The Truth about Billionaires

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There are simply too many of us.

I disagree. Humans do not use water up; All of the water one drinks goes back into the environment. The planetary mechanisms then purify it for the next usage. There is as much water on the planet now (approximately; there is some tiny amount lost to space and some small amount created whenever hydrocarbons are burned) as there was when life began.

The same basic principle goes for food. Our bodies do not destroy the chemical ingredients in we call "food." It simply rearranges them and excretes them when we're through with them.

The problem is we pollute our resources. We toss plastics and other materials that are hard to degrade wherever we happen to be, while taking great care to send easily degradable waste to specific areas so they can't contribute to the food chain.

Maybe enough for today's population, if everything were set up completely perfectly.

But that land is useless if you can't get fresh water to it.

Doesn't have to be fresh water. We need clean water for drinking, but most pollutants in water are actually beneficial to plant growth. What we term as "contamination" is often what nature calls "fertilizer."

You wanna grow a beautiful garden that produces extremely well? Grow it over a septic field.

If we extracted it and made hydrocarbons out of it, we would effectively have to put all the energy we ever got from fossil fuels back in.

Actually, no, that's not true. Carbon dioxide is a pretty stable molecule, but it is not so stable that it cannot be broken down. It just requires specific conditions to do so.

The catalysts used are a bit expensive, but the primary cost? The amount of air one has to filter to get a tiny amount of carbon dioxide.

I hadn't thought of that. Yeah that's a good point!

If we use the energy to create electromagnetic radiation, then the solar cells and power grid system becomes effectively a very elaborate mirror. Absorbing light, making electricity, and then reemitting it as light.

Yeah, a lot of people don't realize where our energy actually goes. Don't feel bad.
< br />
TheRedneck

a reply to: ArMaP

Unless that increase in temperature results in the increase of the deserts, which is already happening.

Got a link? Last I heard, people were (falsely) claiming that storms would increase and kill everyone.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There are simply too many of us.

I disagree. Humans do not use water up; All of the water one drinks goes back into the environment. The planetary mechanisms then purify it for the next usage. There is as much water on the planet now (approximately; there is some tiny amount lost to space and some small amount created whenever hydrocarbons are burned) as there was when life began.

It isn't destroyed. But the planet only recycles so much fresh water so fast.

The amount of recycling per day needs to be equal to the amount of consumption per day.

If you look at places like Southern California and Nevada, as the population in the area grows, they are running out of places to pump water in from, and draining their local reservoirs.

One of the big battles between Northern and Southern California right now is Northern farmers wanting water for their farms, but Los Angeles area wanting it to be irrigated further South.

If we get to where we've got to start making it on our own, instead of just using what is there, that's going to be stuff like desalination plants, which use gadzooks of energy.

The same basic principle goes for food. Our bodies do not destroy the chemical ingredients in we call "food." It simply rearranges them and excretes them when we're through with them.

In order to eat it again, you have to rearrange it back. Each acre of farm land can rearrange back a certain amount per year, and if you end up needing more than that you end up simply needing more land.

The problem is we pollute our resources. We toss plastics and other materials that are hard to degrade wherever we happen to be, while taking great care to send easily degradable waste to specific areas so they can't contribute to the food chain.

Maybe enough for today's population, if everything were set up completely perfectly.

But that land is useless if you can't get fresh water to it.

Doesn't have to be fresh water. We need clean water for drinking, but most pollutants in water are actually beneficial to plant growth. What we term as "contamination" is often what nature calls "fertilizer."

You wanna grow a beautiful garden that produces extremely well? Grow it over a septic field.

Pumping human waste from a city out to the farms might be something to look into, but also an extremely large scale infrastructure project if we really did it.

Trucking it there would be too inefficient.

If we extracted it and made hydrocarbons out of it, we would effectively have to put all the energy we ever got from fossil fuels back in.

Actually, no, that's not true. Carbon dioxide is a pretty stable molecule, but it is not so stable that it cannot be broken down. It just requires specific conditions to do so.

The catalysts used are a bit expensive, but the primary cost? The amount of air one has to filter to get a tiny amount of carbon dioxide.

You can get rid of it by some cheaper means. It's just if you're trying to make hydrocarbons out of it that it will cost insanely.

Some coal plants are filtering it out of their emissions and pumping it to a place deep under ground, which they expect will contain it.

Would be nice, though, if we could figure out the whole carbon warming question to a point where people can feel comfortable there's no guess work. (I kind of feel like there is a lot of guess work going on, no matter what side of the fence a person sits on.)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Got a link? Last I heard, people were (falsely) claiming that storms would increase and kill everyone.

A link for what? That the deserts are increasing?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

If you look at places like Southern California and Nevada, as the population in the area grows, they are running out of places to pump water in from, and draining their local reservoirs.

That is true, but it also a local area. The cites are, almost by definition, unsustainable. The rural areas are overly-sustainable. That's what I meant when I said the problem is distribution. Globally, there is plenty of water and plenty of food.

One cannot solve a global problem by focusing on small areas.

In order to eat it again, you have to rearrange it back. Each acre of farm land can rearrange back a certain amount per year, and if you end up needing more than that you end up simply needing more land.

Farming methods now produce more food per acre than at any time in history. But you're partially right: more food requires more land. There's plenty of land, but much of it is being used for housing instead of farming; I am seeing that more and more in this area. Fields that once grew crops now grow manicured grass lawns for oversized houses that would have been just as nice (maybe nicer) had they been placed beside the field in an area that was not used for farming.

Again, it is the misuse of resources that is to blame.

Pumping human waste from a city out to the farms might be something to look into, but also an extremely large scale infrastructure project if we really did it.

That actually wasn't something I was suggesting, but it is an intriguing possibility. Like you say, however, it would be a massive infrastructure undertaking.

It used to be that cities and rural areas were stacked closely together, and waste could be moved to the rural areas. However, as cities have grown, that has become impossible. Ever drove I-95 up the Northeast coast? It is solid urban, starting with Washington DC until you get out of Massachusetts. Only the names of the municipalities change.

You can get rid of it by some cheaper means. It's just if you're trying to make hydrocarbons out of it that it will cost insanely.

Back when the Global Warming scare began, before I realized just how crazy it was, I actually did some work on a way to create hydrocarbon fuels out of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Trust me; there are other ways besides those you speak of, mainly using electrostatic fields to catalyze chemicals into new combinations.

What I developed appeared completely sustainable and practical. I stopped working on it, however, when I ran the calcs on how much carbon dioxide was needed. Turns out I would have to have giant fans running 24/7 to get enough to barely supplement my own personal needs. There's just not that much of it available in the air.

Increase the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide, however, and my design will work. Now, if I can come up with such a design in my little shop in my spare time, there is no reason to believe others in universities with access to research funds cannot do the same or better.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The Sahara Desert is expanding

India's Thar desert growing fast

Is the Sahara Desert Growing?

Decade for Deserts and the Fight Against Desertification

Desertification in the EU

a reply to: Nyiah


In reply to your question about how people tending greenhouses would get paid,
I think you should look into how much money is spent on war and NASA each year and then come back and tell me that our world can't afford a more sustainable food production.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I don’t hold enmity towards rich people. I want to be one too.

to get out of the rat race... you must be able to figure out what a liability and an asset is to you. A liability is something that takes money OUT of your pocket. And an asset puts money IN your pocket.

Once you can identify these two elements within your life... you must work your butt off and apply your funds appropriately. The poor buy, for the most part, liabilities, while the rich buy assets.

Money and people are acknowledged and assessed differently by these two parties, the poor and the rich. A dollar is a person and a person is a dollar. The main difference between these two are work times. A dollar works for you 24/7 while a person works for you with limitations.

When you keep your money in a bank... "saving" as some call this... it's making other people money, not you. So stop saving it. You must keep it moving constantly. That is a big difference between these two parties, the rich and the poor.

The rich buy real estate differently than the poor. The rich go to the court house to get property. Especially during economical slumps, when folks cannot afford it and it's dirt cheap.


If you take your paycheck and go buy a TV.... to watch rich people... you are THEIR asset. And more than likely will never change. You have to change your mindset.
:/

a reply to: ArMaP

Interesting links, thank you.

Now I wonder, where is all that water going?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: MikhailBakunin
When you keep your money in a bank... "saving" as some call this... it's making other people money, not you. So stop saving it. You must keep it moving constantly. That is a big difference between these two parties, the rich and the poor.

Poor people do not have enough money to save, so they cannot even enter that "game".

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's a good question, but maybe the difference in water is not that big.

One cause of desertification is the less frequent but stronger rains, that wash away the richer top soil and leave the ground only suitable for a smaller part of the vegetation. A smaller vegetation cover retains less water and desertification increases.

a reply to: ArMaP

A fair enough point.

So why are these studies not leading to the planting of more appropriate ground covers? Seems to me that would be the prudent action to take instead of assuming Global Warming and doing essentially nothing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
So why are these studies not leading to the planting of more appropriate ground covers?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you rephrase it?
Thanks in advance.

a reply to: ArMaP

Certainly.

You just posted links indicating desertification in some areas of the planet. We don't have data to say this is a global issue, although the problem does seem widespread. I asked where the water was going, since a lack of water in one area means the water is somewhere else on the planet, and your response was that less frequent but more intense storms meant about the same amount of water of water existing, but also caused erosion.

To my mind, that would indicate the need for ground cover to hold the soil in place. That's what we do around here when erosion starts washing away things we don't want washed away. Why is that not being done in the areas experiencing erosion? Your links seemed quite impotently worded, as in "We know it's happening, but since we think it is caused by Global Warming, we're not going to do anything about it."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks, I understand it now.

The problem is that the areas being affected by desertification are, in a large part, used in agriculture, so they cannot change that without losing all that arable land. Also, another thing helping desertification is the increase in temperature (that's why they blame it on global warming), and a side effect of that is that the plants that used to exist on an area suffering from desertification disappear and are replaced by other plants that occupy their place, and those plants are better adapted to the higher temperatures, so there really isn't a lack of ground cover.

This is happening on the south of Europe, where, for example, some vine areas in Italy are getting too hot to produce good quality grapes.

Another problem is that with the difference in temperature and change in vegetation comes also a change in the insects and diseases that are common in the hotter areas but new to the areas suffering desertification, so, once more, the local plants start suffering from more attacks and are more likely to disapear.

a reply to: ArMaP

The problem is that the areas being affected by desertification are, in a large part, used in agriculture, so they cannot change that without losing all that arable land.

That makes no sense at all. If an area is experiencing desertification, it is becoming unfit for agriculture, by definition. If it is producing food, then it is not too arid to grow crops. There are also farming methods available that prevent erosion without sacrificing crop yield.

As for temperature increases, I understand how some plants require different conditions, but I have trouble believing that any area on the planet has experienced changes in climate so severe as to cause a complete reorganization of the flora and fauna in the area. A couple degree C will not do that; it would take ten minimum, probably more. And that would certainly be newsworthy!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That makes no sense at all. If an area is experiencing desertification, it is becoming unfit for agriculture, by definition. If it is producing food, then it is not too arid to grow crops. There are also farming methods available that prevent erosion without sacrificing crop yield.

Desertification is not an off/on thing, what I meant was that the areas starting to be affected by desertification are used in agriculture, so they cannot change much of what they grow on them.
And, agriculture being one of main focuses of the European Union, they have followed closely what is happening and they know what they can and cannot do.

As for temperature increases, I understand how some plants require different conditions, but I have trouble believing that any area on the planet has experienced changes in climate so severe as to cause a complete reorganization of the flora and fauna in the area. A couple degree C will not do that; it would take ten minimum, probably more. And that would certainly be newsworthy!

The first thing that changes, apparently, is insects, as we are getting Northern Africa insects that get blown to Southern European countries and now find a climate that is less cold in the winter, so they can live and reproduce there. The new insects affect both plants and the local insects, and that's where the change in the ecosystem starts.

But, apparently, even a relatively small increase in temperature makes changes, as the Northern European countries now are getting better crops of some plants, that's why vineyards in the UK started producing more than they usually could.


Edited to add a link for a case of African insects bringing diseases to Europe, in this case a human disease, chikungunya.
As Earth Warms Up, Tropical Virus Moves to Italy

a reply to: ArMaP

Desertification is not an off/on thing, what I meant was that the areas starting to be affected by desertification are used in agriculture, so they cannot change much of what they grow on them.

If they are growing the same crops year after year, that alone explains the desertificiation. Doing that weakens the soil, because the plants take out too much of the nutrients they need over time, and deposit too much of the nutrients they don't need. Crops need to be rotated yearly to keep the soil healthy.

Unhealthy soil is very subject to erosion, both from wind and water. The plant life in an area actually has a big effect on the rainfall as well.

Here, most farmers rotate between corn, soybeans, and cotton. The soil never weakens that way.

The first thing that changes, apparently, is insects, as we are getting Northern Africa insects that get blown to Southern European countries and now find a climate that is less cold in the winter, so they can live and reproduce there.

I would say at least a part of what you describe can also be attributed to micro-evolution. The same winds that blow the insects to you now have always existed; the difference is that the insects are able to withstand the winters. That normally requires a pretty substantial temperature change. However, insects over time will become acclimated to new areas and expand their range.

Other animals do the same. We now have armadillos in Alabama. The climate here has not changed (I actually have NOAA weather data dating back to 1950 to back that up) but the armadillos have apparently become acclimated to our temperatures and are now multiplying. On the good side, it seems they are worse at successfully crossing asphalt than possums are, so that helps keep their numbers in check.

apparently, even a relatively small increase in temperature makes changes, as the Northern European countries now are getting better crops of some plants, that's why vineyards in the UK started producing more than they usually could.

Yes, especially in colder climates, it takes only a little warming to improve crop yields. That's what I was referring to when I earlier mentioned expanding growing seasons. But that does not decrease the amount of grapes available; it increases the amount. In that respect, a slightly warming climate is beneficial to the food supply.

If we see grapes suddenly producing bumper crops in areas where they could not even grow 10 years ago, I might be a bit more concerned... but that is not happening. What we're seeing is a climate shift, just as has been happening since before humans walked the planet. The only difference is so many people are talking about it now like it is something new. It isn't.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Bunch
Given the sentiment on this thread I don’t get why many of you get so bent out of shape with a plan to tax wealthy individuals.

The system for so long has worked in their favor. Is about time that someone comes from the left or right and makes things right for the rest.

And not the trickle down BS…that has never worked.

perhaps you could appeal to George Sorros to give his fortune to the poor. Or is that not how your version of all this works?