Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:54 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Carbon Mining 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5568
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2067
Thanked: 1981 times in 1509 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Carbon Mining
DWill wrote:
If you would argue less emotionally, avoiding gratuitous negative labels, I'd be better able to give your arguments the consideration they deserve.
Whether labels are ‘gratuitous’ depends on whether they make sense. You have previously objected to the association I have drawn between emission reduction and communism. I assume that is what you are calling a gratuitous negative label.

Far from gratuitous, the point of this association is that communism, broadly defined as class war by the poor against the rich, has a strong analytical political continuity with the contemporary movement to reduce CO2 emissions.

I am not just flinging wild abuse, but examining how progressive politics has evolved from its earlier focus on class war for control of the state into current ideas about identity and environment. For example, the Paris Accord has been corrupted by the reparations argument, that rich countries should compensate poor countries for climate damage.

Morally attractive as that may seem, a focus on monetary compensation diverts attention from the real security threat of global warming, and diverts resources from the urgent priority of technological research and development to address the clear and present danger that climate change poses to the world.

The emotional issue here is that ongoing failure of the world to engage with climate politics is worsening the scale and pace of extinction damage and threat.
DWill wrote:
Lomborg is the model here. I don't hear much tribalism in his writing.
Bjorn Lomborg is portrayed by his many opponents as an intensely tribal figure, as a shill for big oil, as a hate figure and deceptive liar who distorts facts about climate and environment for corrupt political motives.

Those perceptions about Lomborg are entirely false, and have been constructed by the climate movement to justify its hollow false argument that reducing CO2 emissions is the best strategy to fix the climate. Lomborg has become the classic straw man, a person widely depicted for political motives as quite different from what he really says.

His actual information, such as that Paris only addresses 1% of the carbon problem, tends to be generally ignored in favour of a superficial political argument between climate denialists and emission reductionists. Denialists say there is no climate problem, while reductionists say reducing emissions is the only viable strategy. Both are entirely wrong.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Last edited by Robert Tulip on Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
Litwitlou
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:23 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5568
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2067
Thanked: 1981 times in 1509 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Carbon Mining
Interbane wrote:
Isn't sustained growth a future evil?
Thanks Interbane, your question of the morality of economic growth opens a key question in politics. The question is whether growth can be sustained without causing massive damage or even breaking the physical capacity of the planet.

My view is that technological innovation can create vastly more wealth than now exists, while also protecting ecology. Indeed, ecological biodiversity is mainly threatened where poor people see no alternative other than direct use of resources. But if resources can be transformed into higher value uses, that in turn frees up the ability to protect the environment, creating a virtuous circle.

The ocean covers 71% of our planet and contains more than a billion cubic kilometres of water. To make an obvious pun, we have barely scratched the surface of this vast resource. My view is that industrial algae farms on a small proportion of the world ocean will generate universal abundance, enabling construction of floating cities, roads and other infrastructure, enabling humans to move to the sea with a lifestyle far better than currently enjoyed, allowing continents to be managed to enhance biodiversity, rather than exploited with inefficient technology.

Mining the ocean for elements such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and even metals like gold could vastly increase the stock of capital wealth while also generating ability to steward these resources sustainably.

Technological innovation such as seen in the industrial and communications revolutions has vastly increased productivity and growth, bringing billions of people out of poverty and hardship. Although, as your comment implies, this economic transformation of the world has largely occurred in a heedless and destructive way. The false providential assumption that the frontier is infinite has provided the grounds for the suspicion you voice. By considering the ocean as the new finite frontier, new methods of industrial organisation can enable a quantum step up in economic activity.
Interbane wrote:
Shouldn't we focus on equilibrium and maximized quality of life instead?
That attitude is self-contradictory, since attempts to hold equilibrium in a dynamic context generate a dangerous combination of stagnation, control and conflict, thereby undermining quality of life. Far better to set rules for innovation and allow free enterprise and invention and discovery in a well-governed framework.

Pioneering innovators create the potential for improved quality of life for all. Preventing innovation, which is what a focus on equilibrium really means, stops the economy from evolving in new productive directions.

There is no way we will stop global warming by slowing the pace of change and growth. Rather, we urgently need to increase the investment in research and development of new industrial technology, especially for managing the oceans. Unfortunately, the backward mentality of preventing growth is at the heart of the Paris Climate Accord, which is a complete disaster for realistic strategies for climate security.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Last edited by Robert Tulip on Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:36 pm
Profile Email WWW
Intern

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 152
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 57
Thanked: 63 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carbon Mining
This is the opening to an article in the March issue of The National Geographic.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... n-c40-spd/

Not sure they'll let you read it if you're not a subscriber.

By Stephen Leahy
PUBLISHED MARCH 6, 2018

The carbon footprint of some of the world’s biggest cities is 60 percent larger than previously estimated when all the products and services a city consumes are included, according to a new analysis.

The report was released Tuesday at the IPCC Cities and Climate Change Science Conference in Edmonton, Canada, and estimated the carbon emissions for the food, clothing, electronics, air travel, construction materials, and so on consumed by residents but produced outside city limits.

The world’s cities emit 70 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide—and that’s likely higher when consumption emissions are included, says report author Michael Doust, program director at C40 Cities, a network of the world’s cities committed to addressing climate change.


_________________
Hate has no home here.


The following user would like to thank Litwitlou for this post:
Robert Tulip
Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:08 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6043
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1633
Thanked: 1764 times in 1356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carbon Mining
Robert Tulip wrote:
. Rather, we urgently need to increase the investment in research and development of new industrial technology, especially for managing the oceans. Unfortunately, the backward mentality of preventing growth is at the heart of the Paris Climate Accord, which is a complete disaster for realistic strategies for climate security.

We've been such superb managers of the environment to this point--not. Now we consider ourselves well qualified to "manage the oceans"?



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Robert Tulip
Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:24 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5568
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2067
Thanked: 1981 times in 1509 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Carbon Mining
DWill wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
. Rather, we urgently need to increase the investment in research and development of new industrial technology, especially for managing the oceans. Unfortunately, the backward mentality of preventing growth is at the heart of the Paris Climate Accord, which is a complete disaster for realistic strategies for climate security.

We've been such superb managers of the environment to this point--not. Now we consider ourselves well qualified to "manage the oceans"?

There should be no question that a paradigm shift is needed to replace the mentality of heedless exploitation of natural resources. Instead, we need recognition of the urgency of wise stewardship of biodiversity, recognising the planetary genetic inheritance as the most valuable asset that we have, since once genes and species are extinct they are gone forever.

The sad fact, after six millennia of growing human planetary dominion, is that we are riding the tiger, and cannot jump off. Dominion has traditionally been understood within the alienated religious paradigm of heedless exploitation, but can equally apply in the integrated paradigm of wise stewardship.

The implication of not choosing to manage the oceans with methods of wise stewardship is that the oceans could die, with a repeat of the Permian Great Dying of 252 million years ago when climate change caused the great currents of the ocean to stop, turning the seas to anoxic acid and sending 95% of all species extinct. If we allow that to happen this century, which is a risk with high impact and medium probability, then human civilization will collapse. That is the primary security agenda for our planet.

Even if we somehow avoid a Great Dying, the Arctic and the coral reefs are now being killed by climate change. The way to fix that is to immediately work out how to remove the extra carbon from the air and sea. But the problem is that the climate change political movement has put all its eggs in the basket of emission reduction.

Unfortunately, emission reduction is purely incidental to climate change. Climate change can only be reversed through carbon removal, which can only be achieved through ocean management.

The oceans are extremely big, with surface area 2.4 times bigger than all the land put together, average depth four kilometres, and volume 1.2 billion cubic kilometres. That scale of resource offers the potential to shift the global economy to a new paradigm of universal abundance, where climate management and biodiversity enhancement are primary goals.

So the answer to your question is yes, humans are well qualified to manage the oceans, since we have no alternative that will ensure survival. Even if our track record deserves to be judged harshly, the necessity of change means there is no alternative to an intensive frontier use of the world ocean to save us from the looming catastrophe of climate change.

The view is widespread in the marine biology community and the climate lobby that deliberate intervention to manage the planetary climate carries too high risk. That view, while superficially attractive as an incentive to reduce emissions, is unfortunately stupid and incoherent, because it just won’t work.

All the pledges in the Paris Accord can only remove at most 1% of the dangerous carbon that humans have added to the air, far too small to stop global warming. The risks of not intervening are much bigger, and primarily include ecosystem collapse and extinction.

There may be some coherent souls who think collapse of civilization would be a good thing for our planet, but I disagree. I would prefer that we put faith in human intelligence and our ability to reform and work together in order to become wise stewards of our planetary resources.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
DWill
Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:49 pm
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6043
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1633
Thanked: 1764 times in 1356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carbon Mining
Recent news is certainly discouraging for those of us who think that in order to find our way out of this mess, we need first to transition to non carbon-producing sources of energy. Emissions are rising again at a yearly rate of about 2%. It could be that nearly all of our efforts to escape the effects of climate change will end up being adaptation. We just can't stop what we do. It's like expecting beavers not to cut down trees to make lodges. Any ethic of gently treating the earth that may have existed in simpler societies has no chance of creating an attitudinal solution to the crisis. Complexity itself works against such an ethical transformation. Growth is king. I'm skeptical not so much of the feasibility of your ocean plans, but of the willingness of governments to divert the massive amounts of needed money for the effort. Some countries believe they'll be relative winners in climate change, which creates an ugly scenario of survival of the luckiest.

Adaptation isn't just building seawalls and relocating coastal cities. It involves the greater challenge of accommodating the world's climate refugees. Politically, the world is showing less and less heart to help people in need of homes.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Robert Tulip
Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:57 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm

• What's next on our Short Story menu?
Mon May 22, 2017 8:29 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2018. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank