What to do with climate change and biodiversity loss, lpol?

Too many people consuming too much resources.

Everything's on the table, speak your mind.

Extra points if it's practical.

Attached: biodiversity-loss-feature-image.jpg (1436x1016, 220.81K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Stop producing for exchange, which encourages products that break down and need to be replaced. Go nuclear and phase out most existing power plants, attempt to harness renewable energy once companies are gone. Transform cities for mass transport and replace existing cars with electric. Revamp waste systems to make recycling and composting easy on a mass scale. All will require we put porky in the ground.

Biodiversity loss along with more extreme weather events and unpredictable climate patterns will intensify the number of droughts, famines, and coastal storm events experienced over the next few decades. These effects, along with energy descent and the continuing crises of capitalism, will eventually overwhelm the abilities of bourgeois governments to manage, leading to widespread economic and political collapse. After a period of chaos, human societies will stabilize and reconstitute themselves at a lower level of complexity, hopefully reorganized along socialist lines to prioritize sustainable, low-growth economic activity while meeting all peoples' basic needs.

Nuclear is stupid, insofar as it means fission plants. Geothermal is a better option. The waste problem with fission has not been solved; the "molten salt reactor" shills are promoting an unproven technology that is essentially a bomb given the highly reactive and corrosive nature of the salt. It also means proliferating nuclear technology. On top of that, the tested designs for fission have a dreadful energy return on investment. I reserve judgement on fusion technology; ITER might reach breakover and the materials scientists might manage to deal with the induced radioactivity problem in the tokamak core.

Electric transportation is dependent on lithium battery technology. There's not enough of this metal to build the required number of electric vehicles. Moving personal transportation to bicycles is a better solution. It's a proven solution in many asian states and it will deliver health benefits.

Geoengineering the climate, cloning extinct species and genetic diversity, and nigh limitless resources from extraterrestrial sources, will ultimately allow us to restore damage being done now or otherwise reshape the earth as we see fit. Aside from our own effect on the planet there are natural processes that will have similar effects if left unchecked, for instance in the case of anthropogenic global warming, Milankovic cycles mean that within the millennium we are due for another glaciation, so keeping the climate within a "Goldilocks zone" if we care will be down to us regardless.

Attached: HFY_Avatar.png (1920x1080, 1.64M)

Sequester as much carbon as possible into biomass. Earth has a fixed quantity of carbon, stored in 3 places
Burning fossil fuels transfers carbon from minerals to the atmosphere.
Deforestation transfers carbon from biomass to the atmosphere.
We don't have the technology (right now) to transfer much carbon into minerals, but we can promote growth of more biomass. The transfer back into minerals is a long-term process where biomass gets stored in the earth's crust as oil or gas. Industrializing has undone tens of millions of years of carbon sequestration that we need to redo in under a century.

We're probably fucked but the best thing is to do everything that we know increases biomass. And obviously the first thing to do when you're in a hole is stop digging.
One of the most effective things may be to reintroduce apex heterotrophs, as many of them have profound knock-on effects that encourage a wider variety of life and more biomass. Wolves in Yellowstone are probably the most dramatic example of this.

Wanting to preserve the climate is liberal and reactionary

"We" can do nothing.
Maybe if the corporations would finally stop spraying shit like glyphosat on our produce?
Every attempt to stop it was undermind by their stoogy politicians who often went against party discipline. Something that would've been terrible if a leftist did this, but the sins of right-wingers are always forgiven and forgotten. And the PR company takes care of the more stubborn cases.

Cheap clean energy is an integral component.

Attached: lunarsolarpower.webm (360x360, 2.37M)

Utter nonsense, molten salt reactors have been tested and they're not "essentially a bomb" because unlike hard water reactors that rely on inputs to prevent the reaction from going out of control, molten salt reactors rely on active inputs to keep the reaction running at all. The design is inherently safe (aside from some sort of intentional sabotage). You're right on energy return from investment though, at some point it will take more energy to extract available uranium/thorium than is produced by them in reactors, and estimates are that a fully nuclear infrastructure would use up most of energy-positive fissile material in a matter of decades.

Total idiocy. A proof of concept reactor run as a short term experiment decades ago does not equal a practical energy generation technology. You're trying to pull the equivalent of claiming that JET is practical fusion reactor. No.
Also, the reactor is full of an extremely group one metal. YES, IT IS A BOMB.

Some of those making this argument assert that we've already passed that point. The French are running their electrical generation 80% nuclear.

extremely reactive.

Agreed. Also, nuclear is (unlike sustainables) dependent on a centrally controlled fuel source, and has a lengthy history of financial insecurity requiring constant bailouts by the actually profitable parts of the electric industry and by taxpayers.
A variety of systems together are the best option, since they aren't mutually exclusive. Geothermal where there's easy access to volcanism, tidal/wave where there's turbid coastline, solar over "grayfield/brownfield" land, wind over areas with service roads (i.e.: farmland and offshore), and perhaps deep-sea thermal/osmotic gradient projects. Also necessary, due to the intermittence of most sustainable power, is grid storage, such as subterranean compressed gas, hydrogen fuel cells, and broad adoption of consumer storage systems for off-peak power such as electric vehicles and geothermal heat pump HVAC.

Another reason to use a variety of sustainable energy sources is cogeneration, where waste byproducts (heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, steam, water, etc.) of energy generation/storage are directly put to productive use for applications such as heavy industry and centralized district HVAC.
The problem with energetically confined fusion is that as the power of the reaction increases, the power needed to maintain confinement also increases, so there is no theoretical proof that breakeven is actually possible, and a century of failure by the smartest, best-funded scientists in the world to argue is isn't.

If I were to bet on any type of fusion generator, it would be inertially confined fusors, since its method of confinement (the speed at which plasma can expand) is 100% known, fixed, and free. All that's needed for fusors to surpass breakeven (plus enough surplus to breed fuel, of course) is to generate enough energy per ignition.
Conventional batteries, where the electrolyte (which stores energy, i.e.: Watt-hours) and the catalyst (which turns it into power, i.e.: Watts) necessarily occupy the same volume can have this problem, but they're not the only option. There's also "unitized reversible/regenerative fuel cells", sometimes termed "flow batteries", which separate electrolyte storage from the catalyst. While you've probably heard of hydrogen fuel cells, fact is that fuel cells can be used for any battery chemistry, including lithium ion:
If the maximum power output of a battery with a given energy capacity is far higher than needed for a given application, a fuel cell with the same energy capacity but much lower power can be used, with a proportional reduction in the amount of (expensive AND HEAVY) catalyst. Further, if only intermittent bursts of peak power rather than sustained high power are needed, a buffer device (for instance, ultracaps, which are cheap in weight and power/$ but expensive in terms of energy/$) can be charged by the fuel cell, further reducing the necessary power of the fuel cell.
In case you're wondering why hydrogen has received so much attention if other types of fuel cell are possible, or why other types of fuel cell would be useful if hydrogen is so popular for it, it has to do with efficiency, availability, and safety. Hydrogen, or more properly hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells, have an extremely abundant supply of resources for electrolyte production, air and water, which makes them great for grid storage, and the electrolyte is also completely nontoxic, which makes it ideal for "open loop" systems in which electrolyte is cracked by a dedicated electrolyzer and simply exhausted to the environment when used. Also, the nontoxic nature, lightness, and abundance of hydrogen mean it can be liquified as jet fuel. On the other hand, hydrogen is annoyingly difficult to store or transport in small amounts, and its fuel cells are among the least efficient, which makes other chemistries better for compact self-contained applications like electric vehicles
Don't be inane, if you have to go somewhere on time, you do. If you want to be that way, eliminating transportation (telecommuting, trade tariffs, "milk truck"-style delivery/pickup, etc.) is the "better solution".

All plutonium breeders (i.e.: all breeders, since all of them, even "muh thorium reactors" transmute their fuel to weapons-grade plutonium) are in fact "essentially an atomic bomb". Unlike conventional reactors, breeders are designed in such a way that they can literally achieve supercriticality and literally detonate like an atomic bomb, not just due to intentional sabotage, but by accident.
No, the fluid and energy dynamics of molten/gaseous/plasmatic salt and plutonium within a breeder reactor are incredibly chaotic, and it is well within theoretical probability that an accidental failure during an internal explosion/implosion could reconfigure the core into a bomb, PDF related.
Agreed (in fact, I remember calculating less than 6 years at positive ERoEI if all current energy consumption went nuclear) if you're talking about conventional reactors, but breeders would last centuries on currently known reserves ignoring that civilization would be flattened by constant nuclear terrorism.


People talkin bout the scarcity of rare metals for batteries should really look into carbon batteries.

Figure out how to do everything synthetically that nature does for us already. A storm is coming, and we better prepare.

Fusion won’t be here tell 2050 at the earliest.

If you live in Iceland

The waste isn’t “waste” it’s a resource. It can be used to produce radioisotope thermal generators which can power drones and space probes.

Nothing wrong with this. Nuclear powers don’t go to war because of MAD. So nuclear proliferation stops war so it’s a good thing.

No instead a small group of people almost accidentally or intentionally obliterates civilization once every decade.

Attached: The Doomsday Machine.jpg (160x240, 26.21K)

Most nuclear waste by volume isn't spent fuel and the like ("high level" waste) but "low level" waste, e.g.: Coolant, lubricant, cleaning supplies, consumable parts, broken machines, scraps, tools, clothing. Literal radioactive trash, that can only be dealt with exactly like any other trash (incinerate, compact, dump), except it's too radioactive to go in a normal landfill.

Further, most high level waste can't actually be used in a conventional reactor, but only in a breeder, in the process of which even greater amounts of low level nuclear waste will be generated.

You can only drill holes into the earth in Iceland? Okay, brainlet.

Antinatalism campaign to reduce global human population to less than 500 million.

Dual carbon batteries use lithium salts, you utter mongoloid.

Hang all eco-fascists as a start. As long as they're around they're going to keep creeping into the woodwork.

But none of that will ever happen because it doesn't make profit right now.

Think about it. Waste is engineered into the system. It is to a company's maximum advantage if you buy their product, use only a little of it, waste the rest, and then go buy more. You know that those "pump style" dispensers of soap or shampoo or hand sanitizer or whatever don't have tubes long enough to reach the bottom. You can only use ~95% of the product before nothing else comes out anymore. Oh sure, you can open the thing up and scrape out the rest of the product, but most people don't. They just throw it away and buy a new one. Did you think this short tube isn't INTENTIONALLY designed that way? Of course it is! If the soap company can manipulate you into buying 95% of the product for 100% of the price, then they pocket that remained in pure profit. It doesn't cost them any more to waste, so waste means profit, so long as it's the consumer that is (forced to) waste. Don't even get me started on fucking printer ink.

There is no hope. The best thing you can do right now is pray for the strength to survive the remaining decades of your life when the SHTF, and DON'T have children and deliberately subject other lives to the coming Hell.

The Cold War, a half century period of tense nuclear standoff was come and gone without war. This is proof of MAD. That book is proven wrong by us still standing here.

Climate change is a material condition. And material conditions cause revolutions. Climate change might just wheat we need to topple the capitalist regime.

Fuck off defeatist. Defeatism causes people to give up. And when people give up nothing gets done. The best chance of survival is for us to push through the current crises with hard determination.

Your assuming to things. That a) it won’t tomorrow, and b) capitalism will still be around tomorrow

You can unscrew the cap though. There is a realistic limit to how effective pumps can be in a container, it's not a conspiracy to encourage waste so much. Maybe there is something to be said about people who are so lazy they need a pump in the first place, and the plastic that could be saved by just making the damn container, but there are probably reasons why someone with arthritis would want the pump, or some other disability-related reason.

The difficulties of engineering efficiency in some of the simplest products is a large reason to be skeptical of liberals and greens who think they can engineer the whole planet and somehow force a Green economy on people by making their lives a living hell with enforced scarcity. It's lunacy and it's far removed from anything that would actually help people or even counteract in a realistic way the changes that are going to take place.

Until you purge the hardcore Greens from the left and start putting people and sense first, whatever plan you put forward is doomed, because the Greens operate from the starting position that a mass reduction of population is necessary (and when pressed enough, their motives for doing this are purely political).

Abolishing transport or, worse, confining people to megacities, is the worst idea imaginable and can only be enforced with a ridiculously expensive police state or a ridiculously expensive war to eliminate large swaths of people (which inevitably serves an elite class anyway, and thus would be a perpetual campaign). The likely future, if people weren't stupid, would be de-urbanization to a large degree and the abolition of distinction between rural and urban in general, outside of some hubs of cultural or political importance. This will by necessity be a very gradual process, but I don't see socialism working with huge megacities ruling over rural areas in the long run.

Give it time

Precautionary principle. Best not to have apocalyptic amounts of nuclear weapons armed on a hair trigger at all times, especially now that basically all of the hostilities that underlied the Cold War have vanished, replaced with the laughable fakeness of our current standoff with China, and the utter farce that is Russian militarism.

Attached: world-rate-of-profit.png (6107x3987, 623.66K)

Lol do you have any idea how long that would take? How many nuke plants we need? Certain applications that HAVE TO use fossil fuels? What to do with agriculture?

Citation needed

When and with what money, pray tell, are we going to do this? And geoeng could backfire. And species are going extinct without getting gene sequenced.

Most of the land biomass is locked in humans and human food. Unless you're saying "better call Thanos" that biomass in not coming to you.

Hello, osmium.

The food has to come from somewhere, eh?

Please explain how a bicycle will not get you somewhere on time, fatty.

It's FLiBe .Those "extreme metals" have reacted with fluorine. Not even oxygen can react not.

FLiBe at ~800C. Much as it won't immediately explode on contact with air and water, it's still so reactive it eats piping for breakfast.

How long till that takes effect?

2100 is a little bit too late.

Electrolyzed hydrogen

Like I said, it's not a question of if we're going to take control of the climate, but when, because of natural dynamism inherent to the ecosystem. Obviously, preventing manmade damage in the first place will save expense (and probably suffering, given our civilization's lackadaisical attitude to such important efforts) in both the short and long runs.

If you have to get across town in ten minutes instead of an hour, a bicycle won't cut it. In order to make bicycles (or, indeed, walking) practical, what's needed is to reduce the amount of routine long-distance travel people need to do

KEK Fuck the planet tbqh

Don't reproduce

Attached: 8c9d99393a9ea3417dae8a7644fb096db10cc0fd60e830383962ac5c0acde2b2.jpg (680x680, 104.22K)


required reading for anyone in this thread.

Wrong. Too many corporations using too many resources to make shit we don't need for profit. Don't blame the worker. Read Marx.

Why should we read it, when you haven't read it?

Interesting word

I don't even think it's something that can be chalked up to hyper-consumerism. The amount of waste and extravagance by the upper class, replicated with the middle class, is staggering. The police state functions of the modern totalitarian state do not come cheap, and the enforcers - the police, schools*, much of the psychiatric trade, propaganda outlets selling ideology, the deleterious effect of all of these on worker morale - are paid some prime dollars. (* I should clarify here that the primary function of schools isn't so much education as it is socialization and placing a minimum pressure on the working class towards intellectual development; much of the actual learning from schools does not come from the active instruction, but the social pressure to pass through the system placing an extra motivator on the child and the parents to spur their own learning. This is the way it works, or doesn't work, in every strata of child that I have ever seen in the system, from the college bound to the speds. More important than any learning though is the use of schools to detect for unwanted behaviors and possible sedition, and to promote those children who are most ready to defend the ruling order and to promote unthinking toadies. I don't know how many well-educated idiots have been given the appearance of intellect just for saying the right things and the right time and playing the game. That's the rub with meritocracy though, isn't it, it just turns into nepotism and eventually it becomes hereditary, just like the inheritance of capital.)

Why don't you fuck off, liberal?

You'll be necessary later, to carry a gun or lay down a railway, but right now we don't need you here.

The threat of Nuclear War helps prevent conventional war, where because people fear that a conventional war will become nuclear, no superpower will wage a conventional war with another superpower.

that needs energy to be produced. And quite a lot of it.

the same people that released this piece of crap

Socialism has the potential to be green. A society which socializes production and places it under rational, direct human control (without subsuming it under a bureaucracy which prioritizes industrialization and competition with the capitalist world, as happened in the 20th century) could choose to restrict growth, conserve resources and channel technological development towards reducing work hours instead of reinvesting it in more work. It wouldn't happen automatically though, it would require a conscious choice on behalf of working people.

By contrast green strategies are impossible under capitalism even if we wanted them, due to the very mechanics of the system.

True, but even the threat of conventional war has almost completely subsided. If anything, the greatest threat to peace (for major powers, the 3rd world is nearly as wartorn as ever) right now isn't underlying tensions between national bourgeoisie as in the past, but the very persistence of overpowered anti-superpower militaries. In other words, the MIC itself independent from other sectors of capital.
Yes, but due to higher efficiency less well-to-turbofan energy would be required than kerosene. Also, natural gas would be an ideal transitional fuel in jets designed for cryogenic liquid fuel which might spur the reemergence of IMHO cool looking "flying wing" designs due to the unsuitability of "wet wing" tanks for cryo.
Other poster's point wasn't that Kissinger's paper was necessarily accurate, but that it's policy.

This is a MAJOR thing all the ahistorical "automation" faggots can't seem to comprehend. Jevons' Paradox is ironclad law under capitalism, because the arbitrary choice to funnel greater productivity into relaxation versus higher production is NEVER going to be the former as long as porky is making the decision.

Growth has only ever been sacrificed for leisure due to labor agitation, NOT technology alone.

Attached: jevons.jpg (740x405, 38.07K)

You're not wrong, insofar as it is a good idea to reduce travel distances. You are wrong in asserting that bicycles are sixfold slower than motorised transport.

No it's not. That's whitehouse.gov, the president's propaganda page.


The stopping of producing things because people think it's valuable. We use a lot of things that are completely unecessary.
Going nuclear of course, and changing to fusion power later on. But no uranium, since excavating and using it is harmful and inefficient, thorium would work better as a nuclear fuel. Solar power is also an option.
Extraterrestrial colonizing. This one synergizes well with the top one: hydrogen-3 and helium-3, useful in fusion power, are rare on Earth, but can be found in the dust that covers the Moon. Also, mineral-rich asteroids.
Dyson Swarms! And I'm not joking. If we harvested even 1% of the Sun's power, our energy budget would raise expotentially.
Genetic engineering and CRISPR. From engineering crops to give more food while consuming the same amount of resources, to modifying trees to consume more carbon dioxide, the possibilities are endless. Also, ending diseases and helping the human race to adapt to inhabitable/extraterrestrial enviroments.

Again, of course, this cannot be done without the abolishment of capitalism, naturally.

lol no, America, Russia, and China are all increasing military spending. And the EU is creating a united army.

The plaines with those designs are still in use.

pick one

it isn’t inefficient, and it being “harmful” well sorry to burst your bubble, but all energy power is “harmful” it’s picking the option that is the least “harmful".

Good idea, but lithium extraction is pretty on par with uranium extraction in terms of environmental damage, it should be done, but don’t ignore one over the other.

Attached: 1280px-B-2_Spirit_(cropped).jpg (1280x658, 93.75K)

Thorium is more abundant than uranium but it also is more dispersed. Thorium mining would require the same kind of harmful whole-surface mining.

If we're going back to the moon to do that we won't need to bother with that shit anyway. See


Lel, shit is so unbelievably fucked. Methane clathrates in the Arctic are going to completely fuck everyone's shit up within a matter of years and almost nobody is talking about it.

All of their supposed justifications to go to war are bullshit. Russia is 100% pure meme backwater with an overhyped military that several EU members could solo, and an economy on par with Spain's.

As for China/EU/USA? If neoliberalism continues, direct war would be economic murder-suicide, just as it has been for decades. If populist tariffs and migrant quotas are imposed, nobody is going to be able to plunder the 3rd-world anymore, so there will be nothing to squabble over.
I mean becoming the majority design for large aircraft, especially civilian transports.
> archive.fo/LbxE4
That study and many like it are farcical, as the primary threat of death from nuclear isn't its normal operation, but its unmatched capacity for horrendous catastrophe, whether accidental or intentional. Further, the low number of disasters attributable so far to nuclear is precisely because of the relentless pressure placed on its inveterate misconduct by anti-nuclear activists, and harsh regulations by governments in response to such activism:
Lithium and other catalysts, especially if conserved through the use of vastly more efficient "flow batteries" as I noted upthread is a material used to build durable items, that can be reconditioned and recycled, excepting increases to total capacity. Nuclear fuel, on the other hand, is something that is exhausted, requiring virgin deposits to be mined in perpetuity. Also, lithium is no less necessary for external application of solar electricity than for nuclear, unless you're talking about rare earths used in the manufacture of PV panels, in which case even ignoring the recyclability of PV panels, I must point out that thermal solar is IMHO the superior option for grid-scale solar due to its more mundane material requirements.

Gee, that sounds like a great plan that would surely work out fine.

There's lots of other (not mutually exclusive) hypothetical runaway death spiral scenarios for global warming, like deep sea current inversion and north/south hemispheric jetstream reversal. Some variations don't even require global warming to kick them off.

Attached: Northrop's Airplane of Tomorrow (1948)-IE0tKalLsTU.mp4 (852x480, 15.06M)

What we need is circular economy, direct state-investments in biomass, Green infrastructure and psychotherapy kryptogulag for spoiled ecocidists, communalized ownership, abolishment of patents and universal basic footprints grants. For work, you can gain ecological footprint tokens according to the labour theory of value. Say bye to your luxurious Westerm lifestyle. Say hello to the glorious world of social ecology.

Communism is green. Marx wrote: >“[…]communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature[…].

Attached: logo.png (149x147 127.98 KB, 26.75K)

You could stand inside one of these microwave collection points and all you would feel is a little warm.

Another important point about solar energy collected on the moon is that you wouldn't need the power storing devices that you do collecting solar energy on earth to power things at night. We're talking about a 24/7 power source that doesn't need to be stored.

Under normal conditions, yes. But what if some sort of coup, incursion, or hacking subverted it? Precautionary principle, my man.

Attached: moonraker.jpg (1031x1600, 602.1K)

That can be an argument against a lot of things though. Nuclear, geothermal, dams…

God, that movie was awful. It was the worst idea ever to turn 007 into farce comedy. What makes it even worse is that it was preceded and succeeded by two of the best Bond films ever made: The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.

Attached: james-bond.jpg (1600x1200, 210.68K)

Precisely. We don't just need sustainable infrastructure, but safe and democratic infrastructure.

Attached: energy feasibility.jpg (600x452, 71.05K)

I didn't know there are green anarchists that are not only for statism, but also support reddit initiatives like the earth strike. I think you should change your flag.

I lived for several months on outlaw farms with no leaders. We built wind turbines, cultivated after permaculture, had consensus assemblies and so on. Against deforestation and coal-mining, I co-occupied the Hambach Forest. Do you really think I need to change my flag? I'm totally for an emancipatory environmentalist grassroots revolution. But as long Westerners are so focused on consumption and technology, you simply cannot adress the ecological crises without authority. Just like Nietzsche wrote:

Attached: fridaysforfuture.jpg (536x758 72.19 KB, 118.27K)

Feels pretty good. I don't see why the resistance would have to be authoritarian though. Seizing private property isn't authoritarian but rebelling against authority. And the process of seizure doesn't need to be centralized. The more distributed it is, the harder it is to fight. Feel free to make the case.

Attached: 1411769817206.png (1512x1512, 2.09M)

Tax dirty energy. Subsidize clean energy. Stop glorifying ignorance and science-denial.

Attached: inhoffe snowball.jpg (499x270 66.46 KB, 93.74K)

Sure : seizing private property is authoritarian (new authorities), while abolishing it isn't.

While I don't believe humans can do macroscopic climate correction I clearly can see that pollution is immidiately harmful for DAS FOLK. Therefore national pollution regulation is clearly necessary by a powerfull state for the benefit of the people. Obviously the question of polluting shitholes like China or Russia would immidiately spring up and I think the combination of international sanctions and tarrifs would be the go-to option. I am glad to see most leftists value environment in some way or another, but please do not go full PETA-retarded(in their "methods").