The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[lpetrich]

Greta Thunberg on Twitter: ""Please save your praise, we don’t want it. Don’t invite us here to tell us how inspiring we are without doing anything about it. It doesn’t lead to anything."
Today I and other young activists visited US Congress... Tomorrow we return to give speeches. https://t.co/ehLGEkHg3J" / Twitter

Greta Thunberg to Congress: ‘You’re not trying hard enough. Sorry’ | Environment | The Guardian - "The Swedish environmentalist was one of several who spoke at a Senate climate crisis task force"

“We need your leadership,” he told Thunberg. “Young people are the army politically, which has arrived in the United States. You put a spotlight on this issue in a way that it has never been before. And that is creating a new X factor.”

Still, Markey vowed to try: “We hear you. We hear what you’re saying and we will redouble our efforts.”

 

[Jokodo]

The fact of it is that you misrepresented both my position and what the article is saying in terms of a slowdown in production gain since the 80's. The slowdown in gains was the point. Which is not to say or suggest that there is insufficient food production to feed the world right now, it was always about conditions from mid century on...which I stated numerous times. That is what you refuse to accept in an attempt to score a cheap brownie point.

I cannot logically have misrepresented your position since I did not attribute a position to you. And i did not misrepresent the article's position - the article actually claims that food production is falling behind population growth, hilarious as that claim is.

Of course you misrepresented my position. My position was always about conditions from mid century on. Which I stated numerous times.

You have stated that numerous times. I never claimed otherwise - making your accusation that I'm misrepresenting your position so hilarious. Yet you also keep quoting fear-mongering and articles that claim or at least suggest that per capita food production is dropping now, that we are already struggling/failing to produce enough for 7 and a half billion people. Which is factually inaccurate, something you consistently miss. Presumably because it fits with your narrative, making you less skeptical than you should and, and presumably are in other areas.

Yes, hundreds of millions of people are hungry in this world today. Yes, that's hundreds of millions of people too many. But the problem is a) more so than ever before one of inefficient distribution, not one of insufficient production, and b) getting better almost by the year.

The reason I posted the quote on the slowdown of production gain was merely to illustrate that production gains cannot be sustained indefinitely

It doesn't show that at all. A slowdown of the growth of production in absolute terms (raw tonnage) could mean that the growth potential is nearing exhaustion, that further gains come at increasing, prohibitive costs. Or it could mean that demand isn't growing as fast as it used to since population growth is in free fall. Or, in the case where you pick individual food commodities rather than food production as a whole, it could simply mean that dietary preferences are shifting. Or any of dozens of other things. It is compatible with, but not indicative of, your preferred conclusion. Unless you show arguments why those other potential causes are unlikely (and you haven't even tried), concluding that it shows gains cannot be sustained indefinitely is a leap of faith.

This is an atheist board.

and given climate change and rising demand, problems are likely to emerge in the decades to come.

Problems have always arisen in the decades to come. Sometimes we managed to mitigate them, sometimes we're still struggling with the consequences. Never since when the cyanobacteria started to poison the atmosphere with a highly reactive gas that now makes up around a fifth by mass has the situation been critical for life on earth.

That's all; peak production in relation to changing conditions, climate challenges, consumption, etc.

If anything else was implied, it was not intended.



Peak production:

''The world has entered an era of “peak food” production with an array of staples from corn and rice to wheat and chicken slowing in growth – with potentially disastrous consequences for feeding the planet.

New research finds that the supply of 21 staples, such as eggs, meat, vegetables and soybeans is already beginning to run out of momentum, while the global population continues to soar.

Peak chicken was in 2006, while milk and wheat both peaked in 2004 and rice peaked way back in 1988, according to new research from Yale University, Michigan State University and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany.

What makes the report particularly alarming is that so many crucial sources of food have peaked in a relatively short period of history, the researchers said.

“People often talk of substitution. If we run out of one substance we just substitute another. But if multiple resources are running out, we’ve got a problem. Mankind needs to accept that renewable raw materials are reaching their yield limits worldwide,” said Jianguo “Jack” Liu, of Michigan State University.

Peak production refers to the point at which the growth in a crop, animal or other food source begins to slow down, rather than the point at which production actually declines. However, it is regarded as a key signal that the momentum is being lost and it is typically only a matter of time before production plateaus and, in some cases, begins to fall – although it is unclear how long the process could take.

“Just nine or 10 plants species feed the world. But we found there’s a peak for all these resources. Even renewable resources won’t last forever,” said Ralf Seppelt, of the Helmholtz Centre.

The research, published in the journal Ecology and Society, finds that 16 of the 21 foods examined reached peak production between 1988 and 2008.

This synchronisation of peak years is all the more worrying because it suggests the whole food system is becoming overwhelmed, making it extremely difficult to resurrect the fortunes of any one foodstuff, let alone all of them, the report suggested.''

You wouldn't happen to know of a second, independent source that uses "peak food" in this - shall we say "idiosyncratic" or call it by its name, "misleading" - way? As far as I'm aware, and Google appears to confirm this, when people talk about "peak oil" or "peak copper" or "peak coal" or any other "peak <commodity>", it always refers to the point in time when the raw rate of production reaches its maximum and henceforth declines, never to the time when its first derivative, the growth rate, reaches a peak. Used in the way the article does, we've reached peak population back around 1970 and peak poverty (defined as the growth rate of the absolute number of people living in poverty) in the early years of Mao's cultural revolution, or maybe much earlier.

The use in this article is not only misleading but also rather uninformative - at a time when population growth is also consistently falling, it tells us literally nothing about whether the growth in wheat or chicken or soybeans is keeping pace with population. It could very well be that per capita production in any or all of these commodities is still rising, or even rising faster than ever before, as its growth, while smaller in absolute terms, no longer has to keep up with as high a population growth rate as we used to have. It could very well be that the prime reason for slowed growth in production is slowed growth in demand

More generally, picking out individual commodities is very uninformative. "Peak horse" didn't mean that transportation has become unavailable to the masses, and "peak baggy pants" doesn't mean more and more people are going naked. Fashion trends come and go, including in dietary choices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, now Why didn't I think of that! AOC truly is THE American savior and much more than just a genius! Reduce American carbon emissions to zero [which are at approx 16-19% of the world's carbon emissions ATM] thereby destroying the economy completely by throwing millions of people on to food stamps and poverty that would make the poverty in India and Africa seem like middle class in comparison. The Americans are so lucky to have such a one as AOC...........not!

Successfully substituting renewable sources won't cause a collapse of civilization.

AOC herself has stated that the US ought not to imitate the worst of other nations, but instead be a leader of renewable-energy transition.

Successfully flapping your arms will avoid death by falling.

Just because a fanatic proposed something doesn't mean it works.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only real reason for international trade of food should be to trade for the kind of crops that each country can't grow, e.g. Russia can't grow bananas and the Bahamas can't grow wheat so they could swap but each can grow more than enough within their own country to feed their population with balanced diets.

Places like Singapore can never hope to feed themselves.

 

[DBT]

Which source/study is it that tells us that a projected 9 billion plus people living on the planet can consume its resources at the rate of consumers in developed nations, USA, Australia, Britain, etc, long term, no end I nn sight, well into the future?

Please cite a source and quote the relevant material.

WTF?

Name what country (other than Vatican City) you think is incapable of growing more than enough food within its territorial borders to feed much more than its current population if they use modern farming techniques.

The U.S. has one of the highest living standards and is able to and does produce enough food to feed most of the world. Are you so dismissive of those in other countries that you really don't think they could at least feed themselves using modern farming methods and also raise their living standards?

The only real reason for international trade of food should be to trade for the kind of crops that each country can't grow, e.g. Russia can't grow bananas and the Bahamas can't grow wheat so they could swap but each can grow more than enough within their own country to feed their population with balanced diets.

Nicer dodge.

I'm not referring to which country can or cannot grow enough food to current feed its population. Nor is it just about food. Read the question again. This time in relation to the issue at hand, conditions past mid century, growing demand as living standards are raised, and of course climate change. BTW, there are countries now that depend on imports to meet their needs.

So where is the study that tells us that supporting the wants and needs of 9 billion consumers at developed nation rate can be done?

Evidence please.

 

[bilby]

The only real reason for international trade of food should be to trade for the kind of crops that each country can't grow, e.g. Russia can't grow bananas and the Bahamas can't grow wheat so they could swap but each can grow more than enough within their own country to feed their population with balanced diets.

Places like Singapore can never hope to feed themselves.

Nor can Manhattan.

Or any urban area.

So what?

 

[lpetrich]

Indoor farming might work, but that has its own problems. Also, the wind turbines and solar panels necessary to power a city will likely need much more area than the city itself. But a plus is that that area can also be used for other things.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "
For everyone who feels confused about how to act in 2019, #GenGND is a great example for the world. https://t.co/W6uqaBRddf" / Twitter
Young boy shields Greta Thunberg from photographers on Capitol Hill – video | Environment | The Guardian

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "And just like that 10,000 farmers + ranchers have come out urging Congress to support a #GreenNewDeal.
From regenerative agriculture + carbon farming to keeping our land hospitable to life, farmers & ranchers know they are key to leading a Green New Deal & #JustTransition. https://t.co/TWj2VBcuVb" / Twitter
Alexander Kaufman on Twitter: "The Green New Deal isn't coming for your hamburgers, but ranchers are coming out for the Green New Deal.
A coalition representing 10,000 farmers and ranchers signed an open letter to Congress endorsing the @AOC-sponsored industrial proposal. https://t.co/QBfrU4VSUn" / Twitter
10,000 Farmers And Ranchers Endorse Green New Deal In Letter To Congress | HuffPost

“We believe these climate goals are achievable,” the letter argues, “but only if the GND includes policies that spur two large-scale transitions: the transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy alternatives, and the transition away from industrial agriculture toward family farm-based organic and regenerative farming and land-use practices that improve soil health and draw down and sequester carbon.”

The letter was signed by more than 500 individual farms and 50 organizations representing close to 10,000 members. Regeneration International, a sustainable farming nonprofit, organized the missive with the climate justice group Sunrise Movement. It also hosted a Wednesday morning press conference in Washington.

Regenerative agriculture?

Regenerative Agriculture – The Definition of Regenerative Agriculture

1. Regenerative Agriculture is a system of farming principles and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds, and enhances ecosystem services.
2. Regenerative Agriculture aims to capture carbon in soil and aboveground biomass, reversing current global trends of atmospheric accumulation.
3. At the same time, it offers increased yields, resilience to climate instability, and higher health and vitality for farming and ranching communities.
4. The system draws from decades of scientific and applied research by the global communities of organic farming, agroecology, Holistic Management, and agroforestry.

(numbering added by me)

Why Regenerative Agriculture? - Regeneration International

Why Regenerative Agriculture?

"If you’ve never heard about the amazing potential of regenerative agriculture and land use practices to naturally sequester a critical mass of CO2 in the soil and forests, you’re not alone. One of the best-kept secrets in the world today is that the solution to global warming and the climate crisis (as well as poverty and deteriorating public health) lies right under our feet, and at the end of our knives and forks."

-Ronnie Cummins, Regeneration International Steering Committee Member

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

[DBT]

Of course you misrepresented my position. My position was always about conditions from mid century on. Which I stated numerous times.

You have stated that numerous times. I never claimed otherwise - making your accusation that I'm misrepresenting your position so hilarious. Yet you also keep quoting fear-mongering and articles that claim or at least suggest that per capita food production is dropping now, that we are already struggling/failing to produce enough for 7 and a half billion people. Which is factually inaccurate, something you consistently miss. Presumably because it fits with your narrative, making you less skeptical than you should and, and presumably are in other areas.

The only thing hilarious is your manner of dancing around issues that you essentially agree with.

What you said was: ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100. If we do, we'll be equipped to deal with what's coming after that one way or another.'' - Jokodo. #25 in the Poll.


Now, this is essentially what I am saying. If we don't take adequate measure, we are in trouble. Depending on the efficacy of the measures we take, the crisis may range from being relatively mild and manageable, we are fucked or some degree in between.

My view is that not enough is being done to prevent a major crisis, the attitude of business as usual and climate change denial preventing the necessary steps from being taken.

Now you can flap your arms and quibble over this detail or that detail like the true Lawyer you imagine yourself to be, but you actually agree with what I am saying.

Meanwhile, something more to chew on and gnash your teeth and wail over. And again, the issue is not just about food production, but natural resources and sustainability in the broad sense:

Agriculture And Food Systems Unsustainable
''A landmark scientific assessment commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has confirmed that agriculture is having a monumental impact on earth’s finite resources.

According to the study, 38% of the world’s total land area was used for agriculture in 2007 and agriculture is responsible for over 70% of global freshwater consumption.

“The fact that the impacts of agricultural products came out so strongly in our report was quite surprising,” says Professor Edgar G. Hertwich.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology professor is lead author of Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials, released in June 2010.

The report was produced by the International Panel on Sustainable Resource Management, a body set up to provide independent and scientifically driven advice to the UN.''


Production, consumption and material usage

The report’s purpose was to answer questions related to “how different economic activities currently influence the use of natural resources and the generation of pollution”.

(The report’s scope does not include providing recommendations to policy-makers about how to address these problems, although future work by the panel may do this).

The report considers environmental impacts from three perspectives: production, consumption and material usage. However, rather than start from scratch, the panel’s assessment distils key data from a broad collection of over 250 leading country, regional and global studies, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

The study’s two basic findings emphasise what we know from present scientific research. One is that our fossil fuel driven industries, including housing and mobility (transport), are “causing the depletion of fossil energy resources, climate change, and a wide range of emissions-related impacts”.

The other is that agriculture and food consumption are “one of the most important drivers of environmental pressures, especially habitat change, climate change, fish depletion, water use and toxic emissions”. For example, in the United States — the world’s third largest agricultural producer — agrochemicals are responsible for the vast majority of the eco-toxicity of freshwater sources, with cotton alone accounting for 40% of the damage.''

 

[Jokodo]

Of course you misrepresented my position. My position was always about conditions from mid century on. Which I stated numerous times.

You have stated that numerous times. I never claimed otherwise - making your accusation that I'm misrepresenting your position so hilarious. Yet you also keep quoting fear-mongering and articles that claim or at least suggest that per capita food production is dropping now, that we are already struggling/failing to produce enough for 7 and a half billion people. Which is factually inaccurate, something you consistently miss. Presumably because it fits with your narrative, making you less skeptical than you should and, and presumably are in other areas.

The only thing hilarious is your manner of dancing around issues that you essentially agree with.

I don't agree with using lies to support a position that's strong enough to stand on its own.

What you said was: ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100. If we do, we'll be equipped to deal with what's coming after that one way or another.'' - Jokodo. #25 in the Poll.

Yes, that's what I said. And no, I didn't change my position, this has always been what I'm saying. Now who's misrepresenting who?

Now, this is essentially what I am saying. If we don't take adequate measure, we are in trouble. Depending on the efficacy of the measures we take, the crisis may range from being relatively mild and manageable, we are fucked or some degree in between.

My view is that not enough is being done to prevent a major crisis, the attitude of business as usual and climate change denial preventing the necessary steps from being taken.

Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.

I have proposed concrete steps: To the extent that the failure of agritech innovations percolating to small scale farmers (an issue one of your articles brought up) is threatening future food supplies, take application ready agritech research to public universities/research institutes and make the results available at no or low costs to farmers everywhere, instead of having them pay prohibitive licensing fees to private de-facto monopolies.

But you?

Now you can flap your arms and quibble over this detail or that detail like the true Lawyer you imagine yourself to be, but you actually agree with what I am saying.

Meanwhile, something more to chew on and gnash your teeth and wail over. And again, the issue is not just about food production, but natural resources and sustainability in the broad sense:<snip>'

Can we please stick with your last article and its idiosyncratic use of "peak food" before moving on? Do you understand why that is maximally uninformative, and also misleading?

 

[DBT]

The only thing hilarious is your manner of dancing around issues that you essentially agree with.

I don't agree with using lies to support a position that's strong enough to stand on its own.

Another false claim. My intention all along was to show there are the limits to production, of any sort, peak production not only for food but exploitation of natural resources in general.

If the paragraph you dispute did not convey that intention, it was probably the wrong quote to use. That's all. A minor thing. It doesn't change anything. What appears odd is your anal manner and attitude over posting minor errors or references in articles that are at times unavoidable given time constraints in composing a post, and that this is a casual discussion forum and not a testing ground for submitting one's thesis.

Your posting style comes across like some sort of hysteria. All angst and resentment, hissing and spitting, If every dot and comma is not correct, look out folks, Jokodo comes in with all guns blazing.

Yes, that's what I said. And no, I didn't change my position, this has always been what I'm saying. Now who's misrepresenting who?

Did I say that you had changed your position? Read more carefully and try again.

Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.

It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.

 

[Jokodo]

Another false claim.

How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?

My intention all along was to show there are the limits to production, of any sort, peak production not only for food but exploitation of natural resources in general.

If the paragraph you dispute did not convey that intention, it was probably the wrong quote to use. That's all. A minor thing. It doesn't change anything. What appears odd is your anal manner and attitude over posting minor errors or references in articles that are at times unavoidable given time constraints in composing a post, and that this is a casual discussion forum and not a testing ground for submitting one's thesis.

Your posting style comes across like some sort of hysteria. All angst and resentment, hissing and spitting, If every dot and comma is not correct, look out folks, Jokodo comes in with all guns blazing.

Yes, that's what I said. And no, I didn't change my position, this has always been what I'm saying. Now who's misrepresenting who?

Did I say that you had changed your position? Read more carefully and try again.

No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.

Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.

It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.

And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.

Pretending that the population is exploding like it's fucking 1969, or that we're running out of food because total production isn't growing as fast as it used to (but neither is population, so per capita production is still steadily up), or taking a single observation and pretending it supports your favored conclusion, aren't.

 

[fromderinside]

How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?

My intention all along was to show there are the limits to production, of any sort, peak production not only for food but exploitation of natural resources in general.

If the paragraph you dispute did not convey that intention, it was probably the wrong quote to use. That's all. A minor thing. It doesn't change anything. What appears odd is your anal manner and attitude over posting minor errors or references in articles that are at times unavoidable given time constraints in composing a post, and that this is a casual discussion forum and not a testing ground for submitting one's thesis.

Your posting style comes across like some sort of hysteria. All angst and resentment, hissing and spitting, If every dot and comma is not correct, look out folks, Jokodo comes in with all guns blazing.





Did I say that you had changed your position? Read more carefully and try again.

No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.

Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.

It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.

And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.

Building plants away from locations where natural events could compromise them wolud be nice. IOW spending the money necessary to ensure plants and procedures are damn near fool proof, not just showing that such are possible at some demonstration facility where demand isn't an issue would be nice.

Another thing, choosing leaders who avoid destroying safety nets because they want to demonstrate the size of their national penises.

 

[angelo]

Of course, now Why didn't I think of that! AOC truly is THE American savior and much more than just a genius! Reduce American carbon emissions to zero [which are at approx 16-19% of the world's carbon emissions ATM] thereby destroying the economy completely by throwing millions of people on to food stamps and poverty that would make the poverty in India and Africa seem like middle class in comparison. The Americans are so lucky to have such a one as AOC...........not!

Successfully substituting renewable sources won't cause a collapse of civilization.

AOC herself has stated that the US ought not to imitate the worst of other nations, but instead be a leader of renewable-energy transition.

Cutting out America's total emissions to zero will do absolutely nothing to the total world's output of emissions as can be seen in this link...................................... https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

 

[DBT]

How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?

My intention all along was to show there are the limits to production, of any sort, peak production not only for food but exploitation of natural resources in general.

If the paragraph you dispute did not convey that intention, it was probably the wrong quote to use. That's all. A minor thing. It doesn't change anything. What appears odd is your anal manner and attitude over posting minor errors or references in articles that are at times unavoidable given time constraints in composing a post, and that this is a casual discussion forum and not a testing ground for submitting one's thesis.

Your posting style comes across like some sort of hysteria. All angst and resentment, hissing and spitting, If every dot and comma is not correct, look out folks, Jokodo comes in with all guns blazing.





Did I say that you had changed your position? Read more carefully and try again.

No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.

Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.

It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.

And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.

Pretending that the population is exploding like it's fucking 1969, or that we're running out of food because total production isn't growing as fast as it used to (but neither is population, so per capita production is still steadily up), or taking a single observation and pretending it supports your favored conclusion, aren't.

Where did I say the population is exploding 'like it's fucking 1969?' Can't you understand the distinction I made between population increase and rising consumption driven by higher income/affluence as living standards improve within the projected figure?

I mean, I did actually say rising demand in relation to higher living standards within the projected figure of 9 billion probably ten to fifteen times . Maybe if I put it in really bright colours? Would that help you understand the distinction?

That's another example of your misrepresentation. You put on a display, a holier than thou attitude, assuming perfection for yourself yet only seeing fault in your opponent, but making errors such this at every turn.

Get off your high horse. Stop acting the Prima Donna.

 

[Jokodo]

How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?



No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.

Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.

It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.

And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.

Pretending that the population is exploding like it's fucking 1969, or that we're running out of food because total production isn't growing as fast as it used to (but neither is population, so per capita production is still steadily up), or taking a single observation and pretending it supports your favored conclusion, aren't.

Where did I say the population is exploding 'like it's fucking 1969?' Can't you understand the distinction I made between population increase and rising consumption driven by higher income/affluence as living standards improve within the projected figure?

I mean, I did actually say rising demand in relation to higher living standards within the projected figure of 9 billion probably ten to fifteen times . Maybe if I put it in really bright colours? Would that help you understand the distinction?

That's another example of your misrepresentation. You put on a display, a holier than thou attitude, assuming perfection for yourself yet only seeing fault in your opponent, but making errors such this at every turn.

Get off your high horse. Stop acting the Prima Donna.

Hey, I've heard mirrors ate quite affordable.

 

[lpetrich]

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale - About the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
Category 5:

People, livestock, and pets are at very high risk of injury or death from flying or falling debris, even if indoors in mobile homes or framed homes. Almost complete destruction of all mobile homes will occur, regardless of age or construction. A high percentage of frame homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Extensive damage to roof covers, windows, and doors will occur. Large amounts of windborne debris will be lofted into the air. Windborne debris damage will occur to nearly all unprotected windows and many protected windows. Significant damage to wood roof commercial buildings will occur due to loss of roof sheathing. Complete collapse of many older metal buildings can occur. Most unreinforced masonry walls will fail which can lead to the collapse of the buildings. A high percentage of industrial buildings and low-rise apartment buildings will be destroyed. Nearly all windows will be blown out of high-rise buildings resulting in falling glass, which will pose a threat for days to weeks after the storm. Nearly all commercial signage, fences, and canopies will be destroyed. Nearly all trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Long-term water shortages will increase human suffering. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months. Hurricane Andrew (1992) is an example of a hurricane that brought Category 5 winds and impacts to coastal portions of Cutler Ridge, Florida with Category 4 conditions experienced elsewhere in south Miami-Dade County.

Imagine that happening to Miami.

The $1 Trillion Storm: How a Single Hurricane Could Rupture the World Economy - VICE

The catastrophe, if it comes, will first manifest as just a natural disaster. Floridians will flee the impending hurricane, emptying neighborhoods and clogging freeways. Some will stay in their homes, confident this hurricane will be no worse than previous years’ storms, while a smaller minority might be persuaded by far-right talk show hosts the whole thing is a left-wing conspiracy. Entire swathes of the state will be destroyed. People will die. But what might come next will be even more shocking. The storm’s financial aftermath could spiral outwards from Florida, creating conditions that inevitably draw comparisons to the 2008 Wall Street crash.

That massive destruction would overload the insurance companies, and that would cause a cascade of financial failure that could produce a major economic slump.

One version of a worst-case hurricane for Florida is a storm that makes landfall just south of Miami, heads slightly inland, then moves steadily up the east coast. This is the scenario of maximum devastation, explained Shahid Hamid, a finance professor at Florida International University’s International Hurricane Research Center, because part of the hurricane will be able to draw heat from the ocean while slamming Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach, Melbourne, Jacksonville, and Orlando with the strongest possible winds. “The hurricane is basically buzzsawing through the cities,” Hamid said.

If this were to happen, it could also create a ten-foot storm surge that demolishes homes and blocks the streets with debris. “South Florida is not remotely prepared for a Category 3 or higher hurricane,” Bryan Norcross, who was a TV meteorologist in Miami during Hurricane Andrew, which killed 65 people in 1992, warned the Washington Post in 2017. “People will be stuck in buildings with no power, no water, likely little or no communications, and no way to get out or get people in with supplies and aid for an extended time after the storm.”

 

[Jokodo]

How is this a false claim? I'm explaining what I do and do not agree with, do you have psychic powers to know me beliefs and convictions better than I?



No, you didn't. You did however, in previous posts, claim that I "insist on making it a single issue linear projection", that I'm implying that since "we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future", that I prefer to "believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy". Do I need to go on? I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen more places where you misrepresent me in this thread.

But hey, allegedly I'm the one misrepresenting my opponent's positions.

Talking of which, I have yet to see you propose concrete steps.

bilby is advocating concrete steps: the large scale adaption of nuclear power as the only mature technology capable of weaning us off fossil fuels for our energy needs.

It's fine that people are advocating steps. Some of the steps being advocated by any number of commentators and those concerned with the problems ahead of us are fair and reasonable steps, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently appears that business as usual holds the cards.

I support a number of things that could be done and should be done, nuclear power as Bilby says as an example.....but is it being done? No it is not being done. That is the worry. That is the point of my comments on the issue.

And that would be a fruitful venue for discussion: What are some things that could be done, what are their potential downsides, political ramifications etc.

Pretending that the population is exploding like it's fucking 1969, or that we're running out of food because total production isn't growing as fast as it used to (but neither is population, so per capita production is still steadily up), or taking a single observation and pretending it supports your favored conclusion, aren't.

Where did I say the population is exploding 'like it's fucking 1969?' Can't you understand the distinction I made between population increase and rising consumption driven by higher income/affluence as living standards improve within the projected figure?

I mean, I did actually say rising demand in relation to higher living standards within the projected figure of 9 billion probably ten to fifteen times . Maybe if I put it in really bright colours? Would that help you understand the distinction?

That's another example of your misrepresentation. You put on a display, a holier than thou attitude, assuming perfection for yourself yet only seeing fault in your opponent, but making errors such this at every turn.

Get off your high horse. Stop acting the Prima Donna.

Of course you didn't literally say "like it's fucking 1969". You do however keep bringing up population growth as a, if not the, major issue in need of a solution. Which was an understandable assessment in 1969. Not so much in 2019, when it's essentially the only factor in the equation that has solved itself, starting around 1969 when the growth rate started to drop.

 

[Jokodo]

Which source/study is it that tells us that a projected 9 billion plus people living on the planet can consume its resources at the rate of consumers in developed nations, USA, Australia, Britain, etc, long term, no end I nn sight, well into the future?

Please cite a source and quote the relevant material.

WTF?

Name what country (other than Vatican City) you think is incapable of growing more than enough food within its territorial borders to feed much more than its current population if they use modern farming techniques.

The U.S. has one of the highest living standards and is able to and does produce enough food to feed most of the world. Are you so dismissive of those in other countries that you really don't think they could at least feed themselves using modern farming methods and also raise their living standards?

The only real reason for international trade of food should be to trade for the kind of crops that each country can't grow, e.g. Russia can't grow bananas and the Bahamas can't grow wheat so they could swap but each can grow more than enough within their own country to feed their population with balanced diets.

Nicer dodge.

I'm not referring to which country can or cannot grow enough food to current feed its population. Nor is it just about food. Read the question again. This time in relation to the issue at hand, conditions past mid century, growing demand as living standards are raised, and of course climate change. BTW, there are countries now that depend on imports to meet their needs.

Singapore and Monaco come to mind.

People there must be struggling to survive day to day, the way you make it sound as if depending on imports was a symptom of a disaster in the making.

Btw, Ireland, at the height of the famine in the 1840s/50s, was a net exporter of food. Even then, it was distribution, . Not production, that's too blame. Producing enough food to covet domestic demand helps, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid famines.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only real reason for international trade of food should be to trade for the kind of crops that each country can't grow, e.g. Russia can't grow bananas and the Bahamas can't grow wheat so they could swap but each can grow more than enough within their own country to feed their population with balanced diets.

Places like Singapore can never hope to feed themselves.

Nor can Manhattan.

Or any urban area.

So what?

I was talking about the country Singapore.

 

[bilby]

Nor can Manhattan.

Or any urban area.

So what?

I was talking about the country Singapore.

There's no appreciable difference. Singapore the country is overwhelmingly urban, and has a population density of ~8,000/km².

Cities and towns (whether or not they are also countries) import almost all of their food. This has been true since people started living in towns and cities, and is not a problem unless besieged.