitude between, say, Summer and Winter. Furthermore, for wind deployments, you usually need to sample multiple years to figure out if the site is good enough because wind output can vary across multiple-years.
That's why wind/solar/natural gas is a package deal today and for the foreseeable future.
No we can't dismiss it lightly, because there won't be a sole solution to tackle CO2 increase, but we need to leverage and improve all existing technologies.
I would like to see an honest accounting of the costs of nuclear power including decommissioning and waste storage. I am also skeptical that a world wide increase in nuclear power usage can be done in a safe way. Somebody somewhere will take shortcuts over time.
>I would like to see an honest accounting of the costs of nuclear power including decommissioning and waste storage.
Does it matter? If the game is to cut CO2 emissions, and nothing else can cut CO2 emissions - we're out of options.
Tell me honestly: is there anything that would convince you or are you just saying things? I ask because I do wonder what kind of answer you are looking for that we don't already know. It isn't like nuclear technology is brand new. There's a 5 decades of history behind it and it has been studied exhaustively. We know the risks, the costs, the capabilities, the safety record. Everything. What more do you need before you accept it?
Does it matter? If the game is to cut CO2 emissions, and nothing else can cut CO2 emissions - we're out of options.
Tell me honestly: is there anything that would convince you or are you just saying things? I ask because I do wonder what kind of answer you are looking for that we don't already know. It isn't like nuclear technology is brand new. There's a 5 decades of history behind it and it has been studied exhaustively. We know the risks, the costs, the capabilities, the safety record. Everything. What more do you need before you accept it?
> What will it take for environmentalists, and progressives (who push the anti-nuclear Green New Deal) to support nuclear power?
Better marketing. Back in the 90s, the GOP hired a PR firm, who came up with the idea of renaming the estate tax to the death tax. In doing so, they managed to get even hardcore liberals on board with "eliminating the death tax", even though those same people were very much for increasing the estate tax.
Nuclear needs a similar PR boost. Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board.
The new marketing would have to tout both the newer "meltdown free" reactors as well as put a new spin on the Yucca mountain storage facility.
Better marketing. Back in the 90s, the GOP hired a PR firm, who came up with the idea of renaming the estate tax to the death tax. In doing so, they managed to get even hardcore liberals on board with "eliminating the death tax", even though those same people were very much for increasing the estate tax.
Nuclear needs a similar PR boost. Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board.
The new marketing would have to tout both the newer "meltdown free" reactors as well as put a new spin on the Yucca mountain storage facility.
>Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board.
You think so? Because I would think they would see through the attempt if tried. And it would simply lead to conspiracy theories of big-nuclear trying to put lipstick on a pig - in the same way that 'clean coal' branding didn't really get any environmentalists/progressives on board for coal power.
You think so? Because I would think they would see through the attempt if tried. And it would simply lead to conspiracy theories of big-nuclear trying to put lipstick on a pig - in the same way that 'clean coal' branding didn't really get any environmentalists/progressives on board for coal power.
Well it would have to be a good PR firm. :)
I go back to what I said about the estate tax/death tax thing. At the time, most people were for the estate tax, but once they came up with death tax, most people were against, including a lot of the most vocal proponents of the estate tax. It was literally the same tax with a name change, and most people were fooled.
I think clean coal didn't take off because it was a straight up lie. With nuclear it's a bit different. There really is a new technology and it really is safer than the old stuff everyone is afraid of. It just needs better marketing.
I go back to what I said about the estate tax/death tax thing. At the time, most people were for the estate tax, but once they came up with death tax, most people were against, including a lot of the most vocal proponents of the estate tax. It was literally the same tax with a name change, and most people were fooled.
I think clean coal didn't take off because it was a straight up lie. With nuclear it's a bit different. There really is a new technology and it really is safer than the old stuff everyone is afraid of. It just needs better marketing.
>Well it would have to be a good PR firm. :)
I'm skeptical. I think most would see through the attempt. Regardless, no one is attempting it anyway. I think nuclear power has been effectively killed. There are scant new nuclear projects on the horizon, with more shutting down then coming online. The industry is overregulated. FUD from environmentalist and progressives has traction. At best nuclear may get a passing reference in mainstream press when talking about solutions to global warming.
I think we're toast. If we doubled down on nuclear in the 60s/70s/80s to the same extent that France did, we would have prevented trillions of tons of CO2 from being emitted, and maybe bought ourselves an extra century to figure out alternatives. As it stands, it's looking pretty bleak. The irony is that in hindsight conservative denialism of global warming will take a backseat to anti-nuclear policies when we get judged for our choices by our descendants.
>I go back to what I said about the estate tax/death tax thing.
I'd like to push back on that. I've heard that reasoning before and I don't think it's that simple. I don't believe it was PR that did it either, rather there was a cultural shift in the 80s and 90s that embraced privatization and free market policies (not just in US, but UK, Canada, and many other nations). This was a pendulum swing from the 60s and 70s when protectionism and over-regulation and high taxation was fashionable.
Besides, there are good ideological reasons for conservatives to not support the estate tax, regardless of the label. Conservatives will tend to oppose taxes and push for tax cuts, but the estate tax provides extra incentive because it can be seen as double-dipping for the government.
I'm skeptical. I think most would see through the attempt. Regardless, no one is attempting it anyway. I think nuclear power has been effectively killed. There are scant new nuclear projects on the horizon, with more shutting down then coming online. The industry is overregulated. FUD from environmentalist and progressives has traction. At best nuclear may get a passing reference in mainstream press when talking about solutions to global warming.
I think we're toast. If we doubled down on nuclear in the 60s/70s/80s to the same extent that France did, we would have prevented trillions of tons of CO2 from being emitted, and maybe bought ourselves an extra century to figure out alternatives. As it stands, it's looking pretty bleak. The irony is that in hindsight conservative denialism of global warming will take a backseat to anti-nuclear policies when we get judged for our choices by our descendants.
>I go back to what I said about the estate tax/death tax thing.
I'd like to push back on that. I've heard that reasoning before and I don't think it's that simple. I don't believe it was PR that did it either, rather there was a cultural shift in the 80s and 90s that embraced privatization and free market policies (not just in US, but UK, Canada, and many other nations). This was a pendulum swing from the 60s and 70s when protectionism and over-regulation and high taxation was fashionable.
Besides, there are good ideological reasons for conservatives to not support the estate tax, regardless of the label. Conservatives will tend to oppose taxes and push for tax cuts, but the estate tax provides extra incentive because it can be seen as double-dipping for the government.
Conservatives always opposed the estate tax, but it was getting liberals onboard that was special. Getting liberals to support a tax cut on the wealthiest people was quite a win for the GOP.
I see what you mean and obviously I agree that something changed.
I still think a better explanation is that the country became more conservative when it came to economic policy because it wasn't just the attitudes around the estate tax that changed but rather the entire approach to economic policy. Things like wage and price controls, high income tax rates, and protectionist policies were a thing in the 70s, but became unpalatable in the 80s and 90s.
I still think a better explanation is that the country became more conservative when it came to economic policy because it wasn't just the attitudes around the estate tax that changed but rather the entire approach to economic policy. Things like wage and price controls, high income tax rates, and protectionist policies were a thing in the 70s, but became unpalatable in the 80s and 90s.
Since fission is triggered by neutrons we should call it “neutral energy”.
> No mechanism exists to eradicate earthworms from the boreal forest
Surely there must be an worm-eater somewhere.
Surely there must be an worm-eater somewhere.
The UK has been alarmed by the "New Zealand flatworm" threatening its earthworm population - some places have lost all of their worms, though it seems to be under control. On the other hand at a push, it may be possible to deliberately seed forests with them.
I think this article is quite hyperbolic though. It talks about a researchers "horror" at theoretical possibilities, but the latest literature review cited is 6 years old and it did not resolve any definite effect.
>Our results suggest that although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692
I think this article is quite hyperbolic though. It talks about a researchers "horror" at theoretical possibilities, but the latest literature review cited is 6 years old and it did not resolve any definite effect.
>Our results suggest that although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692
No flame intended here, but have to state this.
Worm-eater. That's such a typical solution. The cause of this migration should be given a solution, not the effects or result of the migration.
Worm-eater. That's such a typical solution. The cause of this migration should be given a solution, not the effects or result of the migration.
Due to pollution and habitat encroachment, early birds are becoming endangered in many parts of the world.
In terms relevant to the greenhouse effect, N2O is 298 times more potent than CO2 in the atmosphere [1]. I wonder about how increasing the entire boreal forest's emissions of N2O by 42% would affect the current projections. Seems...bad.
There's perhaps a silver lining here though: earthworms "unlock" stored nutrients in soils, making them easier for plants to access. This might spur growth, thereby storing atmospheric carbon in the process.
[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692 [1]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases