Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crimson wrote:
It is completely pointless for us laymen to argue over the details of this research. We do not have necessary training to properly judge it. But if overwhelming majority of experts tell me that this thing is real, then I'm going to believe them. To do otherwise would be lunacy.

Ah, but clearly all those experts were wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK has weather records from the mid-17th century onwards, and naval hydrographical records starting from at least the early 19th century.

The argument now is what we are going to do to prepare for and reduce the impact of climate change.

I for one welcome our new insect overlords.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK has weather records from the mid-17th century onwards, and naval hydrographical records starting from at least the early 19th century.

The argument now is what we are going to do to prepare for and reduce the impact of climate change.

<--- Doesn't have kids.

Every Saturday, I go to CostCo and buy a case of aerosol hair spray cans, then I walk into my back yard and empty them.

You're all fethed, and so are your kids.

For those who believe humans are the primary cause of global warming, the only material impact 1st world society can make is to ensure the third world (which represents mainland Asia and Africa and parts of S. and C. America) remains largely unindustrialized, rural, and by implication impoverished.

It doesn't require a deep understanding of the specifics of climate to realize that if the human-affected climate change hypothesis is correct, then even radical changes by the ~25% of the global population that is generating and consuming power won't offset only marginal changes by the 75% to increase consumption.

Even if the industrialized world collectively united and cut its energy consumption by half, population growth and demographic shifts would wipe out that net effect in the span of 2 generations.

Technological changes are likely to hasten this trend, not diminish it, as consumer goods that consume marginal amounts of power (like phones, internet servers) will have much lower hurdles for adoption and implementation than do infrastructure and plant renovations. And that assumes no backsteps on fripperies like 'electric cars' or 'solar panels' that devour development money but yield negligible production output/consumption declines.

Then you go look at things like the non-GMO/'natural' food trends and increases in niche produce consumption (all of which drop yield/acre on finite land mass and therefore up energy consumption on a per calorie basis) trends and you realize that the developed world is actually accelerating towards greater unsustainability.

So what does the discerning individual do? Up your individual consumption as much as you possibly can, because it's likely never going to be cheaper on either a nominal or inflation-adjusted basis than it is right now, and any unilateral austerity measures you personally adopt will be swallowed by the 3rd world attempting to get to $10k USD/year per capita income.

 sourclams wrote:
For those who believe humans are the primary cause of global warming, the only material impact 1st world society can make is to ensure the third world (which represents mainland Asia and Africa and parts of S. and C. America) remains largely unindustrialized, rural, and by implication impoverished.
...

Or reduce emissions, of course.

 sourclams wrote:
For those who believe humans are the primary cause of global warming, the only material impact 1st world society can make is to ensure the third world (which represents mainland Asia and Africa and parts of S. and C. America) remains largely unindustrialized, rural, and by implication impoverished.

The single biggest contributor to climate change is the beef industrial complex. If we eliminated that we would reduce our impact considerably.

Crickets for everyone!

 d-usa wrote:
Crickets for everyone!

Yes

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Or reduce emissions, of course.

Misses the point, China/India open up a new coal plant every couple weeks, and need to to support growing 'grassroots' consumer consumption. Even if you gave them 'emission reduction' technology for free, lower production capabilities and nationalistic tendencies will still keep 'new' manufacturing in domestic channels, which means you have to give them actual hardware for free, in a fragmented logistic chain, meaning it's virtually impossible to actually implement.

The single biggest contributor to climate change is the beef industrial complex. If we eliminated that we would reduce our impact considerably.

This one is laughable, but not for the reason you might think. It illustrates my point perfectly. The US and Australia have aggressively liquidated (made total herd smaller) cattle inventories, and have been doing so since about 2004 (at varying rates but herd size has trended lower for more than a decade now).

Yet global cattle herd is roughly the same, due to growth in the S. American herd, primarily Brazil. Further, these Brazilian cattle are much 'dirtier' given that they will be pastured on cleared rainforest grassland, whereas the US herd would primarily be feedlotted in enclosures with excess grain production from largely existing farmland input into them. You can condemn the 'industrialization' of this supply chain, but it's vastly more efficient than 50 years ago, and it's light years ahead of the S. American herd.

So, perfectly illustrated, marginal 'improvement' in the Developed World are completely offset by the Developing World.

And this further ignores that the beef produced by those cattle is going to be more sustainable 'per calorie' than much of the produce section of the grocery store, and certainly moreso than the floral section which has 0 caloric value but consumes enormous amount of water and supply chain 'space'. Meat is 70% water, which means it's 30% food. Spinach, by contrast, is more than 95% water, therefore less than 5% food, so much of the supply chain for 'fresh vegetables' is dedicated to leafy greens that are just a means of transporting refrigerated water at several dollars a pound.

All that dirty South American beef ends up at your drive thru window.

We are the primary consumers of the beef industrial complex. It is the single biggest contributor to climate change. Facts.

 feeder wrote:
All that dirty South American beef ends up at your drive thru window.

It absolutely does not. You can double check your assertions against the USDA Foreign Ag Service, which I'll conveniently link to you here http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdReport.aspx?hidReportRetrievalName=Beef+and+Veal+Selected+Countries+Summary&hidReportRetrievalID=2573&hidReportRetrievalTemplateID=7. Among other things, they'll show 'balance sheet' consumption for a variety of goods. The vast majority of China, India, Brazilian produced beef is consumed in.... China, India, and Brazil.

The US imports a lot of beef, but it also exports a lot of beef, and net will be close to flat or small negative trade balance.

These are actual facts, and I know them due to having been employed to track and run analysis on this for several years, but if you want to adhere to your ideology out of convenience, feel free.

We are the primary consumers of the beef industrial complex. It is the single biggest contributor to climate change. Facts

I really doubt you even know what you're protesting against when you say 'industrial complex' since the US cow herd is held by ranchers and farmers at an average of about 40 head per operation, but if beef consumption makes you angry, your corner florist must make you absolutely livid.

Hmm. Interesting, i didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

Doesn't change the fact that beef industry needs to cease.

 feeder wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that beef industry needs to cease.

Now we're actually getting somewhere. See, in defense of an ideal, you're willing to go complete Totalitarian, dictator-state and decide what is best for the many in spite of market signals and consumer demand to the contrary.

This is exactly what I proposed initially, which was the deliberate maintenance of impoverishment of some section of society. You've focused on the US Cattleman, which I point out is self-defeating because the international Cattleman will completely absorb, and circumvent your proposed 'tariff'.

You're on the right track but you're not thinking big enough. You can't just suppress a Developed World sector, you have to nip the demographics trend in the bud and keep the most rapidly growing/consuming marginal player from advancing. Because even drastic first world austerity will get overshadowed by marginal excess in the 3rd world majority.

What we have to do is keep the global, rural poor both rural and poor. And, preferably, international, because we can all see what happens to homogeneous N european countries when they import even a small number (relatively) of these asylum-seekers (whether political or economic).

 sourclams wrote:

What we have to do is keep the global, rural poor both rural and poor. And, preferably, international, because we can all see what happens to homogeneous N european countries when they import even a small number (relatively) of these asylum-seekers (whether political or economic).

What does happen to homogeneous Northern European Countries when they import even a small number of asylum-seekers?

Are you going to make a habit of speaking for me? Because if so I'm out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that beef industry needs to cease.

Now we're actually getting somewhere. See, in defense of an ideal, you're willing to go complete Totalitarian, dictator-state and decide what is best for the many in spite of market signals and consumer demand to the contrary.

This is exactly what I proposed initially, which was the deliberate maintenance of impoverishment of some section of society. You've focused on the US Cattleman, which I point out is self-defeating because the international Cattleman will completely absorb, and circumvent your proposed 'tariff'.

You're on the right track but you're not thinking big enough. You can't just suppress a Developed World sector, you have to nip the demographics trend in the bud and keep the most rapidly growing/consuming marginal player from advancing. Because even drastic first world austerity will get overshadowed by marginal excess in the 3rd world majority.

What we have to do is keep the global, rural poor both rural and poor. And, preferably, international, because we can all see what happens to homogeneous N european countries when they import even a small number (relatively) of these asylum-seekers (whether political or economic).

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The truth is out there!

Follow the money.

Oil money?

No the money from government grants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

There is plenty of data. Ice core samples, naval records, tree growth records, coral records all give us very good data about the climate.

The consensus is clear. Climate change is happening, and it is man made. The dispute now is down to how bad is it and what the acceptable level of warming is.

OK buddy, lets start with some science, those records rely on the fact that the things they are measuring CO2. As a Chemical Engineering student I can assure you that as a liquid cools down, its ability to retain dissolved gases in it decreases. This means that as the sea cools the CO2 in the water decreases and as it warms up the concentration of CO2 increases.

This means as the earth's mean temperature fluctuates (climate is too vague and ill defined a term for this discussion) the CO2 dissolves into and out of the ocean, sort of like the earth is breathing.

This means there are two probable reasons for climate change, 1 CO2 is released and dissolved into the oceans to compensate for the climate, or 2 an external factor is effecting the climate and CO2 levels simply correlate.

I am conflicted as you are trying to explain an extraordinarily complex system with only one factor. We still don't know what caused the Ice Ages concretely (most agree it has to do with Milankovitch Cycles) and you are assuming you of all people have the enlightened mental capacity to take what is probably the most complex system in the galaxy, completely unique and most likely solitary and take one of its many variables and boil it down to one cause.

I find this idiotic and arrogant.

Please have a good day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

What we have to do is keep the global, rural poor both rural and poor. And, preferably, international, because we can all see what happens to homogeneous N european countries when they import even a small number (relatively) of these asylum-seekers (whether political or economic).

What does happen to homogeneous Northern European Countries when they import even a small number of asylum-seekers?

Cologne December 31st 2015 happens.

 feeder wrote:
Are you going to make a habit of speaking for me? Because if so I'm out.

I'm taking your naive ideology to the necessary next steps implied by your desired end state. 'Ban the US industrial cattle complex' will maybe, maybe buy 15 years of 'global warming slowing' or whatever you want to call it. Because, (and this estimate will have legitimacy because I'm a subject matter expert on the US cattle industry and antecedent supply chain) 'banning' the US from producing Beef will simply spike US Beef prices by 400% and incent a quintupling of Australian and Canadian beef production to backfill the US supply chain and satisfy end consumer demand. The enormous surge in profitability in international cattle and beef markets will actually promote faster herd growth in the countries where herd growth is most common today. The net effect on warming will be zilch, except that the US trade deficit will go more negative and our supplying countries and their secondary supply chain competitors (like Brazil who would then backfill Australian importers that were shut down when trade flows altered for Aus/NZ to go to US) would see net wealth increase.

Which would then promote their GDP, and per capita energy consumption, and infrastructure to support it, which would accelerate global warming.

And since stopping global warming is the penultimate goal, promoting growth of these emerging markets has to be stopped. Because that's the only way to slow the 'grassroots' consumption growth that will most contribute to global warming over the next 100 years (which apparently is the window of time we have in which to Stop Global Warming Or Else).

The measure you're suggesting is simply a stopgap that would reduce quality of life for Americans indefinitely while boosting economic growth for the demographic that will accelerate global warming.

 sourclams wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Are you going to make a habit of speaking for me? Because if so I'm out.

I'm taking your naive ideology to the necessary next steps implied by your desired end state. 'Ban the US industrial cattle complex' will maybe, maybe buy 15 years of 'global warming slowing' or whatever you want to call it. Because, (and this estimate will have legitimacy because I'm a subject matter expert on the US cattle industry and antecedent supply chain) 'banning' the US from producing Beef will simply spike US Beef prices by 400% and incent a quintupling of Australian and Canadian beef production to backfill the US supply chain and satisfy end consumer demand. The enormous surge in profitability in international cattle and beef markets will actually promote faster herd growth in the countries where herd growth is most common today. The net effect on warming will be zilch, except that the US trade deficit will go more negative and our supplying countries and their secondary supply chain competitors (like Brazil who would then backfill Australian importers that were shut down when trade flows altered for Aus/NZ to go to US) would see net wealth increase.

Which would then promote their GDP, and per capita energy consumption, and infrastructure to support it, which would accelerate global warming.

And since stopping global warming is the penultimate goal, promoting growth of these emerging markets has to be stopped. Because that's the only way to slow the 'grassroots' consumption growth that will most contribute to global warming over the next 100 years (which apparently is the window of time we have in which to Stop Global Warming Or Else).

The measure you're suggesting is simply a stopgap that would reduce quality of life for Americans indefinitely while boosting economic growth for the demographic that will accelerate global warming.

Nope, you're being rude and condescending. Bye!

 sourclams wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Are you going to make a habit of speaking for me? Because if so I'm out.

I'm taking your naive ideology to the necessary next steps implied by your desired end state. 'Ban the US industrial cattle complex' will maybe, maybe buy 15 years of 'global warming slowing' or whatever you want to call it. Because, (and this estimate will have legitimacy because I'm a subject matter expert on the US cattle industry and antecedent supply chain) 'banning' the US from producing Beef will simply spike US Beef prices by 400% and incent a quintupling of Australian and Canadian beef production to backfill the US supply chain and satisfy end consumer demand. The enormous surge in profitability in international cattle and beef markets will actually promote faster herd growth in the countries where herd growth is most common today. The net effect on warming will be zilch, except that the US trade deficit will go more negative and our supplying countries and their secondary supply chain competitors (like Brazil who would then backfill Australian importers that were shut down when trade flows altered for Aus/NZ to go to US) would see net wealth increase.

Which would then promote their GDP, and per capita energy consumption, and infrastructure to support it, which would accelerate global warming.

And since stopping global warming is the penultimate goal, promoting growth of these emerging markets has to be stopped. Because that's the only way to slow the 'grassroots' consumption growth that will most contribute to global warming over the next 100 years (which apparently is the window of time we have in which to Stop Global Warming Or Else).

The measure you're suggesting is simply a stopgap that would reduce quality of life for Americans indefinitely while boosting economic growth for the demographic that will accelerate global warming.

His argument is emotional, how dare you challenge it with logic and reason!

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

What we have to do is keep the global, rural poor both rural and poor. And, preferably, international, because we can all see what happens to homogeneous N european countries when they import even a small number (relatively) of these asylum-seekers (whether political or economic).

What does happen to homogeneous Northern European Countries when they import even a small number of asylum-seekers?

Cologne December 31st 2015 happens.

99.9% of the population of Cologne having an uneventful day?

His post had content, as unnecessarily condescending as it was. The last 2 posts haven't. Include something with content and relevance or just don't post.

(This isn't referring to d-usa)

You simply can't stop, or even slow, global warming while still allowing the 3rd world to grow its population at current rates. No matter how many cattle you kill, if roughly 4.5 billion people grow by 1% per year, you could annihilate the entire US from the face of the Earth and net energy needs/output will still be higher 100 years from now than they are today.

Compromise has to be made along the way, and not just eating more salad or recycling old car batteries. And nobody actually has the stomach for that, so all global warming is today is a racket for policy makers and the 'green' energy companies that they funnel money towards.

Human impact on Global Warming remains completely unquantifiable (remember, as recent as 1970s it was global cooling that was going to kill all humanity) and as such, unmanageable. And that's ignoring the enormous issue of 3/4 of the world that is trying to find enough corn mush to feed itself, never mind combatting 'warming'.

Attacking the smaller, reducible issues like deforestation, or energy insecurity, especially now when commodity prices are at multiyear lows, will have a lot more success and lay the foundation for future efforts without the fly-by regulatory nonsense time is currently being wasted on.

 d-usa wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

What we have to do is keep the global, rural poor both rural and poor. And, preferably, international, because we can all see what happens to homogeneous N european countries when they import even a small number (relatively) of these asylum-seekers (whether political or economic).

What does happen to homogeneous Northern European Countries when they import even a small number of asylum-seekers?

Cologne December 31st 2015 happens.

99.9% of the population of Cologne having an uneventful day?

Do you ever read the news? Not the media, or the stuff you find with google searches to support your ideology, but the news.

Cologne has nothing to do with global warming, at least the event on new years eve doesn't, let's stay on topic in this thread.

 feeder wrote:

 sourclams wrote:
For those who believe humans are the primary cause of global warming, the only material impact 1st world society can make is to ensure the third world (which represents mainland Asia and Africa and parts of S. and C. America) remains largely unindustrialized, rural, and by implication impoverished.

The single biggest contributor to climate change is the beef industrial complex. If we eliminated that we would reduce our impact considerably.

Yeah, no. Just no.

Methane isn't even on the radar for causing pollution. Cattle operations do cause a lot of pollution, but that's water runoff and not gaseous. That's one of those total bullgak crackpot theories(pun intended).

 Grey Templar wrote:

Methane isn't even on the radar for causing pollution. Cattle operations do cause a lot of pollution, but that's water runoff and not gaseous. That's one of those total bullgak crackpot theories(pun intended).

What about pollution from transporting feed/cattle/meat, processing feed/cattle/meat, refrigeration of meat, raising/housing cattle?

I won't claim that it adds enough to be the biggest source of carbon emission, but I'm just curious how that might compare to other sources of meat.

If anything I would put beef as being a bad offender towards water usage and being an inefficient source of protein in general, but I never really thought much about it in the way of carbon emissions.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Methane isn't even on the radar for causing pollution. Cattle operations do cause a lot of pollution, but that's water runoff and not gaseous. That's one of those total bullgak crackpot theories(pun intended).

What about pollution from transporting feed/cattle/meat, processing feed/cattle/meat, refrigeration of meat, raising/housing cattle?

I won't claim that it adds enough to be the biggest source of carbon emission, but I'm just curious how that might compare to other sources of meat.

If anything I would put beef as being a bad offender towards water usage and being an inefficient source of protein in general, but I never really thought much about it in the way of carbon emissions.

Beef is definitely the least efficient source of protein. Chicken and fish are the best.

But the whole "cows are causing global warming" argument is all based on the actual methane the cows digestive system creates, which is actually a negligible amount. Its usually pushed by the same pathetic people who pass out those fliers telling people to stop eating meat because pigs and chickens are cute, and somehow meat consumption is the root of all evil, etc...

As far as transportation and all that goes its not all that different from any other food which needs transporting. Weight is the primary concern in terms of transportation and a ton of beef weighs the same as a ton of chicken. So the primary factor in sustainability is the feed input, and cows are definitely the worst converter. At least if we are talking grain fed beef. Grass fed is whole different matter, you can't raise chickens on grass alone. So areas of grassland that are worthless for growing crops only have use in beef production.

Thanks for the info.

 Ouze wrote:
I think that "is man causing change" is sort of a foregone answer. I think the better question is whether or not we can do anything about it, because if the answer is "no" - and I think it is - then the former is sort of a moot question.

The US might be able to change our contributions to climate change, at great economic cost, but there is no valid reason to think that we could significantly influence China or India or Russia to do so.

One of best pieces of work on this is the Stern review, headed by a UK economist. He found the cost of adapting to reduce climate change to be vastly lower than the cost of adapting to a changing climate. It's much cheaper to change to LED lights than it is to re-locate entire farm sectors to account for changing rainfall patterns, to give a very general example.

And while I agree that having the US and other developed countries put controls on and thinking that will do the job by itself is foolish, there is an important requirement for wealthier countries to lead the way. Solar panels, for instance, have achieved a scale of production such that they're now rapidly closing with older tech on a $/kw basis, in the context of household energy. The rebate for electric cars has similar made the proposed Tesla 3 viable, which could produce a base point for a rapid expansion in electric cars. Examples like this show how incentives in the US and other countries can create a base starting point for new technologies, which can then be expected to become viable in growing markets. So as new infrastructure is built in China and other developing countries they are more likely to use newer, greener tech. It's a roundabout way of getting to the end goal, but it seems a lot more workable than treaties and pledges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
For those who believe humans are the primary cause of global warming, the only material impact 1st world society can make is to ensure the third world (which represents mainland Asia and Africa and parts of S. and C. America) remains largely unindustrialized, rural, and by implication impoverished.

Uh, no. You've confused resource consumption with greenhouse emissions. They are related but distinct. The latter is actually being solved through a mix of new energy technologies, albeit much slower than would be ideal. The former is a bigger, but much less pressing issue, and one likely to be resolved through basic market economics resulting in a more balanced share of resource consumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
And this further ignores that the beef produced by those cattle is going to be more sustainable 'per calorie' than much of the produce section of the grocery store, and certainly moreso than the floral section which has 0 caloric value but consumes enormous amount of water and supply chain 'space'. Meat is 70% water, which means it's 30% food. Spinach, by contrast, is more than 95% water, therefore less than 5% food, so much of the supply chain for 'fresh vegetables' is dedicated to leafy greens that are just a means of transporting refrigerated water at several dollars a pound.

And now you're comparing beef to flowers and spinach as alternative food sources. You skipped by grains, pretty much for the reason of trying to be as cynical as possible. Don't do this, my eyes can only roll so far back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
You're on the right track but you're not thinking big enough. You can't just suppress a Developed World sector, you have to nip the demographics trend in the bud and keep the most rapidly growing/consuming marginal player from advancing. Because even drastic first world austerity will get overshadowed by marginal excess in the 3rd world majority.

Oh, and now I see what this is about. Playing the hard man fantasy, applied to environmental policy. Okay, whatever.

 sebster wrote:
So if you’ve ever read about the efforts to attack evolution, or the cigarette companies attempt to discredit research linking cancer and smoking, you see a very similar pattern to what see with climate change denial.

There was a documentary that I watched in my political science class last semester that brought up an interesting "phenomenon." The majority of of the chief lobbyists who defended Big Tobacco are the same exact people who are now working to defend/discredit other major and minor issues in politics in much the same way. One guy went from tobacco to furniture, pulling a massive con-job on California's "flame retardant" materials requirement for furniture. A few have gone over to climate-change-denial as well. The addage presented in "Thank You for Smoking" was 'if you can do tobacco, you can do anything,' and that definitely seems to be true.



Back when I was in a geology class, the professor showed us aerial photos documenting that the Rainier Glacier was actually growing over a period of 5 years around 2009. (granted it was literally only a foot a year) I would be curious to see what has been released as far as since then. This may have been the warmest January Washington has recorded (so says The Media™) but I can visually see that Mt. Rainier has a gakload of snow on it, compared to how it looked last winter, or even what was left in April of 2014 when I arrived.