State of the Planet

This is absolutely fascinating. Interestingly, the cement industry produces ~5% of global c02 emissions [0]. (Cement is an important binding element in concrete [1].) As this technology is presumably most useful for storing surplus energy from unpredictable renewable sources (e.g. wind, solar) I wonder if there is a conflict of interest? I'd love to know more about the carbon economics involved, perhaps they could use reclaimed (i.e. recycled) cement. [0] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-ind… [1] https://www.thespruce.com/difference-between-cement-concrete-and-morta…

> I've read this a few times and I keep reading it the same way "We produce waste that can be used to feed animals as a bitproduct of producing feed for animals? My point is that we don't need to produce feed for animals, they do fine just on pastureland. The way we currently raise grains is problematic enough as it is, requiring huge fertilizer inputs[1] which require petrochemicals. Eating grains is not a sustainable alternative - if we raised grains for human food, might as well feed animals and get some steaks out of it. >And tons more cleared grassland. The great plains did not need to be cleared. They were perfect pastures for grazing animals, not the modern monoculture of grains. [1] (we're running out of phosphorous http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-a…

The reason why I finally switched to only drinking bottled spring water is because of things like hexavalent chromium, which appears to be very prevalent in the Bay Area for some reason. The Bay Area has an amount which is hundreds of times higher than the maximum recommended amount. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/12/30/chromium-6-found-in-tap-water-… I might explore a home filtration system at some point, though, if it is cost effective and reliable.

Are we able to put a timeline on future US water use? Something in the vein of Saudi Arabia greatly cutting wheat production because of their drained aquifers [1]? [1] http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/04/26/the-middle-east-dries-up%E2%80…

Climate disasters should get a boost because it can lead to war and water scarcity. Consider India and Pakistan. Both of them greatly depend on water from Himalayan glaciers, a source that is rapidly declining due to climate change. They could end up at war over this, and they both have nukes. They have relatively small stockpiles with relatively small nukes so you might not think this would be a big deal globally--a terrible tragedy still but just a regional tragedy. Not so. Here is an article [1] and a paper [2] that looks at global consequences of India and Pakistan exchanging 100 nukes (about 1/3 of what they have) each the size of what the US used on Hiroshima at the end of WW II and directed at major population centers in the two countries. Based on the amount of combustable material in those areas, they estimate that the resulting firestorms would put 1.8 Tg of soot aerosol into the upper atmosphere. Climate models say the effect of that would be a 1.8℃ temperature reduction and an 8% precipitation reduction lasting for many years. They then apply state of the art crop models to predict the effect on agriculture. The result would be a serious reduction in yield which would be largest in temperate regions of the US, Europe, and China for 10-15 years. There would be food shortages and famine in rich countries that normally do not see famine. That can be pretty destabilizing and it is not a stretch to imagine some first world countries might go to war over…

You’re right that I should have been citing my sources. I’ve been largely relying on the book Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. It’s well worth reading. The (decade old) source you provided for energy subsidies appears somewhat dishonest, as the date ranges appear cherry picked. Why is it that the source only looks at nuclear subsidies up until 1999, while subsidies to other energy sources are considered through 2009? The choice of units in this source is also odd. What have the subsidies been in terms of energy output? At its peak, nuclear was producing some 16-20% of US power. I imagine normalizing on a $/MWh basis could paint a different picture. Looking at a more recent source [0], it appears that recent nuclear subsidies have been marginal and are far outpaced by renewable subsidies. If we consider prior subsidies a sunk cost, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to subsidize a new, less environmentally friendly, source of energy when our best in class is already excellent. [0] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-f…

I'm surprised no one has commented on the amount of fresh water we use to produce ethanol, particularly ethanol derived from corn. Water is needed to grow the corn and also in processing it. "The amount of water it takes to produce ethanol varies according to how much irrigation is needed for the corn, particularly since row crop agriculture for corn is the most water consuming stage of ethanol production. In Ohio, because of sufficient rainfall, only 1% of the corn is irrigated while in Nebraska 72% of the crop is irrigated. It takes 19 gallons of water to produce a bushel of corn in Region 5, 38 gallons in Region 6, and 865 gallons in Region 7. The Baker Institute estimates that producing the corn to meet the ethanol mandate for 2015 will require 2.9 trillion gallons of water. Most of this irrigation water is drawn from groundwater aquifers in a region that is already water stressed. Conflicts over water allotments have occurred in Kansas and Nebraska, and the Ogallala Aquifer, which lies under the Great Plains and supplies 30% of the nation’s groundwater for irrigation, is in danger of running dry. Growing corn also requires a great deal of fertilizer, and extensive use of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides is having severe impacts on water quality now. Fertilizer laden runoff into streams in the Midwest makes its way to the Mississippi River, and eventually contributes to the eutrophication (when algae bloom, then die, depleting the area of oxygen and suffocating…

Missing https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/iceberg-really-float/

Some of it does, but a lot becomes part of the soil. (Source:https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climat… ) Coal and Oil were once plants and organisms, examples of such carbon sequestration.

Paradoxically, Greenland's coastline is expected to see a relatively lower sea level in this scenario. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/02/05/greenland-rising-the-future-o…

The reason this might be 'climate change' related is because the warming Arctic is impacting on the jet stream, which then leads to these unexpected hot/cold events: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/03/07/climate-change-may-be-affecti… The slowing of the jet stream, therefore, could cause weather patterns to remain in place for longer, resulting in prolonged heat waves or cold snaps.

I don't know how people are eliding "forests" from my statement about soil. Soil is important and poorly understood[0], which is ironic because it's where most carbon capture is happening now. Forests are nice, and everyone likes forests, but soil is pushing the needle in ways that a shitload of 500 year old houses ain't gonna[1]. [0]https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/11/13/where-is-all-that-carbon-diox… [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/46/11652

Living further north seems to be a good idea, however there is the real danger of the weakening gulf stream. There's theories on what will happen, such as northern europe becoming colder: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/01/02/climate-change-gulf-stream/ However, anything could happen. My advice is remote work combined with some land, not necessarily out in the wilderness. Just land enough to be able to build a greenhouse. I consider that the absolute minimum. Don't live in a city. If nothing else, because of the carcinogenic effects of the pollution cities bring.

Somewhat related, the face when you solve for epicentre from seismic station data and get a location at negative depth: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/02/04/the-earth-shook-but-it-wasnt-…

"Fog or dew collection is an ancient practice. Archaeologists have found evidence in Israel of low circular walls that were built around plants and vines to collect moisture from condensation. In South America’s Atacama Desert and in Egypt, piles of stones were arranged so that condensation could trickle down the inside walls where it was collected and then stored." https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/03/07/the-fog-collectors-harvesting…

Judging by this[1] graph, the federal government spends like 10x on renewable energy subsidies vs nuclear. Imagine how much more developed the nuclear power capabilities of the US would be if it received similar attention. [1] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-f…

I found the terms confusing so looked them up. Does this look right to you? Glacier: Large ice masses created by snowfall that has transformed into ice and compressed over the course of many years. Ice sheets, ice streams, and ice shelves are a few types of glaciers. [2] Ice Sheets: Freaking huge glaciers Ice Cliffs: the vertical edges of an ice sheet. Like a rock cliff but made of ice. Ice Shelf: the "hanging chad" of the ice world. Chunk of an ice sheet that extends out over the ocean (nice diagram in source below) [1] Sea ice: Frozen seawater, floating on the ocean. Not made from snowfall. Iceberg: Ice floating on the ocean, chunk of an ice sheet/ice shelf [1] Helpful: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/glacier-types/ice-s… [2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/02/05/glaciers-ice-sheets-polar-ice…

Most plastic is photo-degradable. Left in the sun, it will disintegrate as you saw. [0] Most plastic ends up in a landfill or deep in the water or burred under more plastic where it is not touched by the sun and does not degrade. Plastic on the surface of the ocean breaks into smaller pieces which end up deeper in the sea, and does not degrade further. The ocean is filled with tiny plastic bits. [1] [0] - https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/Inspirational/resourc… [1] - https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/01/26/our-oceans-a-plastic-soup/

Half of that is from the chemical transformation of limestone to quicklime, and half of it is from the fuel energy currently used to drive the transformation: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-ind… So if carbon-neutral fuels or clean electricity were substituted in the calcination process, the CO2 burden would be reduced by half without any additional downstream changes.

> plastic bags can take 20 years to decompose, plastic bottles up to 450 years https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/01/26/our-oceans-a-plastic-soup/

>A lot of tropical places are both hotter and more humid than this limit Where? As far as I can tell, the highest wet-bulb temperatures are around the Persian Gulf, and although they sometimes come close to the human survival limit, they do not yet exceed it. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/12/22/humidity-may-prove-breaking-p…

This report from Columbia University Earth Institute claims it mostly goes to landfills: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/01/31/what-happens-to-all-that-plas…

Local plants vs imported plants is counter-intuitively not always straightforward. Inefficient farming in worse climates can sometimes use more fuel than farming it elsewhere and shipping it, transport only accounts for a small portion of greenhouse gas emissions in the production of the food. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/04/how-green-is-local-food/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/

A lot of attempts at charity have backfired, often due to cultural differences between the benefactor and those on the receiving end, or a lack of oversight or poorly-thought-out plans. See: PlayPump [1], UNICEF's Cluster-bomb-colored food drops [2], etc [1] http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/07/01/the-playpump-what-went-wrong/ [2] https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/02/UNICEF-Rations-bomblets-sa…

Concrete (specifically, the cement used to produce it) accounts for 5% of global CO2 emissions: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-indu…

>concrete Concrete is staggeringly carbon-intensive. You need to burn a lot of fuel to produce cement, which itself emits carbon during the calcination process. Every ton of cement produces about 900kg of CO2, making up about 5% of global carbon emissions. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-indu…

Pretty much the same as me. Although biking is quite natural in the Netherlands and I commute to work by bike like many others here. The only thing you might need to look out for are the claims for local, small producers. http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/04/how-green-is-local-food/ + There are economies of scale. + There are also people against genetic engineering even if it would reduce pesticides or other pressure on the environment tremendously. + Food safety might be more efficiently regulated in a centralized manner. + Old-fashioned greenhouses might have large yields and might be properly scaled to reduce costs per produced crop as well as support recycling systems for CO2 and other "waste" products. In other words, the situation around food seems more complicated than just "buy local".

It doesn't matter what they are selling it as. It's only important that it gets passed. Electronics in general make use of a variety of "Rare Earth metals," that we are quickly running out of. At our current pace, we are set to run out of some of these Rare Earth metals in just a few decades. The United States is already 100% reliant on imports for many of them. Some sort of reduction scheme is necessary, otherwise the cost of all electronics will skyrocket in just a few years. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have… https://www.bu.edu/cas/magazine/spring16/elements-of-conflict/

Reading this struck me: What is the difference between primordial volcanoes and human pollution? During the dinosaur age it was a lot hotter [0] and there were really extraordinary organisms. Further reading seems to go down a rabbit hole [1],etc. [0]http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-… [1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volca…

... but there is a good chance that the availability of cheap, potable water will be a major issue in the coming decades. Actually there isn't. It is possible that for a given population of people in a particular place on the planet they may find there is a shortage of water, but as long as the sun shines it will continue to evaporate trillions of tons of water which will then move over land and condense out of the atmosphere. Its also possible to get water out of the air where it didn't previously condense on its own.[1][2] [1] http://www.islandsky.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article… [2] http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/03/07/the-fog-collectors-harvesting-…