Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I, too, seem to have missed why sea water has entered the conversation.

Because atmospheric carbon dioxide has a negative effect upon it. While the OP seeks solutions to carbon sequestration, it's not absolute. So long as we introduce carbon dioxide into the environment, an unrecoverable portion will invariably cause acidification, hence doing nothing to reverse the effect.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Not if we bury it...

I'm confused now.

Who buries their grass?

[dimreepr]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

I'm confused now.

Who buries their grass?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silage

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

Because atmospheric carbon dioxide has a negative effect upon it. While the OP seeks solutions to carbon sequestration, it's not absolute. So long as we introduce carbon dioxide into the environment, an unrecoverable portion will invariably cause acidification, hence doing nothing to reverse the effect.

So, removing Co2 from the atmosphere is worse than doing nothing because?

 

Ocean acidification happens, we all know that, but it's not like it's going to make it worse to remove Co2 from the atmosphere.

Just now, dimreepr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silage

I remember that now.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Okay, grass growing has carbon in it correct?

Due to how decomposing plants work, the carbon will be released back into the atmosphere everytime it's cut right?

If the GE grass is more efficient at releasing excess co2 back into the soil as SOC(Soil Organic Carbon), then not as much carbon would be in the grass when it's cut.

That's not clear to me. Why wouldn't the same amount of carbon be in the grass?  You have a more extensive root system, which is why you are taking more carbon out of the air. Cutting will have the same effect, but you will have sequestered the amount in the additional root structure. 

Quote

Since less carbon is in the cut grass, when it does decompose less carbon will be released.

If there does happen to be less carbon in the cut grass, then this part of the system is taking less carbon out of the air. Since, as you have pointed out, this goes back into the air, it can be ignored — it has zero net effect. The only difference is in the root system. 

Conceptually, this is like planting a new tree. It will take up carbon as long as it is alive. But eventually it stops growing — the sequestration is proportional to the mass of the tree. Then it dies, and you need a new tree to replace the effect.

You're planting grass in this case, so the sequestration is in the roots. But that will hit steady-state. Area54 is right — this is a one-off, not a continuing sequestration after you've hit steady-state, just like the tree example.

 

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Where did I say it didn't mean anything?

 

19 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Anyways, that still doesn't mean anything.

Gaslight much?

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Gaslight much?

 

You took what I said out of context.

So no.

I said it didn't mean anything because what I did would not impact the amount of ocean acidification in a negative way.

23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Anyways, that still doesn't mean anything.

The plant does not mix it with sea water, so it's a moot point.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Because atmospheric carbon dioxide has a negative effect upon it. While the OP seeks solutions to carbon sequestration, it's not absolute. So long as we introduce carbon dioxide into the environment, an unrecoverable portion will invariably cause acidification, hence doing nothing to reverse the effect.

Sequestration will not make ocean acidification worse, and will indirectly make it better. The OP has not addressed introduction at all, much less said anything about adding more CO2. 

Doesn't seem relevant to me, given the scope of the discussion.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sequestration will not make ocean acidification worse, and will indirectly make it better. The OP has not addressed introduction at all, much less said anything about adding more CO2. 

Precisely.

The OP is missing the point, if not deliberately avoiding it. They've deliberately conflated natural settings with artificial one's and vise versa for the sake of argument rather than distinction.

The analogy being, the OP suggests diabetics can eat as much sugar as they like, so long as they have enough insulin to shoot themselves down. That may be all well and good for a day or two, but the long term effect is much worse than simply avoiding sugar in the first place.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

The analogy being, the OP suggests diabetics can eat as much sugar as they like, so long as they have enough insulin to shoot themselves down. That may be all well and good for a day or two, but the long term effect is much worse than simply avoiding sugar in the first place.

1

No, I very clearly said we shouldn't stop what we were already doing, but that we needed additional steps to be taken.

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I never said to stop reducing emissions or anything, and I didn't mean to imply to.

Ultimately, however, global warming does need to be reversed from what I've been told. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today it could be too late because of a snowball effect.

Reducing emissions in that scenario wouldn't be enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gas light much?

Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, I very clearly said we shouldn't stop what we were already doing, but that we needed additional steps to be taken.

All except reducing or ceasing dependency upon fossil fuels.

[Area54]

47 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Is it possible for genetically engineered plants to help prevent global warming?

 

I took your posts as a resounding "No."

I'm taking RangerX's posts as a resounding "No, fuck you."

And I took Ken Fabians as "No, here's why."

Then I apologise for my lack of clarity. This is a more accurate response.

There should be little doubt that genetically engineered plants could contribute in one or more ways to limiting global warming. Several approaches could be envisaged, but all would require detailed research to evaluate environmental impact beyond global warming and to assess cost/benefit ratios. Initial research, development, implementation and subsequent monitoring would be expensive in every case, so those cost/benefit analyses would be welcome. The example you have proposed seems unlikely to be one of the approaches that would ultimately be selected. Why? Your description envisages a process that does not mirror reality.

My objective here has been to get you to think more critically. Swansont has praised you for your quantitative analysis. An analysis prompted by my deliberate questions. So while my work here is not done, its progressing somewhat.

[Raider5678]

12 minutes ago, rangerx said:

All except reducing or ceasing dependency upon fossil fuels.

We're already trying to reduce and cease dependency on fossil fuels.

So, that'd be inside of the "what we're already doing" category.

7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Then I apologise for my lack of clarity. This is a more accurate response.

There should be little doubt that genetically engineered plants could contribute in one or more ways to limiting global warming. Several approaches could be envisaged, but all would require detailed research to evaluate environmental impact beyond global warming and to assess cost/benefit ratios. Initial research, development, implementation and subsequent monitoring would be expensive in every case, so those cost/benefit analyses would be welcome. The example you have proposed seems unlikely to be one of the approaches that would ultimately be selected. Why? Your description envisages a process that does not mirror reality.

My objective here has been to get you to think more critically. Swansont has praised you for your quantitative analysis. An analysis prompted by my deliberate questions. So while my work here is not done, its progressing somewhat.

Fair enough.

I do owe you an apology, as I was wrong.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

We're already trying to reduce and cease dependency on fossil fuels.

So, that'd be inside of the "what we're already doing" category.

Are we really? Last time I checked, we dig more coal and pump more oil than ever. Our population is greater and our dependency (on a global scale) is higher, not lower.

And I am definitely not saying your suggestion is not a solution either (irrespective of it's practicality). I'm saying is it's not without consequences, which you've singularly dismissed as affronts to you personally and justifiable for attacks on me, not side effects to the issue.

You do well to sort that out.

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

And I am definitely not saying your suggestion is not a solution either (irrespective of it's practicality). I'm saying is it's not without consequences, which you've singularly dismissed as affronts to you personally and justifiable for attacks on me, not side effects to the issue.

You do well to sort that out.

2

I don't follow.

Where did I singularly dismiss potential consequences as affronts to me personally?

 

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Are we really? Last time I checked, we dig more coal and pump more oil than ever. Our population is greater and our dependency (on a global scale) is higher, not lower.

Check more often.

https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t1p01p1.pdf

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't follow.

Where did I singularly dismiss potential consequences as affronts to me personally?

 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm taking RangerX's posts as a resounding "No, fuck you."

You dismissed my point on seawater without reading it. Then when caught with your pants down, dismissed it as having no effect on anything in the first place.

Just who is saying "fuck you" there?

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

You dismissed my point on seawater without reading it. Then when caught with your pants down, dismissed it as having no effect on anything in the first place.

 

I read your point on seawater and explained why it didn't relate.

Where did you catch me with my pants down?

 

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Just who is saying "fuck you" there?

I'll be honest, I'm just gonna ignore your posts in this thread from this point on.

So I guess that'd be me.

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Where did you catch me with my pants down?

Umm, your memory is in the ditch. This is the third time in two pages I've had to remind you of your own words.

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

My bad, I used the ctrl+f function and it didn't show up.

Anyways, that still doesn't mean anything.

The plant does not mix it with sea water, so it's a moot point.

Again, singularly dismissive.

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I read your point on seawater and explained why it didn't relate.

So you're back to carbon dioxide doesn't affect seawater then?

Edited March 22, 2018 by rangerx

[swansont]

4 hours ago, rangerx said:

Precisely.

The OP is missing the point, if not deliberately avoiding it. They've deliberately conflated natural settings with artificial one's and vise versa for the sake of argument rather than distinction.

The analogy being, the OP suggests diabetics can eat as much sugar as they like, so long as they have enough insulin to shoot themselves down. That may be all well and good for a day or two, but the long term effect is much worse than simply avoiding sugar in the first place.

I've not gotten that impression. If you need a diet and exercise plan, and you say "here is my exercise plan" it does not mean you've decided to order everything on the menu. 

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

We're already trying to reduce and cease dependency on fossil fuels.

So, that'd be inside of the "what we're already doing" category.

Since this is in politics, a fair question would be "how do we do a better job of doing that?" but that can be outside of the scope of this discussion. But the variables you would want to consider include how much bang for the buck you will be getting, and additionally, the caution of not putting all your eggs in one basket. Especially when a single solution won't get you to your goal.

[CharonY]

I think OP is misunderstand the role of politicians. They do not pitch specific approaches or methodologies. What they pitch are e.g. policy positions. I.e. they could run on a platform that offers tax credit for reducing carbon blueprints or offer research/development funds for folks developing improved carbon sequestration methodologies. Saying that this is the specific way I want it to realize is a) not the job of a politician and b) can be easily lead to conflicts of interest.

[Raider5678]

52 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think OP is misunderstand the role of politicians. They do not pitch specific approaches or methodologies. What they pitch are e.g. policy positions. I.e. they could run on a platform that offers tax credit for reducing carbon blueprints 

2

I get what you're saying, but I feel that offering people money(Okay, to be fair, tax credits are basically that) to not pollute stuff as much is not going to be enough.

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

offer research/development funds for folks developing improved carbon sequestration methodologies

Isn't that essentially what I proposed? Giving people money to research what the governments wants you to? I mean, yes, it's very much worded differently, but the concept is mostly the same is it not?

54 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Saying that this is the specific way I want it to realize is a) not the job of a politician and b) can be easily lead to conflicts of interest.

Fair enough.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

additionally, the caution of not putting all your eggs in one basket. Especially when a single solution won't get you to your goal.

Obviously, however, I have stated I have no intention of getting rid of other steps we're already taking.

[Area54]

59 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think OP is misunderstand the role of politicians. They do not pitch specific approaches or methodologies. What they pitch are e.g. policy positions. I.e. they could run on a platform that offers tax credit for reducing carbon blueprints or offer research/development funds for folks developing improved carbon sequestration methodologies. Saying that this is the specific way I want it to realize is a) not the job of a politician and b) can be easily lead to conflicts of interest.

This is a crucial point. I tried to express it in an earlier post where I refered rather clumsily to politicians as managers who did not do things, but caused things to be done. A better example might have been company directors who determine what a company will do, not how it does it.

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Isn't that essentially what I proposed? Giving people money to research what the governments wants you to? I mean, yes, it's very much worded differently, but the concept is mostly the same is it not?

No it is not. Your role as a politician would be to decide what amount of effort if any we would put into combatting global warming. The how would be in the hands of government departments, agencies, or hired experts. (And for completeness make up some sentences with the words legislation in them.)

[Ken Fabian]

Quote

I plan to run as a politician one day soon, and a potential sponsor told me that they'd like to see my entire platform first.

 

Raider, I think I would be alarmed by a politician getting too focused on something as speculative as bio-engineering plants for soil-carbon-deposition abilities. Farming for fuels - where the bio-engineered species are contained and controlled are less controversial than spreading of competitive species into the wider environment, such as oceans or forests.

Support for the institutions and support programs that make wide ranging R&D possible wins points from me, not singling out any one area for support. The main game is managing the energy transition that is going on right now and I am most sceptical of anyone who can foresee how the last 20% on the way to below zero emissions will be achieved or insists we must have firm, costed plans for that before committing to that 80% of reductions.

Coherent environmental and energy policies and an understanding of the nature of the climate problem and the issues related to it are what I'm looking for most in politicians. I think being visionary with respect to how to do support and implementation of commercial and nearly commercial technologies is more important than visionary with respect to specific yet to be commercialised ones.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Ken Fabian