You must log in or register to comment.
I approve of the overall message but indoor farming is kind of insane in the present day. It uses incredible amounts of energy and our scarce building materials to do something we can do much more easily outside.
Long term it might be important but I don’t think it makes sense until we solve the current energy crisis.
Initial upfront costs are heavy but you would be saving all of the transport and logistics costs for the lifetime of the facility. Aeroponics are also a lot less resource intense than growing in the dirt.
Not in energy requirements when the sun is free and electricity and lightbulbs are not.
Transporting food halfway across the world ain’t free either.
Absolutely. Doesn’t change my point. Just brings up a different one.
It does change your point because you need to look at the total energy cost, not just a single part.
Transport costs are enormous. The land you’re talking about using could be used to generate even more power with renewables.
We can not replace ground cover of plants with nothing but solar panels. The moisture difference alone would cause huge ecological issues nothing to say on the reduced plant matter.
Plus plants use sunlight to grow everything. That energy cost is way more massive than you think. It takes a fusion reactor in space to power it.
Trying to get the same effect from solar powering Leads will be far less efficient and take an area larger than the traditional farm to generate the power for a vertical farm and be less effective. Plus you would also need to run vertical water pumps which are difficult with the weight of water, air flow, and still need fertilizer and nutrients which would mostly be chemical synthetics for making sure it’s in the right concentrations.Transportation costs are absolutely huge and more local transportation would be better but don’t mistake it for being much more efficient because of a single point that can be reduced.
Farming is a huge endeavor that works mostly cause it is free energy and resources that as we need to provide more becomes already worse. Trying to control that entire chain is extremely difficult and costly and should only be done as necessary.
It’s far easier to work on flat land that sprawls than vertical and the density would not even be in the favor of the vertical grow tower.
I am looking at total costs. It’s just not nearly a catch all solution because it’s far more intensive than people generally at a glance expect. And I’m for adopting it in specific situations and add more vertical grow to farm operations but it does not fix food to grow everything indoors.
Especially for some crops, like leafy greens. Having a semi-sterile environment can also mean pesticide-free crops. (Or at least, that’s my understanding).
Way less water use and transport costs for a superior (fresher, pesticide-free) product.
It only makes sense for some crops, though. Ain’t nobody growing watermelons or carrots in urban vertical farms.
Has anyone broken down the difference in energy between artificially creating growing conditions in the middle of cities compared to just transporting the food from where it grows easily? Trains and ships which transport most food are incredibly energy efficient per ton transported
Trains can transport one ton of goods 470 miles on one gallon of fuel and ships can transport one ton of goods 600 miles on one gallon of fuel. If a urban farm can produce one ton of food it needs to consume less than a few gallons of fuel’s worth of energy in lighting and other city-specific infrastructure in order to come out ahead of growing food where it grows best
I think it’s outweighed by the possibilities of hydroponic farming to reduce overall land (and therefore fossil fuel) use for agriculture.
Do hydroponic plants have fewer nutrients compared to soil grown plants?
No worries for pesticides or water use, as well.
Using solar panels to power artificial lighting so you can vertically stack farms directly inside cities doesn’t make any sense from a sustainability perspective.
But greenhouses in the suburbs that are tied into the city’s thermal grid and seasonal thermal energy store is the future of agriculture IMO.
By enclosing fields in greenhouses you decrease the land, water, pesticide, and fertilizer requirements, while also eliminating fertilizer runoff and the possibility of soil depletion from tilling. By tying a greenhouse into a thermal grid the greenhouse can act as a solar thermal collector in the summer while maybe even condensing the water that evaporates through the plants for reuse. Then you can use that same heat to heat homes during the winter or extend the growing season in the greenhouse even further.
https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/storage/world-s-largest-thermal-energy-storage-to-20240409
https://ag.umass.edu/greenhouse-floriculture/fact-sheets/heat-storage-for-greenhouses
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152874/a-greenhouse-boom-in-china
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150070/almerias-sea-of-greenhouses
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/netherlands-agriculture-technology/ (Yes I know they use artificial lighting in a lot of these, and yes I know a lot of the value of their agricultural exports comes from flowers, but the point is it’s another example of large scale greenhouse use. Also they do still produce quite a bit of food in a small area, in addition to the flowers.)
Oh I fully agree that greenhouses have a role to play in food production. But that’s not typically what’s meant by indoor farming. That’s a separate but related concept.
That said, you may be slightly overstating the benefits here. Greenhouses can actually be very vulnerable to pests and diseases due to the high humidity, year-round warmth, and lack of natural predators. In theory they’re isolated but in practice it’s very likely some organism you don’t want will sneak in somehow. Pollination can also be a challenge for crops that need that.
I think these challenges can be overcome but there’s a lot of work to be done on them still.
Building out more and more renewables doesn’t mean anything if emissions aren’t falling - and they aren’t. Since 2021, nearly 4 full years, the world has closed less than 1% of active coal power plants.
The buildout of renewables has arrived hand-in-hand with an increase in total energy usage. The energy mix has improved greatly in favor of renewables, tons of CO2 per KWh is way down, unfortunately we just use more KWh so total emissions are still rising.
Everything in the meme is a leading indicator for positive change, which is wonderful, but the actual change needs to materialize on a rather short timetable. Stories about happy first derivatives don’t count for much.
From your link it, for me, it seems like emissions are platooning, similar to a technological S curve. Even if China and India are growing exponentially, reduction in other countries are enough to slow down the process significantly (specially if you zoom in in the last 10 years).
It’s very hard to predict change, but I suspect the deprecation of solutions that emit lots of emissions is about to skyrocket.
We might already have reached peak carbon emissions. There’s also the thing where renewables are so much cheaper that it’s in most countries best self interest to build renewables.
The thing the world is doing now is more energy but the cheapest one is electricity so more electricity. The duck curve is an energy storage opportunity that’s being taken advantage of more and more. Things are heading in the right direction but it’s not fast enough.
The next emissions on the chopping block are household heating and cement and low-med industrial heat with more advanced heat pumps or heat pumps set up in series.
I’ve decided to become cautiously optimistic recently the more I learn about how science is advancing the renewables despite governments sometimes being in the way.
Since 2021, nearly 4 full years, the world has closed less than 1% of active coal power plants.
Closing will come later, when alternatives are widely available. What renewable energy does currently - at least here - is forcing those plants temporarily out of the market, especially during summer months and windy weather. The plants will exist and stay ready in case of need for well over a decade, maybe even two - but they will start up ever more rarely.
Technically, the deal is: we don’t have seasonal energy storage. Short term storage is being built - enough to stabilize the grid for a cold windless hour, then a day, then a week… that’s about as far as one can go with batteries and pumped hydro.
To really get the goods one has to add seasonal storage or on-demand nuclear generation. The bad news is that technologies for seasonal storage aren’t fully mature yet, while nuclear is expensive and slow to build. There’s electrolysis and methanation, there’s iron reduction, there are flow batteries of various sorts, there’s seasonal thermal storage already (a quarter step in the right direction)…
…but getting the mixture right takes time. Instead of looking at the number of closed plants, one should look at the sum of emissions. To remain hopeful, the sum should stop growing very soon.
Instead of looking at the number of closed plants, one should look at the sum of emissions
That was in the link I posted. Emissions are Currently at record highs.
Slowing growth isn’t enough; we need significant, sustained, reductions in the very near future, and negative emissions and sequestering carbon in the medium term.
None of that is happening at a scale that would inspire optimism.
One technology that’s being developed that can help is high-voltage superconducting DC power, which can send power thousands of miles. So if it’s a sunless, windless day in the Northeast they can send power from the Midwest to stabilize the grid.
Also, I’m very bullish on Iron-Air batteries for long-term grid-level storage.
Technically, the deal is: we don’t have seasonal energy storage.
Thankfully, we are actually solving this problem by just making solar panels comically cheap. We are going to solve seasonal swings in power demand by just spamming the ever-loving-hell out of solar panels. Solar is so vastly cheaper than nuclear that this is the better option.
If the panels are cheap enough, you can build enough of them to meet your needs even on a cloudy winter day. Then the rest of the year you have dirt-cheap energy. In turn, a lot of power-intensive industries can move to a seasonal model to take advantage of the nearly-free energy during the warmer months. We have a crop growing season, why not a steel smelting season, or an AI model training season?
That’s a pretty big gap to cover with spamming more panels. I would venture to guess: this approach would work up to latitude 45 or so.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/surface-solar-radiation-d_1213.html
Where I live, in midwinter, the day is 6 hours long. Over here, wind turns more heads than solar. But yes, solar is riduculously quick to install.
The key is that, watt for watt, new solar right now costs about a quarter what new fission does. The cost difference has gotten that ridiculous. There are other options as well of course. We can use that superabundant power in the summer to split water and make lots of hydrogen, and use that for power in the winter. We can even use it to pull CO2 from the air, convert it to synthetic fuels like synthetic methane, and just run our old natural gas plants for power in the winter.
And we’re easily headed to a world where watt for watt, solar is 1/10th the cost of new fission. At that point, even at high latitudes, it makes more sense to use solar power even in winter. I mean sure, if you’re at such extreme latitudes that you have months of total darkness, then solar will have a problem there. Maybe small modular reactors make sense for those niche applications. But even then, those areas are probably better relying on synthetic fuels made from solar power plants at lower latitudes. Or even better, those higher latitudes also get very long days during the summer months, so they can make their own hydrogen during the summer and run their grids off tanks of that in the winter. Or, if nothing else, we can always just run some long power cables north-to-south.
I mean sure, if you’re at such extreme latitudes that you have months of total darkness, then solar will have a problem there. Maybe small modular reactors make sense for those niche applications.
Currently, solar still makes economic sense, but from April to October. Lots of it was built rather fast, now the adoption is slowing since the grid can’t accept it everywhere.
Consequently, summer is when oil shale miners rest and prepare for the next season.
Since the goal is to get rid of mining oil shale, big plans exist to install a lot of wind power. Sadly, this has gone embarrassingly slow, and it cannot cover winter consumption, and there is not enough storage.
As a result, some companies and building out storage, but only enough to last a few hours.
…and in the next country southwards, there is a huge gas reservoir that could accept methane, enough to last the whole winter, but nobody has a good enough handle on methanation to renewably produce a considerable quantity and store it there. :o
With regard to reactors, it seems likely that getting one would take 10 years and the local country here doesn’t even have legislation built out for nuclear power. They’re drafting it. Starting from zero is quite slow.
Didn’t Britian just close down it’s last coal plant? Also Colorado is switching away as well. I thought natural gas was replacing coal?
Is it defeatist to face the facts that we have released more carbon in 2023 than any other year? Is it defeatist to realize not only are we polluting non-stop, we are also destroying the oceans, we are destroying ecosystems and we are destroying ourselves at a rate that we can’t control? That a majority of people are content living their lives this way if it means they don’t have to make the hard choice of having and using less? We’re already well past 1°C and are not going to slowdown it seems until its too late.
CO2 emissions of the world excluding China have declined. Chinas emissions did fall in Q2 of this year.
Seriously China has economic trouble, which slows down energy demand growth. The US has run the massive inflation reduction act, which seems to be working somewhat well and Europe was hit hard by the energy crisis reducing emissions in the EU through lower consumption and faster green roll out and Russia as its fossil fuel exports fall. On top of that green technologies like solar panels, wind trubines, electric vehicles, heat pumps and so forth become cheaper all the time. It is certainly possible that we can achieve peak emissions soon.
I think it won’t matter. We have enough heat in the pipeline to wipe the surface of the Earth. Here’s a crisis report from Richard Crim saying, in essense, we done fucked up
This is MY OPINION, not “science”.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
🤨
You forgot the first bit
Warning, it’s not “good news”. I think we fucked up so badly that quiet literally a “Dark Age” is coming. This is a rough “first pass” of how some new papers are coming together for me.
Followed by
Short Takes: The evidence accumulates that the “Climate Sensitivity” estimate in our models is BADLY off.
One of the things that stuck in my head was the finding that there was an apparent pattern of +8°C temperature increase for each doubling of atmospheric CO2 (2XCO2).
Very alarming if accurate.
Whoa, whoa, street-preacher.
No, it’s not defeatist to state facts. It’s what you do or say immediately after that makes the difference.
Now, we’re all feeling the same kinds of stress that would make any of us rattle on like that, and you must know you’re not alone or even in the minority with your concern. The majority of people - polls show - want to avoid or to blunt that fate we worry is coming. And with the world swinging a little conservative for a while, it’ll be even harder to make the changes now we had to make 20 years ago.
But trust in your fellow person instead of cursing them for indolents when you don’t know their situation. If you go off like this at people on the edge of moving from subsistence to again having the opportunity to join you at the protests, you may risk losing them as an ally.
Softly, softly.
I am cursing myself for being too weak to do the necessary, to give up on the unnecessary plastic junk, to give up on driving and all the industrial products that are slowly killing us in one way or another. If I can’t do it how can I preach doing what is necessary to others? I feel like a hypocrit, caught between a fossil fuel filled life of comfort and a future of hardship that I feel fully unprepared to even talk about, never mind living through
It’s like praising all the cabin cars getting repainted with eco-friendly paint while the train has already gone off the cliff and is plunging toward the ground.
Maybe these are just the transition costs
At least partly. No one seems to take into account the carbon costs of manufacturing things like solar cells, stuff like that.
Interest in solar panels has skyrocketed, and yet at least 50% of the world population won’t stop driving ICE cars to work every day any time soon. While the ocean surface temperatures are on an exponential trajectory.
A climate catastrophy with mass deaths is inevitable. I’d be preparing instead of sugar-coating.
And after a few billion humans die, we can deploy solar panels and start living sustainably.
Yes, this exactly! The polls about sustainable living mean nothing when the ice caps melt, when the wildlife has been reduced to basically nothing and when we are all struggling to breathe with no trees and no plankton to produce oxygen.
By the power invested in me by, well, nobody whatsoever, can I just take a minute to say, let’s all cool down a little in the comments!
There’s a lot of arguing against:
- The idea that acknowledging the tragic reality of climate change makes you defeatist
- The idea that because we have had some great advantages in green tech we can sit back and let climate change fix itself
I don’t see anyone making those arguments here though! Just lots of people concerned about climate change with different skews of how positive/negative we should feel.
Personally, I swing between powerful optimism and waking in terror at 3:00am for the future we’re hurtling towards. I’m sure other people are the same, so let’s just be friendly to the fact that other people are in different vibes to us.
There are some people working together very well right now to dismantle the climate, so let’s all remember that when we’re talking with each other.
Peace and love!
I worry that climate defeatism has become a religion, and it will be difficult to separate it from policy discussion going forward.
Things just shifted instantly from “nothing needs to be done” to “nothing can be done.”
The Climate Denier’s prayer:
The climate isn’t changing,
and even if it was,
It’s not humans that are causing it,
and even if we are,
It’s better for the economy if we ignore it,
and even if that’s not true,
There’s nothing we can do about it anyways.And even if we could, It would probably mean no more muscle car collection for me.
Almost as if the people in charge of oil and coal and such want us to be fighting about this type of shit…
climate defeatism has become a religion
Going outside to 90⁰ weather in October is a religion?
No. Climate defeatism is.
If the sum total of “Say no to climate defeatism” is “Don’t feel bad during the latest in a series of historic heat waves”, then you’re not arguing against defeatism. You’re arguing for denialism.
Don’t feel bad during the latest in a series of historic heat waves
Good thing nobody actually said that, then.
A few folks I know switched smoothly from “climate change is fake” to “maybe it’s real but there’s nothing we can do about it at this point. Might as well live it up.” Basically anything to avoid change at any level.
I think that’s the defeatism they’re talking about here, not people pointing out the issues.
A few folks I know switched
All of that is just cope, though. Speed running denialism to acceptance. The bottom line is that - individually - there’s nothing any one of us is going to do to stop Indonesia from building a new coal plant or end fracking in West Texas or stop whatever the fuck this is…
These are large scale socio-economic problems stemming from an industrial system that does not need to account for its waste byproducts. “Well, you should just believe that climate change is real but also believe its fixable” is the correct sentiment. But simple sentiment has no impact on policy.
I think that’s the defeatism they’re talking about here
I have spent my entire life hearing people in positions of authority talk about climate change and watching the institutions they lead ignore the impacts whenever a change in policy might detrimentally affect domestic economic growth rates.
That’s why my heart is filled with doomerism. Even when we know, and even when we (superficially) acknowledge we can change the policy, the folks at the controls… don’t do it.
Real question: Most of things listed are consumer level changes. Isn’t the large majority of global warming being caused by industry emissions?
Large scale solar is also taking off.
Large scale solar farms have been a thing for decades. Large scale solar adoption is like wrestling with a hydra. The heads are Russia, China, and the middle east. Go nuclear, be the sun.
All that matters is cost in the energy transition. A certain subset of person likes fission because it’s always fun to be contrarian. But there’s a reason fission companies have gone bankrupt left and right, and that we’ve seen countless fission startups collapse over the last two decades. Nuclear proponents like to bitch about strawmen Greenpeace activists and people irrationally afraid of nuclear power. They like talking about these phantom barriers to nuclear, as if fear of nuclear power has anything to do with why fission is a dying technology.
Fission is dying because it’s just too damned expensive. Bitch all you want about the intermittency of solar; it’s cheaper to just spam solar panels and batteries than it is to create an equal amount of reliable power with fission.
Nuclear proponents will always state that fission can be done perfectly safe, and that’s true. But when you point out the cost, they then bitch about regulation making it expensive. Never do they connect the dots that it is precisely that heavy-handed regulation that ensures corporate profits don’t result in unsafe power plants.
Fission is an inherently dangerous technology. Yes, some modern plant designs are “intrinsically safe,” if they’re built right and maintained right and no greedy bastard corporation cuts corners somewhere to save a buck. In order to do nuclear safely, you have to regulate the ever-loving hell out of it and make sure every step of the process is checked and double checked, and that there is some neutral third party looking over everyone’s shoulders. Nuclear power, if done wrong, can go absolutely catastrophically wrong. It can render entire regions uninhabitable for generations. It can be done safely, but only if extremely heavily regulated and tightly controlled. And that is one thing that just inevitably makes fission power extremely expensive. There is no “move fast and break things” when you’re splitting atoms. Development is slow, expensive, and bureaucratic. And that is unfortunately just the way it has to be for this technology to be used safely in a for-profit capitalist society.
How’s it feel to be a fossil fuel stooge?
Quit huffing paint. The future is solar. Fission, like fossil fuels, is a dead-end technology.
What exactly does nuclear change about Russia, China and the middle east? That’s a massive non-sequitur
Besides, think of China what you will, they’ve been key in driving large scale cheap solar
Nuclear is the only energy that really solves our problems. Nothing to really be confused about there.
You’re taking solar for granted. You’re not asking the important questions. Like, what if they wont sell to us anymore, what’s the human cost of human life? Can you honestly openly hold solar as some separate high accomplishment against the genocides China and Russia are openly complicit it?
The same can be said for nuclear. Potentially even more so. 3 countries produce almost all of the world’s uranium. What if they stop selling? You can build a domestic solar panel industry if you want, you can’t magic a uranium deposit under your feet. Nuclear is slow, expensive and a national security risk. Renewables are none of these things. Stop shilling for the energy companies that want to keep their monopolies.
Silliness. Your counterpoints are valid, but mostly restate my last comment with somehow even less sense. Buying solar panels from China isn’t more a national security risk than uranium from Australia? I don’t think you really have a well though out point here.
I’ll restate my own here for posterity and leave you to it. Solar from China Russia bad. Nuclear from literally anyone else good. Nuclear is safer, cheaper, and more efficient in every way at scale.
Remember, solar is untenable, poorly adopted, and is actively being pumped in price. This is as cheap as it will ever be all things equal. Nuclear has had none of those luxuries. If you think the price drop of a untenable solution is impressive, wait until you see one that really works.
Nuclear is consistently among the most expensive ways to generate power, and only afloat due to massive government subsidies, especially when it comes to waste storage. Whereas solar and wind are only beaten (in some metrics) by natural gas when it comes to power per dollar, getting even cheaper at scale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Your original point was that renewables are being blocked by China, Russia and the Middle East. I disagree on China, but that’s not the point. How will nuclear, with all strings attached, succeed there, whereas solar and wind won’t? Silliness.
Like, what if they wont sell to us anymore, what’s the human cost of human life?
Come on, you’re smarter than that. Are you seriously asking, “what happens if China cuts off our supply of solar panels?” Are you a troll, or just dense?
Think about it. Just think about that for one god-damned second. Solar panels last for DECADES. And even after decades they still retain 75-80% of their original capacity. We move everything to solar, and then China cuts us off from new panels. So then…oh no…we can’t get any replacement panels. Clearly the whole nation will collapse!
Of course not. Unless you’re Mr. Burns, you’re not blockading the fucking Sun. This isn’t oil, or natural gas, or uranium someone can blockade or embargo. If the US gets cut off from new Chinese solar panels, we have literally DECADES to ramp up our own production until things really become a problem.
Isn’t China biggest producer of solar panel. And Russia LOVES nuclrar option. Not as much as France though.
Acknowledging reality is not the same thing as defeatism or “not doing anything.” I’d argue that putting your head in the sand and ignoring news/information you don’t like is more damaging and closely related to the majority of the world’s efforts over the past 50+ years.
Thinking everything is fine leads to apathy. Thinking there’s nothing we can do leads to apathy. The correct thought is that it’s bad, but we can fix it.
The correct thought… Wow, you solved the climate.
Sorry for being sarcastic. This take has been proven wrong for… forever? Humankind will not fix anything - we will do too little too late and suffer through the consequences as we always did.
I’m not saying it’s not worth a try. I’m saying it won’t work because not everyone is trying. By far not everyone.
Not everyone is as clever as you. Most people need hope in order to get motivated to take action. Being able to try your hardest without any hope based motivation is the sign of an iron will. It’s very rare. You should tell all the less exceptional people to have hope, because that’s how you get them to do things.
Those less exceptional people can fuck off. I have watched them mindlessly destroying our ecosphere for over 40 years now, and they are unstoppable in doing so (at least unstoppable by other humans; nature and physics will bite their ass, that’s for sure).
The reason why I don’t believe anything relevant will change: I’ve seen it. I’m a lifelong ecological activist (started in my early teens in the wake of Club of Rome; I’m nearing 60 now). Did a lot of activist stuff, always voted or volunteered for the green(er) parties, lead a local committee promoting preservation of nature and wildlife, tried to introduce carsharing in my community in the early 90s (boy, were they unready for that), live and promote a frugal lifestyle, no flights, no car, small flat, go around on my bike and on public transport, keep meat consumption low, wear out my stuff, etc.
And yes, there were changes in public, too. The people knew and know everything about those problems, the talk is all over the media, they get it crammed in their faces, ecology is a huge part of education and it even became a part of the lifestyle.
So I had hope, and I believed in solutions and in a change. And you know what? It all kept getting worse, and worse: It all KEEPS getting worse. Humans are not thinking ahead, they consume mindlessly. They are idiots, and when they will realise that we did too little too late then it really will be too late. It already is too late for most of humankind. (It’s in the physics of the problem, closed system etc.)
And you know what? I’m fine with that. They want it, they get it.
Sorry for drowning you in my rant. I’m bitter about the kids. We could have had it all and given them a nice working world, and instead we opted for the SUV and the cheap flights to be more important.
Those less exceptional people can fuck off. They can so fuck off.
Try thinking on longer timescales. Even if you’re resigned to the fact things aren’t going to get better in your lifetime, it might bring you some comfort to know that possibilities remain for a brighter future. Even if all of civilization collapses and humanity is reduced to a few survivors struggling in a few isolated regions, that can grow into something beautiful. Acknowledging that also means acknowledging that what you do in the present might contribute to the survival of a group of people, a way of life, a wealth of knowledge, or anything that is important to you.
If you’re convinced they’re so inferior, then how does letting them die make more sense than manipulating them into doing what you want? You know what they should be doing. They should be saving the world. If you’re better than them, then be a leader. Tell them what they need to hear to do the right thing. Genocide is much less fun than domination.
Yep.
One could also show the same meme template with stats where every bad development is even accelerating, spikes in co2-rise, record new numbers of consumption and pollution, the Amazon and other carbon sinks getting razed at growing speeds, a lot of carbon sinks turning into carbon emitters, nations voting for extremists who don’t care for ecology, glaciers and sea ice melting, all sorts of storms getting stronger and more destructive, the speed with which we are approaching or already have reached tipping points globally and locally…
Yeah, but let’s soothe ourselves with… cosmetics? I’m not denying that there’s some positive changes but that’s like trying to extinguish a house burning to the ground and engulfed in flames with one bucket of water.
My take is: People want to have a better world without changing their lifestyle - simply leave everything as it is and make it in some magical way non destructive and non polluting. EVs are a shining example of that - still ridiculous use of resources, but somehow they are “better”.
If you think that way you are part of the problem and part of its denial.
That is a good point about not wanting anything to change. We can not continue to live how we’ve lived if this will be solved. Reductions in population should help reduce demand and land use (enforced with law, of course), but some things people enjoy will have to go. You don’t need to eat foods grown thousands of miles away or to eat beef every day. You may have to endure temperature discomfort, lose personal transportation options, etc. Even these things are small, government (especially militaries) and business will need to be held to account and have their emissions massively reduced.
Indoor farming isn’t scalable. At least not with the models that are being done now. They work for niche crops, but not staple carb sources like potatoes and grains. They can be profitable, but aren’t a catch all solution.
The ocean cleaning projects also don’t scale. We should be focused on keeping the trash from getting into it first by switching to recyclable and biodegradable packaging and forcing the fishing industry to switch back to hemp nets.
I don’t think that scalable and profitable are goals of indoor farming. It’s done for self sustainability.
Idk about your first point but The Ocean Cleanup, has been doing great work creating plastic filters for the worlds most polluting river. I understand not creating the waste in the first place would be most efficient but this organization is doing a good job cleaning up the mess.
All true, but categorically the problem is growing much faster than the solution. It probably always will be unless it’s stopped from the source.
staple crops have too many subsidies to be a good source of comparison, and staple crops aren’t very healthy for people in general.
Regardless of the politics that modern staple crops are associated with, you still need calories. Why do you think rice was a second currency for a very long time in some parts of the world.
Also, the example of indoor farming that’s near me is absolutely running off of government money, at least for now. They got a grand to setup in an old warehouse in downtown, but also own some empty property in the neighborhood. This could be just them future proofing or it would be them looking to flip the property once the main site raises the property values.
And then there’s the MIT Food Computer, which promised a lot and delivered nothing. The smaller scale the production, the less efficient it is. If you want to feed the world’s population without a steep decline in that population, you’re going to need outdoor farming in addition to the indoor stuff.
Staple crops aren’t just your cheap empty calories. Legumes, carrots, sweet potatoes, squash, soybeans, onions, and some very healthy grains are all staple crops. Even the humble potato is fine, though many preparations of it are unhealthy. Take this soup:
- Lentils
- Carrots
- Onions
- Celery
- Potatoes
- Beans
- Vegetable broth made from the odds and ends
- Herbs & spices
Subsidies keep the farms alive in the first place. It’s simply not profitable to grow anymore. We make so much it’s too cheap to sell. Therefore the volume required and the margins are so razor thin. It’s make a profit or be bough-out by a bigger company.
kind of an ironic choice of template for the message
Disposable diaper use is going down, and a decreasing proportion is getting landfilled.
Today I was citing The Materialist Conception of History by Plekhanov and noticed that it had a huge spike in downloads this year. Gave me a spark of hope
what is it about?
Historical materialism which is an analysis of history through the lense of dialectical materialism which is the philosophical and scientific basis for Marxism. Essentially viewing history as a continuous development of the means of production motivated by societal contradictions. The focus is specifically on conflict that arises between the owning classes and the laboring classes of each historical mode of production.
I just smoked so this may not be the best explanation but its the best I got in me rn
It’s not scientific lol
Can you not study economics and politics scientifically?
I’d argue not, you can’t have reproducible experiments with control groups. You can’t really follow the scientific method with economics and politics.
Can’t fault you for consistency. Whether or not the soft or social sciences actually are “science” has been a conversation for a long ass time so I won’t argue lol.
I will say though, that Marxism is the closest I have seen to a proper scientific theory of political economy and I study a natural science (physics) so I think that counts for something.
Why perchance has the interest in a self-sustaining life skyrocketed you think? Could it be because people can barely afford food anymore?
Not just that, it’s a combination of factors. Sustainable thinking, independence, a connection to the world and self and much more.
I was on a road trip this weekend, and we had to clean the windshield 5 times. So it looks like the bugs are making a comeback thanks to restrictions on Monsanto products.
Don’t forget the huge investments by cities to build public and active transit. My city has invested over $1B into rail expansion projects and $500M into BRT. They’re currently tearing up half of downtown to widen sidewalks along with building bike lanes and bus lines. Things are changing more quickly than they seem. My city also advocated for a state law that was passed to fund passenger rail between 2 large nearby cities
Indoor farming is really exclusive for just a few produce tbh. Majority of vegie/fruits can’t be realistically indoor farmed.
At least i got my lettuce.
Idk… Iceland is doing pretty well with some large greenhouses. I was pretty amazed at the variety and quality of their fruits and veggies. That island has to deal with some serious issues but seem to be handling them quite well overall!
Greenhouses are not vertical skyscraper farms.
