Archives > Real Life Discussion
Quite possibly the most amazing TED talk ever...
Asaad:
My concern is the mobility of livestock. For example, who in the U.S. is going to take it upon themselves to move livestock through Yellowstone park? I'm not sure privatized businesses would do so.
Rick:
Offers salvation for Africa, however in nations where it is not yet a necessity this will not happen. As a race we only acknowledge a problem when it is glaring right back at us.
I am a bit skeptical though; it restores grasslands but applying the concept to produce mass crops introduces additional factors. Sure he speaks about an increased crop yield, but what kind of % increase would be necessary for the natives to live sustainably and support themselves?
Having said that, any sort of increase fertility in the soil has got to be considered a revelation.
Ts Stormrage:
Having read some of the more intelligent omments on that vid, sme ranchers already do this in the states...
You may remember that last year saw a massive draught throughout most of the country, but the crops and livestock of the ones using these techniques suffered much much less or not at all... This is what his argument is for private business...
For public land and nature reserves, all you need to do is reintroduce the wildlife that was supposed to live there in the first place, along with its natural predators...
So, sorry Sarah, no more shooting wolves from a helicopter...
Also Rick; for a population to be at sustainable numbers and not wildly spawning offspring you got to give women a measure of control of their fertility cycle...
Most of the western world still spawned 5 or more children, even after the 2nd world war, but this has levelled off to about 2.1 children per two parents...
But when women in particular get an education, or even better, a job with income, their decision-making powers within the family advance greatly... These two factors are just about the only thing that you need to explain the birthrates on this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG
The odd factors out are ofc China with their 1-child policy that has caused many women fetusus to be aborted in favor of having one son over one daughter, and the methodology of estimating these numbers factor in the average age people die per country, making peace-prone europe and other healthy nations drop dramatically on this chart, and war-torn Afghanistan rise just as dramatically...
The additional factor to explain birthrates is religion. Parents who practise their religion will adhere to the ban on contraception, and are more likely to spawn not just more offspring, but offspring that is religious themselves as well... Once again; education can reduce much of this damage...
Elyxiatic:
--- Quote from: Ts Stormrage on April 14, 2013, 10:11:35 pm ---The good news in this is that, due to ever lowering cost of "alternative" energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) and rising costs of fossil fuels, the point where the green energies become cheaper than the dirty ones is rapidly approaching... When this happens, noone is going to invest in oil, coal, gas, etc anymore...
If you want to help bring this point closer much faster, do all you can do to stop new pipelines, new drilling projects, and new areas being given the green light to "develop", by voting and signing petitions, and all that... This will drive costs of fossil fuels up even faster...
--- End quote ---
I work in this industry so I think I have a bit of technical knowledge when I say the following:
A lot of people who analyze the industry from the outside use the terms you have used above - Phrases such as "due to ever lowering cost of alternative energy sources" and "rising costs of fossil fuels"; these are a very big generalization. The energy industry is primarily driven by "lowest cost" methodology. This takes into account generation, transmission, distribution, imports, exports & cost of fuel production. The energy market in any country is regulated with an overall body projecting future energy utilization by source. Green energy never shows 100% utilization in these projections in the next 50 years.
Some simple reasons off the top of my head why green energy cannot produce enough power are listed:
a) Wind power - Needs vast space between wind turbines and can only be placed along coastlines or naturally occurring wind tunnels created by landscape. Even when this occurs, it is not effective at converting mechanical power to electricity.
b) Hydroelectric - Can only be placed where you have a dam, or a naturally occurring waterfall. This is a very cheap source to run, but is limited by where it can be placed.
c) Photovoltaic (solar) - Very expensive. Yes, the power is basically free (after installation costs). However those installation costs are extremely high, and it takes an extremely long time for the capital paid in installation to be gained through electricity production.
d) Biomass - Cannot be done in large scale production.
The issue is that "green" energy can never fully compensate for fossil fuels. You will never get a worldwide 100% green energy production in the next 50-100 years, until the technology is developed further. In conjunction, fossil fuels are not rising in costs, much. Oil, maybe? Gas, no. Coal, no. For a fact I am 100% sure the coal price is stable each year within the normal 2-3% limits (I have seen the projections and history of the pricing).
The thing is, countries like Australia are not "switching" to green. Coal seam gas is relatively new (past 10-20 years), and the "switch" occurring is from coal to gas fired power stations. America might have nuclear power, but the change of this occurring in a lot of other countries is out of the question in the near future due to the extreme health risks.
I will post my thoughts after I watch the video.
Bam:
very interesting