The 'Green New Deal' is Stupid, Grade-A Counterproductive Bullshit

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
PhilRisk
Newbie
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:08 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: The 'Green New Deal' is Stupid, Grade-A Counterproductive Bullshit

Post by PhilRisk » Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:18 am

PhilRisk wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:35 am

But still the effect on temperature in the high emission scenario is fairly low (roughly 0.2K at 2100) in case of giving up roughly 17% of cropland. To be effective it needs land-use change.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 16GL068824
Fig. 1&2 are of special interest as they show the land-use and the effects respectively.
I realized, that I have to make a clarification. I wrote "cropland". However. in the study it is area of agriculture, which is wider (cropland+pasture). Actually, that makes it more fortunate and shows there might be other uses for current pasture. This is especially important, considering changes in food consumption, which most participants in this forum hope for.

The data for land-use change in the above study is taken from Hurtt el al.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 0153-2.pdf
If your interested, the land-use change for different scenarios is shown on page 137f.
It can be seen, that in RCP 4.5 on which they builded their assessment of the influence of afforestation, cropland and pasture is reduced respectively. In RCP 2.6, which is the low temperature scenario, there is a heavy reliance on BECCS in most cases and an extension of cropland.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9466
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:49 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:01 pm
PhilRisk wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:35 am
Searching, I found some study on the exceptional idea of ocean afforestation, potentially in combination with BECCS. However, there is only limited assessment of this idea, but I was intrigued by the term "ocean afforestation":
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2012001206
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 016-1022-1
Woah, not something I've heard of before. I'll have to look into it.
Looked into it a little. From what I've seen the theoretical basis appears solid, but we would need the technology to develop more to roll it out at scale. Harvesting algae from the ocean is not a mature technology, and there could be practical issues... like the energy required to do so vs. payoff. We might not be able to do better than extant living filter feeders (like blue whales), and they have very slow metabolisms because it's not a very profitable niche. There's an inherent cost to just sifting through that much water.

Interesting though!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests