Lance
Josh Adams
fooser
davenate
Mike O
Reading on Walden Bookstore
goesdownbitter
jack3566
Garnet SpyAs proposed by Lamont in comments here: a rapid reduction of the human population to 3-4 billion. In this case, by starvation, as opposed to plague or pestulence.
Note this piece of news about an alternative fuel effort:
Jatropha is drought-resistant and grows well even in sand, so some Florida farmers are uprooting their citrus groves to plant it.
And, to me, the kicker is this statement:
“Jatropha, on the other hand, is a non-food crop that has quite a bit of potential,” he said. “It is not a food vs. fuel [issue],” said Dalton.
No issue at all: no chance to make food out of it. So food sources, requiring 5 years and longer to be restored are being uprooted to plant this stuff.
We just lost over a fifth of the food crops in Iowa due to flooding, and, as I’ve pointed out before, there are massive consequences already ongoing from shifting a third of our corn to burn in our SUVs via government programs.
The following cannot be said often enough or loud enough:
- DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!
- GET OIL SHALE ROLLING!
- GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND GET THOSE REACTORS BUILT!
Filed under: Economics, Politics | Tagged: Environment, Fuel Crisis
Yeah, what’s a couple billion right? As long as it isn’t “us” (us = environuts). They’re just like the “we need another 9/11″ people, I don’t see any of them volunteering. What a bunch of dehumanized clowns.
Lay off Lamont, would you. It’s not cool to take potshots at readers in opening statements. :P He’s not advocating that we go around killing a billion people to solve our problems. You’re deliberately interpreting his comments in the most way possible, exactly like a politician would. If you don’t understand what I mean, go read this post on my friend’s blog:
http://aethari.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/does-democracy-promote-bad-reasoning-part-ii/
The genuine problem Lamont was getting at is overpopulation and sustainability. The population of the Earth is already quite high, with millions of people around the world living in starvation. Surely, we could resolve those problems if we wished, but looking to the future it’s clearly impossible to keep expanding our population and economic production forever. There just aren’t infinite resources for it.
As for bio-fuels, I oppose them. It’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard of, but it basically amounts to more subsidies for farmers, so I think you’ll see conservatives as well as “bionazis / bio-bots (or whatever childish name you use for environmentalists) arguing for them.
Closed loop Algae farms in the desert. Saltwater works just fine.
A good possibility, though still not scalable.
Issue: Massive quantities of algal waste; and the algal waste is from an artificial form of algae that has undergone major genetic engineering. Environmental impact of it getting into the natural environment? Who knows at this point.
Thinks that’s a laughable issue? There was a plant that was considered ideal for ground cover to prevent erosion and it’s planting advocated by many Dept. of Agriculture agents, including my grandfather. It’s called kudzu and ask any Southerner what they think about it. A runaway agae of negative impact would make that seem like nothing.