General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

If you don't want to, I made my case and proved that I'm indeed writing.



Meh, I'm not gonna fall for your bait, if you actually want to know, follow the rabbit and look it for yourself

And I suppose, "ok" is a title of some sort?
These are important matters.

What do you think of Africa's food production potential, Mr Rulz ok?
 
Parliament declares 'Climate Emergency' though what exactly that means is anyone's guess. Some are calling to go carbon neutral by 2030, though I doubt they've actually worked out what that will mean.
Climate Emergency declared
And further on that:

'Corbyn to tell MPs: Do your duty, and declare a UK climate emergency':


The big issue is that the harsh reality is that this is an politically agnostic problem, where as our political structures have a past that is excluding them from providing the united front we need on AGW. That division is nicely shown by the hard push for fracking under the Conservatives (and the many ex/current conservative affiliated people involved directly in seeking the profits from fracking), and i'm super glad one party leader has decided to speak out directly on the issues that are going to determine if our civilizations are going to be working as intended over the next century. ALL people are involved in AGW, there are no places to hide for the coming storm we are all creating. Our political systems (and the financial systems that run them) are slowly awaking to that fact, Hopefully it won't be before it is in reality 'too late'.
 
And you're way too predictable.

LOL
There you go LOL'ing again Bob. You'll have to do better ;)


It doesn't surprise me that you cannot discern the component parts of an argument, given your fallacious diversions in this thread.

600 million hectares of "uncultivated, arable" land in Africa alone is quite a lot!


You are almost as bad as Greg, lol!




"...science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility."

Carl Sagan
That's better, even though you still signed of with the lol. This time not in capital letters. I'll give you that.

But first of all highly optimistic estimates say between 400-600 million ha, so of course you cherry picked 600. I'm not surprised.

Secondly those hectares are not very good for agriculture. The soil contains low amounts of nutrients for one.

Most important though is that we currently have ~1.4 billion ha of arable land for 7.7 billion people. Adding 0.4 more cannot compensate population growth, climate change and running out of fertilizer.

So no Bob, Africa is not gonna feed the world, and they will have even more serious problems than now, if the population keeps rising.

Your arguments are silly on so many levels, but it proves my point. People have no clue that climate is only one of the Sisyphus challenges we face.

Edit: Bob, are you sure you really want to debate this. It might make you realize, and once you choose the red pill, you can't un-ring the bell. It's a lot easier not knowing, and it will make your life better while the current situation lasts. Some claim that happiness is the only goal worth pursuing in life.
 
Last edited:
'Human influence on drought started a century ago':


In truth this is a little innacurate, as 'traditional' slash and burn has been used by various peoples around the world going back atleast a few thousand years (most likely much longer in some places) and while, for example, it has become a vital 'natural' cycle in some places (like Australia) where the local flora needs those fires to prompt plant growth, in many other places it has had a bad effect on the quality of the land. On the mainland in PNG, in particular around the capital Port Morsby, it has pretty much created a 'dead' natural environment, or a very poor one for a tropical zone.

So while the data in the article is interesting and relevant, we perhaps need to look deeper and wider into all our pasts to discover just how long we have been affecting local environments.
 
'Human influence on drought started a century ago':


In truth this is a little innacurate, as 'traditional' slash and burn has been used by various peoples around the world going back atleast a few thousand years (most likely much longer in some places) and while, for example, it has become a vital 'natural' cycle in some places (like Australia) where the local flora needs those fires to prompt plant growth, in many other places it has had a bad effect on the quality of the land. On the mainland in PNG, in particular around the capital Port Morsby, it has pretty much created a 'dead' natural environment, or a very poor one for a tropical zone.

So while the data in the article is interesting and relevant, we perhaps need to look deeper and wider into all our pasts to discover just how long we have been affecting local environments.
I'm not a farmer and honestly, a year ago I didn't care too much about agriculture, except that it causes a lot of disturbance to the biosphere. Then it became clear to me, that I eat food produced at a farm everyday, and so does everybody else. We need the farmers to survive, and they should be as popular as the fire brigade, even though they experience a lot of bashing.

Fertilizing with phosphorus isn't a new thing either. We have used fertilizer in the form of manure, way before we started adding phosphorus we dig out of the ground. We could go back to that, but it will half the food production, and it demands that we keep having livestock. No animals, no manure, and a movie like Cowspiracy opened a lot of eyes to methane produced by cows as a large contributor to the greenhouse effect. If we have one final gigantic barbecue and eat all the cows, then we won't have any manure. Furthermore something like rice production is already now a major contributor to the amount of methane produced in agriculture.

Also the majority of the phosphorus we add to the soils, while not being washed out as many think, instead goes into the harvest. If you don't keep adding fertilizer, the phosphorus content of the soil will drop, and the phosphorus content of the soil and the crop yield are proportional.

Some suggest increasing the plants capability to absorb phosphorus, but that will only result in faster depletion of phosphorus in the soil.
 
The EU with the CAP has been promoting reduction in the use of artificial fertilizers, though this is primarily aimed at reducing the amount that gets into river systems.
Here most fertilizers seem to be manure but then the bulk of farming is pastoral here. Arable land is only on the flood plains where the rivers are tidal, everything above that is pastoral or forestry. The government here seems to want to take land out of pastoral use and expand the forestry.
Of course that means taking land out of food production, and it can't be used for arable crops. A few farmers have tried it when the subsidies appear to favour something or other but they always give up after a year or two and return to pastoral farming.
Of course forestry might be an attractive choice for those with a question mark regarding strontium 90 levels.
 
Last edited:
The big issue is that the harsh reality is that this is an politically agnostic problem, where as our political structures have a past that is excluding them from providing the united front we need on AGW. That division is nicely shown by the hard push for fracking under the Conservatives (and the many ex/current conservative affiliated people involved directly in seeking the profits from fracking), and i'm super glad one party leader has decided to speak out directly on the issues that are going to determine if our civilizations are going to be working as intended over the next century. ALL people are involved in AGW, there are no places to hide for the coming storm we are all creating. Our political systems (and the financial systems that run them) are slowly awaking to that fact, Hopefully it won't be before it is in reality 'too late'.
The political issue is that they don't consider the future. Why lift a finger or spend any money that will benefit the opposition who are probably going to be in by the time it comes to fruition. That happened with the millennium dome successive governments stole credit/blamed their predecessors as it cycled from a success to a huge empty carpark. That's how bad they are on projects that last a decade things that would take generations are just beyond their collective ability to comprehend.

Democracies greatest weakness is short term thinking. Add a strictly two party system like ours where coalitions and compromise are utterly alien concepts and its even more pronounced, they are only bothered by their own term in office.
 
To me politics is like a real life version of Game of Thrones. Sort of a sophisticated crowd of Sapolsky's baboons. I don't really blame them. Some of this is filled with choosing between more than two evils.
 
Top Bottom