How can we mitigate climate change 2?

[lynnvinc]

Guilty as charged.

I might somehow dredge up the willpower to change diet for the sake of my body, or as religious penance, but for “Mother Earth” — NEVER.

Go ahead, consign me to Purgatory (hopefully in Colorado).

ICXC NIKA

Well, there are 100s of things people can do to mitigate CC aside from diet – one can pick those that are most easy, doable, save money, or don’t cost.

That what I’m looking for - ideas one can do, not those that are distasteful or difficult.

 

[Sarcelle]

I’m sort of a backslider on the food thing, but I agree there are lots of food ideas to mitigate CC - so I am now encouraged to get back into some/most of these:

-use a pressure cooker

-eat more raw produce – which is also a cancer cure & a basic panacea for many conditions & diseases.

-go vegan, or vegetarian, or how about getting back to meatless Fridays, and maybe add in one more meatless day, say Tues, which is also the Sorrowful Mysteries.

-become a “locavore” - buy local & seasonal foods, & reduce those “food miles.”

• eat organic as much as possible; synthetic fertilizers involve more nitrous oxide emissions, a powerful GHG
• if overweight, eat less – it’s also good for your health (I’m glad a doctor finally scolded me, so I did lose some 35#, but have some 10# more to lose…mainly for health reasons, but glad it helps the env)

-waste not food. Put portions of cooked food in the freezer you won’t be eating that day. Also keeping the freezer & frig well-stocked reduces energy use

How feasible is it to go vegan in locations that have winters? Growing season is short in these areas. You can always transport food in but transportation consumes fossil fuels.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For instance, and it’s interesting, it takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat! Think of that! It means that each vegetarian saves at least a thousand gallons of water per day, depending upon how much meat they formerly ate. Which means, if one hundred million people did that each day it would amount to a hundred billion gallons of water saved! So, the numbers are just mind-boggling. What would a hundred billion gallons of water even look like? I have no idea…

I think I can tell you what saving all that water would look like. Where I live, it would look like a very minor (probably undetectable) amount of additional water flowing into the White River, thence to the Mississippi, thence into the Gulf of Mexico.

It would look like farm ponds bulldozed over because where I live, we get about four feet of rain per year. With nothing taking water out, they would just overflow, then go into local creeks, then into the White River, then into the Mississippi, then into the Gulf of Mexico.
No use for those ponds if nothing is drinking water from them. Out to sea with the water!

But that’s probably not the way it would be. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the grasslands will inevitably fill up with wild ruminants very much like cattle unless the government maintains a crew of shooters to keep them from it. Remember, most of the U.S. grasslands won’t grow anything people can eat. Just grass. That’s about 1/3 of the land in the U.S. So what will fill in? Well, when Columbus landed, there were just about the same number of buffalo in the U.S. as there are now cattle. So, maybe buffalo, elk, antelope, deer, on the otherwise abandoned grasslands? They drink water too.

But if the government hunters kill off all the wild ruminants and keep them killed out, then yes, we would have a little more water flowing into the Gulf of Mexico…maybe. As hoofed animals, cattle aid in water retention in the grasslands. So maybe there would be no gain at all in the water flowing out to sea.

So, if we got rid of all the cattle, we would probably see no difference at all in the water availability in the places that need it. And what does anybody propose anyway? That our excess rainfall be captured and sent to the Sahel or somewhere?

But I will grant one thing. In my judgment, it is a great waste to have government subsidized irrigation projects in California drylands so people there won’t have to ship milk in from places where it actually rains.

 

[tomarin]

I’m more inclined to ride a bike or walk than drive a car whenever possible, so it’s easy for me but: ride a bike or walk whenever possible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Likely the biggest thing we can do to reduce atmospheric carbon is to support programs that sequester it in the soil or plant structures.

So, for example, encouraging ranchers, even with subsidies if need be, to never graze below about 8" except in the wintertime. Builds root structures. In some places, planting native grasses and allowing them to mature properly would put an enormous amount of carbon under the ground. Some of those “prairie” varieties’ roots will go down 20 feet or more, and are quite dense. They hold water as well.

Some trees are very fast-growing, and some are not. The “fast growers” could be encouraged, and the ones that drop branches to rot could be discouraged in places where they don’t belong. They sequester carbon, and a lot of it if they’re fast-growing. Where I live, a white oak on decent ground will live for up to 600 years. A black walnut won’t live that long, but its wood is so valuable nobody wastes it by burning it. Even so, one of those will live 150-250 years, producing valuable walnuts the whole time.

Trouble is, though, that poor management practices have desertified huge portions of the earth in other parts of the world, and it’s not getting any better. Not much we can do about that.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s something that can be part of our future energy mix in some areas along coasts -

Report highlights potential of tidal lagoon technology - at renewableenergyfocus.com/view/45252/official-report-highlights-potential-of-tidal-lagoon-technology/

also see youtube.com/watch?v=ueRAjo8sS4E

instead of bickering about whether CC is real or dangerous, we ought to be looking into efficiency, conservation, and various renewable sources of energy that do less environmental harm – not just CC & local pollution, but our fossil fuels will be running out.

 

[Bradski]

If only there was a nearby star that flooded us with free energy and we had the knowledge to convert this to electricity…

 

[GEddie]

If only there was a nearby star that flooded us with free energy and we had the knowledge to convert this to electricity…

Or we knew how to make that energy move stuff, as was shown in a popular space movie two generations ago…

 

[lynnvinc]

…Nature abhors a vacuum, and the grasslands will inevitably fill up with wild ruminants very much like cattle unless the government maintains a crew of shooters to keep them from it. Remember, most of the U.S. grasslands won’t grow anything people can eat. Just grass…

You are correct on that.

In one of the readings in my Intro to Env Studies course they spoke about that, and that we would need cattle (or some other ruminant) for the grasslands, both to help “plow” it and fertilize it.

So grass-fed beef fine.

We did eat grass-fed beef in Florida, but the corn-fed beef in Wisconsin tasted much better. However, grass-fed it also much better for the health, with much less heart problem risk, etc.

So grass-fed beef is fine… Just add more A-1 sauce

 

[lynnvinc]

Likely the biggest thing we can do to reduce atmospheric carbon is to support programs that sequester it in the soil or plant structures.

So, for example, encouraging ranchers, even with subsidies if need be, to never graze below about 8" except in the wintertime. Builds root structures. In some places, planting native grasses and allowing them to mature properly would put an enormous amount of carbon under the ground. Some of those “prairie” varieties’ roots will go down 20 feet or more, and are quite dense. They hold water as well.

Some trees are very fast-growing, and some are not. The “fast growers” could be encouraged, and the ones that drop branches to rot could be discouraged in places where they don’t belong. They sequester carbon, and a lot of it if they’re fast-growing. Where I live, a white oak on decent ground will live for up to 600 years. A black walnut won’t live that long, but its wood is so valuable nobody wastes it by burning it. Even so, one of those will live 150-250 years, producing valuable walnuts the whole time.

Trouble is, though, that poor management practices have desertified huge portions of the earth in other parts of the world, and it’s not getting any better. Not much we can do about that.

good ideas. I heard that we’ve lost 1/2 of our topsoil (which was very rich) since Europeans came. Bad agri practices.

Also, don’t eat beef from the Amazon rain forest areas. Once they chopped down the trees for grazing land and growing crops, the soil was depleted very soon, became moonscape, & farmers had to move on & destroy more rain forest.

In tropical rain forests the soil is poor, most of the nutrients are in the plants & trees…

 

[BornInMarch]

Personal choices are not enough to deal with this problem; if we want to mitigate the effects of climate change, we need to pressure governments and businesses to adopt more environmentally friendly practices across the board.

 

[lynnvinc]

Personal choices are not enough to deal with this problem; if we want to mitigate the effects of climate change, we need to pressure governments and businesses to adopt more environmentally friendly practices across the board.

Many are doing so bec most measures save money. Al Gore as VP got the gov to become more energy efficient/conservative to the tune of saving us taxpayers over $1billion a year.

3M has their 3P (Pollution Prevention Pays) program.

The gov can also incentivize people even further to become energy/resource efficient/conservative, and go on alt energy.

I’m in favor of “Fee & Dividend,” in which a fee is put on every ton of coal and barrel of oil that comes out of the ground or into a port, then that money is divvied up equally among all SS card holders and given back in monthly payments – the way Bush gave us back some income tax. Then people can use that money to either pay for their higher energy bills, or use it for up-front costs in becoming more energy efficient/conservative, or going on alt energy, and really be on the road to prosperity.

However, I suppose Trump will kill all those programs (which should be increased) and veto such bills, since his business interests are in fossil fuels. We’ll just have to wait 4 years.

 

[goout]

Many are doing so bec most measures save money. Al Gore as VP got the gov to become more energy efficient/conservative to the tune of saving us taxpayers over $1billion a year.

3M has their 3P (Pollution Prevention Pays) program.

The gov can also incentivize people even further to become energy/resource efficient/conservative, and go on alt energy.

I’m in favor of “Fee & Dividend,” in which a fee is put on every ton of coal and barrel of oil that comes out of the ground or into a port, then that money is divvied up equally among all SS card holders and given back in monthly payments – the way Bush gave us back some income tax. Then people can use that money to either pay for their higher energy bills, or use it for up-front costs in becoming more energy efficient/conservative, or going on alt energy, and really be on the road to prosperity.

However, I suppose Trump will kill all those programs (which should be increased) and veto such bills, since his business interests are in fossil fuels. We’ll just have to wait 4 years.

That’s ok, 4 years will go by quickly.
Ice will still be melting somewhere.

And remember, the ice ages were not very long ago, and that ice melted purely without human influence, so there’s still hope.

 

[lynnvinc]

That’s ok, 4 years will go by quickly.
Ice will still be melting somewhere.

And remember, the ice ages were not very long ago, and that ice melted purely without human influence, so there’s still hope.

It’s probably already too late to reverse a certain amount of CC carnage of the world’s people on into the future for 100s, if not 1000s, of years. All we can do now is cut our losses as much as possible. Make it not so bad for our future generations. And every year, every day that we delay in doing what is good, right and just re CC only contributes more to the problem.

So 4 years is a very big deal.

 

[Sarcelle]

I work in the railroad industry and let me add we have new locomotives that meet the strictest Tier 4 emission guidelines.

Not to mention trains are a good and green way of transporting a huge amount of goods long distances. A lot better than trucks. Trucks are still required to bring those goods to the final consumer but for the long haul trains do a good job.

 

[lynnvinc]

I work in the railroad industry and let me add we have new locomotives that meet the strictest Tier 4 emission guidelines.

Not to mention trains are a good and green way of transporting a huge amount of goods long distances. A lot better than trucks. Trucks are still required to bring those goods to the final consumer but for the long haul trains do a good job.

That’s great. I’m glad to hear what various sectors are doing.

I think even trucks are getting “greener.”

 

[Sarcelle]

That’s great. I’m glad to hear what various sectors are doing.

I think even trucks are getting “greener.”

Yes. Trucks are getting greener.

My own car is classified a ULEV, ultra-low emissions vehicle.

My supplier for electrical power at home gets its power from a nearby wind farm.

Back when I lived in Hawaii, I used solar panels for electricity and to heat water. It was very effective in heating water.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes. Trucks are getting greener.

My own car is classified a ULEV, ultra-low emissions vehicle.

My supplier for electrical power at home gets its power from a nearby wind farm.

Back when I lived in Hawaii, I used solar panels for electricity and to hear water. It was very effective in heating water.

In 2002 when we moved to Texas we went on 100% wind energy from Green Mountain.

Then in 2012 bought a Volt a few years before our retirement in 2015, and we thought of it a “luxury splurge,” since all our other cars over our 45 years of marriage had been used cars (except one). However, we soon found we were saving about $800 a year on that (electricity is cheaper than gasoline) – which is great now that we are retired.

Then in 2013 we installed solar panels to cover 40% of our electricity – in Texas the excess solar power is fed back into the grid. Again we are saving $$ and that helping us during our retirement.

Our best return on the buck investment, however, has been our low-flow showerhead that cost us $6 in 1990 and saves us 1/2 the hot water (I did a bucket/stopwatch test on the old and new showerhead), which means about $100 in water and energy to heat it each year – so we’ve saved over $2500 on that. Not bad for a $6 investment. And while we did notice a very slight decrease in water pressure in Aurora, IL, down in Texas, where the water pressure is higher, we don’t notice any difference.

Our experiences with “going green” and “saving money” have led me to sing out, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you. Hallelu-halleluia!”

 

[GEddie]

Also, consider converting lawn space into garden space. Lawns are a very wasteful use of land if they are not being inhabited by the laughter of children playing in them.

• 1, except that in some suburbia type locales, growing a front lawn is probably required.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Australia has just gone on El Nino watch. Which means more drought. Again. If sst persist in rising over the next few months.