 | Drum(stick)Beat: November 22, 2007 | The Oil Drum | The Energy and Environment Round-Up: November 21st 2007 |  |
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
God I hope we find a bunch of North Seas!!
That will help us to kill off the planet in STYLE!!!
I see these people who wish for more and more oil as nothing less than arms dealers, enablers of mass murder, cheerleaders of planetary death.
No, Cherenkov, tell us what you really think!! Okay, I will.
People who wish for more oil may as well be pleading for all serial killers and child rapists to be released from prison, be given immunity from prosecution, and relocated into housing near schools.
Wishing for more oil is shamelessly sociopathic behaviour given what we know about fossil fuel's effect upon the global environment.
If not for all the decent people out there who truly want to stop this runaway train, I would simply say, good enough, let the humans kill off the human plague. Perhaps the rest of the Earth's biota will be able to carry on in this world we have so successfully damaged.
http://www.populistamerica.com/stop_calling_me_a_doomer
What Cherenkov said.
Dude, humanity occupies a blip on a pinhead on the scale of cosmic chronology. We're riding a mote of dust floating directionless in the universal gymnasium.
Why does it matter what we do to the planet?
Hmmm...well said...reality is a matter of perspective.
Why does it matter what we do to the planet?
This is a seriously great line.
It would be perfect on my neighbor's HUMMER. Not the bush bars either, right on the freaking door.
Heck... might as well put it on the F-250 too.
Why does it matter what we do to the planet?
'cos we could be dancing //
on the only green world//
that's turning //
around a sun //
Find me some aliens and I'll be a little less fussed.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
You see, this is where the logic loops.
1. Cherenkov jumps up and down like an idiot, shouting we have a duty to preserve the biota of the Earth.
2. Then someone asks just why is the Earth so special, out of the billions of planets in the Universe?
3. The Earth is special we are told, because it harbors intelligent life - i.e. humans.
You often see the same loop in environmental arguments -
"we need to preserve the environment"
"why?"
"because it supports human life".
So as you follow the circle from gung-ho capitalist cornucopian around to rabid eco-facist doomer Cherenkov the end point is the same: they all want to perpetuate human life as long as possible.
The Earth can easily absorb anything that humans can throw at it, there is no need to worry in that regard. Just don't fool ourselves that anyone cares about the Earth other than for the fact it happens to be the seat of the human race.
Ever hear of catastrophic positive feedback loops? The kind that releases methane from the permafrost releasing more methane from permafrost that . . .
So no Earth. just another Venus. or is it Mercury?
The Venus thing is pure BS, can't happen. People who say that are completely ignorant about geoscience, and that unfortunately includes certain people who should know better shooting their mouth off.
All the methane etc, is sequestered carbon that has all been in the atmosphere at some point already. The Earth has been far warmer in the past, you do know we live in an Ice Age?
A map for the lost
Wikipedia
So, are you are implying an earlier species on this planet burned up a major portion of stored carbon on this rock?
Carbon gets recycled all the time. Currently, the bulk of the worlds carbon endowment is locked into Carbonate rocks such as chalk and limestone, and in truly massive quantities.
The uniqueness of the last 3000 years (an augenblik for geological time) is that humans have put a pulse of carbon into the atmosphere. BUT vulcanicity has and still could beat man's puny attempts. But we have pulsed carbon and at a very high rate over the last 200 years, more so in the last 50.
Is AGW a worry? course it is, assuming we survive PO.
I will worry about AGW if we get through the next 15 years without a major civilisation killer like PO.
Hey, I like your priorities ;)
For those interested, here's some of that chalk
That's about 35 million years there, I guess the chalk layer goes deeper than you can see here. I think it's amazing that all that chalk was dumped by trillions of microscopic marine organisms - the remains of their "shells" made from calcium carbonate.
Buried carbon looks quite spectacular.
Yes, it is very impressive. Makes us pale in insignificance by comparison. But what would happen if the mechanism that trapped all of that carbon, lets say a great reduction in sea animals such as corals and plankton, broke down? Good thing the oceans are in perfect condition to recycle all of that carbon.
"all of that carbon" has already been trapped.
I'm more concerned about the effects of global warming. Peak oil I can personally prepare for (and I have as I am fairly well ensconced on my small self sufficient farm in a sparsely populated area). But global warming could be the double whammy that wipes out many of the survivors, some of which could carry on the culture which is worth saving.
The other way round. Carbon that was present in the primeval biosphere is employed in organic processes, creating carbon compounds, some of which get buried (or end up in deep ocean). Over millions of years the amount of carbon in the biosphere goes down.
Volcanic processes recycle the buried carbon eventually, but this is a slow process and life has been quicker at burying it. Vulcanism has reduced as the Earth cools. Occasionally the process gets a big kick and a lot of carbon is dumped back into the biosphere, possibly by massive meteorite strikes.
A Brief History of Earth: A guide for recent arrivals
another GW denier. hardly worth a debate.
For the record, I fully agree with all the past and current climate science in the IPCC reports.
Where I would differ is the projections of the IPCC on CO2 emissions do not take into account PO, or any declining availability of FF, and are therefore seriously flawed in that respect. James Hansen has published his own paper on the subject which I regard as realistic. It still gives cause for concern, but even Hansen says that the high estimates of the IPCC are very unlikely.
On Venus, this is what RealClimate (real climate scientists, not deniers) have to say:
It is easy to cast ad homs, but anyone can read an accurate take on the science at RealClimate. There is no excuse for ignorance.
Two comments:
1) Can you give a reference to Hansen's discussion in re. limits to atmospheric CO2?
2) Earth differs significantly from Venus in that on Earth life has developed. Life forms have developed that have sequestered vast amounts of CO2 in carbonate rocks. If there were some reason for mankind to mine all the limestone deposits, and turn them to quicklime (using nuclear power as the energy source, maybe) THEN we would have real problems with atmospheric CO2!
I think BobCousins is refering to Hansen's paper we discussed here?
Implications of "Peak Oil" for Atmospheric CO2 and Climate
Cement production is already a big source of CO2 emissions.
Nuh uh, you have a logical flaw in your argument, the one I was trying to point to...
NOT i.e. humans. e.g. humans maybe a little
Three separate points:
1) Some of this is about terran biodiversity generally. something like 200 species a day (mostly beetles, admitted) going extinct. One argument, in line with what I said but contrary to your rebuttal, is the www.vhemt.org approach. That recognizes the potentially unique situation of the earthen biosphere, while regarding humanity as utterly dispensable (only one species vs millions). Can the current, potentially unique 'green' biosphere survive "Why does it matter what we do to the planet?" [no one really knows the answer to that - we're all agreed life will hang on somehow though]
2) This is a matter of philosophy, and therefore not necessarily something to be agreed, but when a planet or a solar system gains the ability to reach out and communicate with other planets/solar systems - that is not, qualitatively, something that need be distinctively 'human' - but as yet, we've no proof one way or the other that it's been achieved elsewhere - therefore it would be 'wrong' to set the universe back a few millenias development, to wipe out the like of local-galactic-area radio communications which may well be unique (or even near-unique) in the universe - we don't have that right.
3) finally, I think you miss the point about evolution - we're programmed, since long before we were human - to promote our genetics, our life, our continuation. That's NOT about being human, it's about being ALIVE - whatever than means - and supporting the biosphere helps support us, not as humans, but just as living things doing what living things OUGHT (especially ones claiming to be 'rational')
You saying "that's circular" has even less validity than the circular argument itself, unless you can present some argument beyond "The Earth can easily absorb anything that humans can throw at it" - which is both a truism, and irrelevant to the point being made, which is goes much deeper than "the fact it happens to be the seat of the human race"
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Being alive is about energy storage. Life forms are batteries which store energy (indirectly) from the source of all life on this planet, the sun, for later use. And succesful life forms are able to replicate that ability. The reward for being alive is that stored energy is available when needed to perpetuate life. The meaning of life is to replicate and pass on the magic programming code (DNA) to enable perpetuation of energy storage. Evolution occurs to ensure that life fills every possible niche energy gathering habitat on the planet, diversification of the portfolio if you will. A comet may destroy dinosaurs and humanity, but life will survive in smaller, less energy intensive niches, thanks to diversification. It was inevitable that some species would be become as dominant as the naked ape because the need for energy storage (life) is programmed, ie. there's nothing that can stop the programmed need to store the sun's energy. You want to understand the meaning of life? Think energy storage.
VHEMT is indeed where I am coming from. There are shades of Green. How "Green" are you?"
My point is that the deciding question between True Greens and "Green but let's keep humans" is whether you think humans should be phased out or not, and often those who profess to be concerned about "the planet", i.e. not just humans, fall short.
Those people who pretend to be True Greens are mostly fakes. They have kids. They want a good future for their kids. They are also hypocrites, because they want to propagate their own DNA while demanding others make sacrifices. If you are a True Green, you do not have kids.
If you think humans should continue, you are qualitatively in agreement with the cornucopians. The only difference is a question of the scale of human presence, and a question of tactics, i.e. the preferred way for humans to utilise the Earth.
No one has a choice about what other people do. The only choice you can effectively make is whether to have kids or not.
I emailed the VHEMT guy a few years ago asking why he was taking such an extreme approach to the whole idea of humans vs the planet, and his response was that a less extreme view would not get as much notice/debate. His personal view was that less humans could live harmoniously with the planet, but would not happen with current thinking (paraphrased from memory). I thought is ideas were quite good... and was part of what lead me on the search that culminated in finding out about PO/energy.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
Cedar;
"Why does it matter what we do to the planet?"
A guy goes to a brothel in Hong Kong, and selecting a suitable partner, goes to the room and starts to get ready. When he drops his shorts, the woman giggles and says 'Who are you going to make happy with that thing?' .. and he just smiles and says 'Me.'
~~~
What 'matters' is not an issue of cosmic morality.. it matters to us. It may be true that our irresponsible actions during the age of giddy industrialism are not going to 'Kill the Earth'.. just a great number of its inhabitants.. but that doesn't absolve us. It's US we must answer to.. not the universe.
'Don't think you can kill time without injuring eternity.'
- Thoreau
Bob
:) Ah, you modest writer, you...
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
Jokuhl,
Thanks for that reply. Excellent answer to a silly question ;-)
C
I wonder why TIME refers to TOD as a "motley crew"?
'caus TOD rocks!!!!!!!!!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8522803871811057910&q=motley+cre...
Sorry I just had to.
Intent matters; and ignorance and evil are not the same thing.
Being stupid isn't a crime. They're still stupid of course, and you're allowed to hate them -almost- as much. :-)
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
It is interesting to witness the almost universally positive media (and individual) reaction to finding more oil - given than when produced its combustion will increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a bad thing - so why the joy in further oil finds, the production of which is guaranteed to increase CO2?
It just shows how far we are, despite recent media interest, from achieving any kind of useful response to climate change.
Chris, I'm of mixed mind about wanting more oil to be found. On the one hand I hate the stuff, and the wasteful way we have been using it. On the other I think a slow production decline would be a lot easier to manage than a rapid one. I also think ten more years of oil/gas might be sufficient to avoid a dangerous rush to exploit coal/oil shale etc. Once infrastructure for the later has been built, it will be that much harder to stop it. Given that magic ten-year window of opportunity, renewables will have a chance to become a real alternative. If we are in fact given this window (no done deal for sure) we had better put it to good use.
Thanks, Chris, for this observation.
I have long thought that a slow change in oil availability would be better than a fast one, because it will make adaptation easier.
However, after reading "6 Degrees" by Mark Lynas, I have come to think that we must get off the fossil fuels hook as quickly as possible if we even want to have a slim chance to save this planet from wiping humanity from its face, given the current trajectory of GHG emisssions.
This would mean to actively and consciously let the remaining oil, coal and gas fields be buried.
What is worse: Economic hardship or wholesale economic and ecologic destruction and mass starvation to arbitrarily low, possibly die-off levels?
The longer fossil fuels allow humanity to grow, the worse the collapse will get. Sorry, but this somehow means embracing severe crisis in order to prevent having to embrace extinction.
Cheers,
Davidyson
Yes,Cherenkov, we don't have the wisdom to use the resources we have, much less, some fantasy of infinite oil as in creamy nougat center. Those who worship the god of growth will not give up their illusions easily. Wouldn't it be prudent to move forward under the assumption that oil and all other resources are limited? No. We continue under the mainstream economists' illusions that there are no limits to oil or anything else as long as the price is high enough.
Sadly, much of the remaining biota will not fair well even with a radical reduction in human species. We have been given godlike powers and have blown it. If there is a God, he/she did not have a clue as to the nature of the monster that was being created.
Let us assume something close to the worst and attempt to construct a society based upon that assumption. It would be far worse to continue business as usual because the chances of recovery after the overshoot are slim to none.
But noooo!!! We cannot afford to stop the runaway train.