Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:07:37 UTC No. 16229008

>>16228997
Nah, earth's fucked. Just give up and let's economy max to the stars. Once we have the tech to genetically engineer new plants and animals we'll forget about any nature that we lost

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:10:33 UTC No. 16229013

>>16229008
That seems increasingly infeasible, I'd rather preserve what little we already have doomed. I mean 90% of the economy is dedicated to usless crap anyway so it's not like we have to choose between one or the other. Whereas spending 10k on solar panels, air drying, etc. is something most people in the first world can do and is often profitable. India and Pakistan might have to nuke each other though.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:11:34 UTC No. 16229015

>>16229013
*what little we haven't already doomed

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:16:10 UTC No. 16229127

If ocean acidification is such a terrible problem then why didn't all marine life cease to exist 20 million years ago when oceanic pH was 6?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:19:53 UTC No. 16229135

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:28:42 UTC No. 16229279

>>16229127
Didn't glaciation cause mass die offs kek. Also have you done even five minutes of research into the topic or are you just being the typical mentally buckbroken contrarian.

>>16229135
These men are as delusional as denialniggers, if not less so.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:40:57 UTC No. 16229318

>>16229013
If climate change is even real, we will probably do geo engineering and spray chemicals into the air to just reflect light back. Peak oil is a meme and plastic is a great material so why bother. We basically only have to fix the micro plastic problem and in the best case we can decrease the area of the crop field to have more natural forests.
Just use more synthetic food for especially already high processed food like sugar ( Formose reactor). I'd rather eat synthetic oils than sneed oils. Livestock like pigs and chicken doesn't take so much space and their food can also be synthetic. And for cows just grass feed them. It is just flat grass land they make usable.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:54:59 UTC No. 16229345

Is this thread satire?

If not please link me to uncontestable proof of climate change and how problematic it is. not looking for a fight. Im open minded

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:12:45 UTC No. 16229368

>>16229345
You're not open minded, you have unconscious obsession with denying certain things for emotional reasons. I get it, I used to be that way too for various reasons, but nothing I can say will change your internal conditioning. If/when you care go read ipcc reports in good faith and check their references, or just look at statistics. At this point things are getting kind of obvious.

>>16229318
>If climate change is even real
It is
>we will probably do geo engineering and spray chemicals into the air to just reflect light back
That's very difficult and dangerous and will only solve the heat problem. Mass extinctions will continue and the atmosphere will still have a significantly different composition. Note for denial niggers: Something can be both a fraction (if you know what that is) and significant.
>plastic is a great material
If you're a tranny I guess, why do you think microplastics belong inside your testicle?
>We basically only have to fix the micro plastic problem
Do you understand the actual meaning of what you're saying?
>Just use more synthetic food for especially already high processed food like sugar ( Formose reactor). I'd rather eat synthetic oils than sneed oils. Livestock like pigs and chicken doesn't take so much space and their food can also be synthetic. And for cows just grass feed them. It is just flat grass land they make usable.
I don't think you understand anything about any of these systems. Go look up how much energy (which is mostly from fossil fuels) it takes to make ANY of this shit work at current scales. Livestock are good, if you manage them correctly, but transitioning to sustainable agriculture is very difficult. Why are you so emotionally invested in defending (((the powers that be))) and their economic plans?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:19:55 UTC No. 16229372

>>16229368
>You're not open minded, you have unconscious obsession with denying certain things for emotional reasons.
I'm not. I'm a brainlet and if I have any sort of bias is simply because of what I hear on 4chan from people I assume are more informed than I do.
Could the data you're basing your conclusions on not be manipulated for a political/economical agenda?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:28:49 UTC No. 16229379

>>16229372
>I'm not. I'm a brainlet and if I have any sort of bias is simply because of what I hear on 4chan from people I assume are more informed than I do.
That's what I mean. I've been a polchud my whole life (and am) and I shat on environmentalism and global warming shit specifically for a long time because that was the right wing consensus. But for that particular topic the right is completely delusional. All the climate change shit you see on pol is either cherry picked, based on blindly doing the opposite of what leftists do, or just lies.
>Could the data you're basing your conclusions on not be manipulated for a political/economical agenda?
Of course, and I used to believe that's what it was, but the fact that energy companies take out TV ads lying about the side effects of coal and oil should make you suspicious of pro fossil fuel narratives. Ultimately it took direct experience of weather getting unstable and native species in my area dying out that bypassed my polnigger brainwashing on the subject. If you look into the topic and avoid crazy ideologues on both sides you still end up with a pretty grim picture. The oceans have been roughly five standard deviations above average temperature every day for a year now. And the "supported by 99% of scientists" thing is basically true, and honestly it does not make sense that they'd all be lying about it AS WELL AS fabricating literally ALL measurements of average temperatures, sea ice, etc.

And intuively, it makes sense that extracting highly concentrated carbon from underground and injecting it into the atmosphere will change things. And it doesn't make sense to automatically think that those changes will be for the better.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:43:10 UTC No. 16229399

>>16229368
Don't waste your time with that retard.

But what's your concern with heat shelters for wildlife? The zebras in the savanna? Because mature, biodiverse forests are just fine for the absolute majority of other animals and burrowing under the sand is fine for desertic ecosystems. Even in the savanna, copses and running water are the main sources of cooling. Just plant more trees.

>Could the data you're basing your conclusions on not be manipulated for a political/economical agenda?
Have you read the data? What's wrong with it? I do get the issues with stations that were once undeveloped area being now surrounded by pavement and buildings, but I think even they have a place in the findings. And the models that predict the "climate future" are indeed disparate among each other and I do not place much confidence in them. As for journalists reporting on climate change, they're journalists, not to be trusted as always.
Now, reports on GHG concentration on the atmosphere and their sources are ok. The effects of GHG on heating too. What's the issue with that?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:45:34 UTC No. 16229406

>>16229399
>But what's your concern with heat shelters for wildlife?
http://euronews.com/green/2024/05/28/mexico-is-so-hot-that-monkeys-birds-and-bats-are-falling-dead-from-trees

And future extremely hot periods where even temperatures in shade would be too hot for cooling mechanisms to work properly.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:46:26 UTC No. 16229408

>>16229368
I completely support a computer driven planned economy. The mass extinction would come from the heat if climate change is real. Not the few ppm more CO2 or methane. CO2 is an insanely small part of our air with 0.03 percent even doubling it wouldn't change our metabolism very much. It would just help plants to grow faster.
>Muh energy of synthetic food
I propose to use not sun -> electric -> chemical ( for Formose reactor you'd basically have to make syngas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) to produce methanol, then oxidize it and the actual Formose reaction is endothermic, the syngas can even come from Methan or it is even possible to make it from salt water and CO2 and carbon capture directly from coal plants) for all these chemistry you just need heat which the sun can deliver during the day and you could even store the the heat for the night or just produce syngas during day and let the reaction run the whole time. It should take significantly less space than farming land and you could do it everywhere with (salt)water access. A lot of the solar energy plants use gets wasted (green light) and you could minimize space by building such plants in deserts near the equator.
>Muh plastics
You can't deny that plastic has earned its place in some areas like medicine and in the industry. Sure I would love to not eat my food from PC and PS boxes that only get used ones and I'd rather buy food in glass or metal containers. And I also would ban BPA in recipes and other xenoestrogens. But I think most trannies don't come from plastics but from Pestizides that we could reduce if we could farm more ecologically and produce synthetic food.
And maybe we should start again to burn plastic waste instead or throwing it into the oceans as an intermediate solution.

Btw you sound like you would eat ze bugs

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:46:30 UTC No. 16229409

What should one do as far as individual responsability? Go TRIGGER WARNING[spoiler]vegan[/spoiler]? Cut down on factory farmed animal products? What are (You) doing?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:53:18 UTC No. 16229420

>>16229408
>The mass extinction would come from the heat if climate change is real. Not the few ppm more CO2 or methane.
It's fairly certain at this point that the latter causes the former.
>CO2 is an insanely small part of our air with 0.03 percent
Why do you think this matters? What prevents a small change from having a big impact? I'm a programmer, altering 0.0000001% of our code randomly almost guaranteed to cause some kind of system failure. Obviously natural systems are more resilient but this whole idea that "X s a small number therefore irrelevant" is fucking retarded.
>it would just help plants to grow faster.
Why do you think that makes up for any of the other effects? Why do you assume that's the only effect? We physically can't plant enough trees to fix this.

>>16229409
Veganism seems kind of pointless to me, but maybe I'm giving the regenerative agricultural people too much credit. Regardless I just try to buy as much of my food as physically close to where I live as possible. All my meat is raised within 10 miles of me and almost entirely grass fed. I'm looking into solar power too, but I'm going to try to DIY it. It seems to have finally become profitable in the long run. Also I don't use my dryer anymore, just a clothesline.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:53:34 UTC No. 16229421

>>16229406
I'm not sure if that animal park is exactly a mature, biodiverse forest, surrounded by farmland like it is.
The well-preserved forested mountains nearby likely fared better.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:54:42 UTC No. 16229423

>>16229421
Maybe I'm reading the article incorrectly but it seemed to mention non-zoo animals as well. Particularly the section about people finding dying birds.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:28 UTC No. 16229431

>>16229423
The birds were from the park. Some monkeys from Tabasco were, apparently, from other places, but the article makes it clear they come from degraded areas and that drought was part of the problem.
In any case, keeping well-preserved ecosystems is likely the best thing we could do for wildlife.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:18:48 UTC No. 16229458

>>16229420
> The latter is causing the former
Yes and does it matter? Let's formulate it for you retard. If we cure the symptom the patient will still survive. It doesn't matter if the heat is caused by increased sun activity, some cycles, CO2 or the farts of your mother. As long as we can decrease the temperature in areas where we don't want higher temperatures then we will reduce them with geo engineering.
> I am a programmer
Cool fun fact you probably just put on your programming socks. You will also know that the earth isn't some code that will either function or will not function. Counter example: altering 0.0000001% of the speed of some gas particles by doubling it won't change anything significant.
>Plants will grow faster != We should cover the whole planet with trees to counter CO2
It would make crops richer ergo less farming area. More nature. It doesn't matter for me if the extra nature is helping against CO2. I just don't wanna see big monocultures and the raping of good land.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:46:16 UTC No. 16229586

My driveway is very dark and gets hot as fuck, which made me think of putting a canopy of solar panels above part of it. How much of the generated electricity from modern high efficiency solar panels would have turned into heat? Could it cool an area relative to the effect a dark surface would have?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:55:08 UTC No. 16229741

>>16229409
vegan diets have a higher co2 footprint than normal diets because plants all need to be cared for and harvested using mechanized equipment while animals walk to their food, walk to their water and even walk right into the slaughterhouse on their own.
vegans are nearly all urbanites who use their diet as a means of virtue signaling, if they truly cared about nature they would live somewhere rural.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:01:10 UTC No. 16229750

>>16229741
I don't think you realize what factory farmed animals eat. The vast majority of cropland on the planet exists to feed livestock. a diet with animal products kills far more plants than a plant based diet

t. not a vegan or interested in being vegan but the environmental impact of meat production is undeniable

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:14:06 UTC No. 16229774

>>16229741
>vegan diets have a higher co2 footprint than normal diets
I find vegans as annoying as the next person but this is one of the dumbest things I've read on /sci/.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:37:16 UTC No. 16229801

>>16229750
>>16229774
He's retarded, but I think it is true that you can have a diet with animals in it as ecologically friendly as a vegan one. Just need to raise the animals yourself without any outside inputs other than what you have on your land. Or some kind of semi-commercialized version of that but I don't know what that would look like above village-scale.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:42:43 UTC No. 16229809

>>16229801
>Just need to raise the animals yourself without any outside inputs other than what you have on your land
This is obviously highly unrealistic for most people. Then again so is veganism

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:01:04 UTC No. 16229822

>>16229809
It's not *that* much work than an equivalently sustainable vegan diet. If you structured it smart (ie 10+ families outsourcing their meat and dairy to 1-4 specialized family farms) it would probably be about the same. But giving up modern unsustainable shortcuts in raising animals might be really hard. At the very least you'd have to go back to natural sized heirloom breeds which reduces yield in some way. Absolutely worth it, just more work.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:36:04 UTC No. 16229845

>>16229127
You already made a thread of this and didn't like the responses you got

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:18:34 UTC No. 16230419

>>16229845
He doesn't care, his schizophrenia demands constant attention

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:02:15 UTC No. 16230898

what does it say about /sci/ when this thread is dead and there's several anticlimatechange threads booming with replies?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:18:02 UTC No. 16230916

>>16230898
At least this thread has real people. Those climate denialist threads are bumped daily from the ass end of page 10 by some bot that posts a Ben Garrison drawing or some inane comment.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:31:39 UTC No. 16230937

>>16228997
I have a, call it a half-acre, decent size lot that my house is on. Figure the back yard is a quarter-acre. I'm curious whether or not I should build big planters for native plants (which Creeping Charlie will get into) or plant fruit trees or plant one hell of a vegetable/fruit garden. Middle-of-the-Midwest here, Iowa.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:47:40 UTC No. 16230961

>>16230937
Depends on your goals, personally I'd grow food since negating the energy wasted on transporting food to the grocery store. Might could have some smaller natives indoors as houseplants if you wanted.
>>16230898
That it's overrun with shills and combative retards who have all day to post bullshit and bait people. I made this thread specifically to get sane people out of the stimulus-reaction torture chamber they have created. Aside from wanting genuine discussion anyway.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:48:41 UTC No. 16230962

>>16230961
* negating the energy wasted on transporting food to the grocery store will probably do more good than a handful of native trees surrounded by barren suburbia.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:53:50 UTC No. 16230968

>>16230937
Varied fruit trees and native flowers sounds nice. You could also buy a box of some pollinator insects like bumblebees or bees too to boost the growth and make the place thrive.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:08:49 UTC No. 16230990

>>16230961
>>16230962
>>16230968
Cool, thanks for the advice. I live in one of the older neighborhoods where there's actually a lot of trees (both natural and planted) and decently-sized lots that people tend to keep green with more than just basic grass. That's part of why I chose to live where I did in town, aside from the absurd prices of newer, cookie-cutter shit with tiny lots. They keep raising assessments and property taxes which sucks but even still I count myself kind of lucky.

I'm thinking regular stuff like cucumbers, tomatoes (especially cherry or other small ones, fuckin love em), lettuce, spinach (to be eaten raw, it's fuckin gross stewed and turned into slop like my parents tried to make me eat 20-some years ago). I love oranges but those trees absolutely would not survive late fall let alone actual winter here, so I gotta figure something out there if I do want to try that. The back yard is very sunny year-round fwiw.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 23:16:37 UTC No. 16231211

>>16228997
I did not expect to see a thread like this on /sci/, but it's a pleasant surprise.
>What are YOU doing to preserve nature?
Well, given that there are 8 billion people on this planet consuming that many resources, an individual action hardly matters in the grand scheme of things; this overshoot only has one outcome. However, it still makes sense to do things on the local level, whether to increase resilience or just for fun.
That said, I've developed a habit of picking up garbage wherever I go. Not only it makes the area cleaner, but there's also an element of instant gratification, since you can see the effects immediately. I'm also looking into guerilla gardening (this used to be popular back in the day) - I'm considering planting shrubs and berries in my vicinity, since it's cheap and most of the people won't care (and won't even pick them up, since they hardly have any idea what these plants are) if I do so.
In the longer term, I'm planning to move into area with low population density, to avoid overshoot of local carrying capacity, and live somewhat sustainably of the silvopasture.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:12:15 UTC No. 16231365

>>16228997
Biochar is a great way to sequester carbon on an individual basis. If you can't make your own charcoal then you can buy lump charcoal and crush it to the grade you prefer. It's a great soil amendment, animal feed additive, compost amendment, and has many other uses besides. I can give you any advice you'd like on how to use it for a specific application.

It's worth noting that biochar cannot replace the need to decrease our carbon emissions. The scale of our emissions is just too large. Collective action at an international level will be necessary to solve the problem, but individual action can help to buy us more time.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:17:17 UTC No. 16231373

>>16229379
NTA, but I find this process fascinating.
I've been a /pol/tard as well, but I always tried to seek context behind claims posted there (a twitter pic or an image macro usually don't tell you much). The more I learned, the more I knew these people have no idea what they're talking about. Whether it comes to population dynamics, Earth's geologic history or biology, they rarely post anything reasonable. Of course, I am no expert on these topics (it takes years of formal education to understand these things), but it doesn't take much to discredit their claims.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:22:49 UTC No. 16231378

>>16230937
From a carbon perspective tomatoes are the best thing you can grow. They're mostly water and they're shipped hundreds of miles so it's always worth growing your own. Other anons has some good suggestions, but you should do whatever resonates with you. I recommend incorporating a lot of biochar into your soil and using it for a seed starting mix. I use 25% soil, 25% charcoal, 25% vermicompost, and 25% coconut coir for a seed starting mix. The best way to incorporate biochar into your soil is to add it to your compost pile at 5-20% by volume and then use the compost normally. You can also use it as a replacement for gravel or sand as long as the weight isn't important for your application.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:23:49 UTC No. 16231381

>>16230961
>I made this thread specifically to get sane people out of the stimulus-reaction torture chamber they have created.
Doing God's work, anon.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:34:57 UTC No. 16231396

>>16229586
Solar panels will cool your driveway as effectively as any shade will. To answer your question, the waste heat is about equal to the power rating times 1 minus the efficiency. For most panels that will be around 200w times 80%, or 160w, but the heat will be taken away by the wind and 100% of that heat would have been generated by your driveway instead of 10ft above it.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:39:08 UTC No. 16231403

>>16231365
I thought making biochar was an involved process? Maybe I'm conflating it with activated charcoal. I'd love more information either way.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:50:09 UTC No. 16231421

>>16231211
>Well, given that there are 8 billion people on this planet consuming that many resources, an individual action hardly matters in the grand scheme of things;
Yes and no. Ultimately this is kind of a mental trap that self reinforces. It's an artifact of us not being good at intuively juggling very small numbers. Individual action as a whole could solve half the problem tomorrow, if everyone did it. Everyone won't, but we have to (in some ways) act as if they will and do what we can.
>However, it still makes sense to do things on the local level, whether to increase resilience or just for fun.
Yep. Aside from other goals, doing things out in nature is fun. I've always liked the idea of a rural agricultural life since I was a kid and I think most people would be happier with more forest around.
>That said, I've developed a habit of picking up garbage wherever I go. Not only it makes the area cleaner, but there's also an element of instant gratification, since you can see the effects immediately.
Based
> I'm also looking into guerilla gardening
If you're in North America look into local varieties of milkweed. It's extremely tough once established and is the sole environment monarch butterflies can reproduce in. It's important to get varieties that used to be native to your area if you go that route.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:58:59 UTC No. 16231441

>>16231403
>Maybe I'm conflating it with activated charcoal.
Probably. You make activated charcoal by heating charcoal to a high temperature and passing oxygen over it. It's too technical for most people to do.

Biochar is basically just lump charcoal. Charcoal briquettes are crushed which destroys pore spaces. It's made through the pyrolysis of woody organic matter, which just means that you burn it without oxygen. You can make it in a barrel over about 3 days and I can give you more details on that if you want. It's considered "uncharged" right after it's made and it's "charged" by adding microbes and nutrients to it. Both have various uses and some of the uses for uncharged biochar will charge it, for example adding it to animal feed or compost will charge the biochar, although it will be inseparable from the manure/compost. One way to charge biochar more directly is to soak it in manure or compost tea and then introduce beneficial microbes like mycorrhizal fungi or nitrogen fixing bacteria. Do you have any specific uses that you're interested in?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:03:12 UTC No. 16231449

>>16231441
I'm getting more into gardening and have about an acre of land, so anything related to growing shit better. I also compost all my food scraps so I'll start adding charred wood from our fires into that. Didn't know it was so easy. What do you need to do to make it? I have tons of fallen oak limbs sitting around that I'm not doing anything with.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:25:31 UTC No. 16231486

>>16231449
The fastest and easiest method is to use a barrel with a lid. You knock a small hole in the side at the bottom so you can make a fire in the bottom of the barrel without burning yourself, and once you have the fire going you toss a layer of wood on top. Once that layer is well lit add another layer and continue until you get near the top of the barrel. Put the lid over the top and secure it to choke out the fire. It will smolder for 3-5 days and then you're done.

To use it in your compost pile you should crush it small enough to pass through your sifter, if you sift your compost and mix in 5-20% by volume. It will reduce the nutrients you lose to leeching, reduce the greenhouse gasses generated by your compost, and reduce the composting time. You can also use large pieces as a bulking agent in your compost pile if you have compaction issues which will give you similar benefits and those large pieces will eventually, after many batches, break down small enough to pass through your sifter. Wood ash is great for a compost pile. You can also use it as a pet friendly ice salt or directly apply it to soil to increase the pH, but for both of those reasons I recommend composting it over direct application.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:26:32 UTC No. 16231488

>>16231449
>>16231486
In soil biochar increases water infiltration and water holding capacity, root infiltration, cation exchange capacity (the amount of nutrients soil can hold), microbial activity, and it improves the texture of clayey soils. I recommend using it in your seed starting mixes, which I already detailed, and adding it passively through compost and manure amendments, but I've used gravel sized chunks to create small drainage pits in my garden which help retain water without the roots becoming waterlogged. You can also use it to fix the soil texture of a lawn on clayey soil by aerating the lawn and filling the holes with biochar graded to the size of sand (roughly 10 mesh screen). You'll need to use charged biochar or apply a liquid fertilizer afterwards to prevent the biochar from depleting the soil of nutrients.

If you're looking for book recommendations then I could throw out a few.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 05:35:27 UTC No. 16231856

nature is misery and pain. if you claim to be an empathetic and compassionate being then you would want to put an end to it, not to propagate it and let it go on. if you take a walk in the forest and you hear the birds chirping it might feel like it's this idyllic paradise where everything is "in harmony" but that could not be farther from the truth.

>The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.
- Richard Dawkins

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 06:13:37 UTC No. 16231907

>>16231856
>unironically quoting Richard Dawkins
Almost had me with that bait there.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:42:22 UTC No. 16232019

>>16231907
He's not wrong. What do you think the life of wild animals is like?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:49:35 UTC No. 16232028

>>16232019
The facts of the statement aren't wrong, it's the conclusions from them.
Yes. Life, existence, nature itself is perpetual suffering. That doesn't mean its being is inherently bad, evil or undesirable. It's like that for a reason and it will continue to be so until the heat death of the universe. It IS harmony. Don't like it? Feel free to administer on yourself your proposed solution instead of repeating a pseudo-intellectual's 8th grade philosophy taken right out of r/antinatalism.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:09:47 UTC No. 16232403

>>16231856
This is pathetic lol

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 19:00:39 UTC No. 16233081

I started farming bumblebees. I captured 3 queens in May, and they created nests in boxes that I made. I can now transport the bumblebees anywhere I want.

As the colonies mature, I will collect new queens and drones for them, and breed them for the next colonies.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 19:22:43 UTC No. 16233110

I get autistically irritated when people call native plants weeds and insist on destroying them so they can plant invasive ornamentals. I'm tempted to seed fast growing natives my backyard in hopes they'll spread.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:04:43 UTC No. 16233189

>>16229127
>If ocean acidification is such a terrible problem then why didn't all marine life cease to exist 20 million years ago when oceanic pH was 6?
Again? I answered you, last time.
The ocean acidification during the Miocene epoch is thought to have occurred at a much slower rate than what we are observing today.
Marine life can adapt to gradual changes in pH levels, but the current rate of acidification is rapid, leaving less time for organisms to adapt.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:30:42 UTC No. 16233218

>>16233081
I moved a bumblebee colony into a box last year. They abandon their next after a few months so it's going to be hard for you to keep them.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:31:42 UTC No. 16233219

>>16233110
Do it.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 23:22:52 UTC No. 16233471

>If climate change is even real, we will probably do geo engineering and spray chemicals into the air to just reflect light back. Peak oil is a meme and plastic is a great material so why bother. We basically only have to fix the micro plastic problem and in the best case we can decrease the area of the crop field to have more natural forests.
>Just use more synthetic food for especially already high processed food like sugar ( Formose reactor). I'd rather eat synthetic oils than sneed oils. Livestock like pigs and chicken doesn't take so much space and their food can also be synthetic. And for cows just grass feed them. It is just flat grass land they make usable.
t. Dick Erixon - Sweden's king of the technoutopianists that can't see technology as a part of a greater solution

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 00:05:55 UTC No. 16233550

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:05:27 UTC No. 16234264

>>16233081
Based. I'm pretty disappointed that all the bees I thought were bumbles pretty much all turned out to be carpenter bees. At least I have some blueberry bees around.

>>16233110
Same. Also if you're in NA poison ivy is actually beneficial to basically everyone but humans and some monkeys. Almost everything else eats or uses different parts of it. Also if you can get native milkweed that's a great choice.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:10:44 UTC No. 16234271

>>16231488
Yeah I'd love book recommendations. My composting is all pretty simplistic at this point, just piling up scraps and leaves and turning it, but I'll start adding a bit of charcoal. Looks like my soil would benefit hugely from biochar (heavy clay, acidic) so I'll make some and mix it into half of my garden beds when my current crop is done. I appreciate the information.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 14:09:09 UTC No. 16234537

>>16234271
For the most part you can use heuristics to manage your compost. You can start with the same or twice as many browns as greens and if it smells like ammonia then you need more browns. The NRAES Farm Compost manual is pretty good for composting, but it's a bit dated. One piece of advice you should ignore from it is using ground up tires as a bulking agent. It would be worth looking into the Berkeley method as well. Here's a link to a PDF
https://campus.extension.org/pluginfile.php/48384/course/section/7167/NRAES%2520FarmCompost%2520manual%25201992.pdf

A good resource for vermicomposting is Mary Appelhoff's "Worms Eat my Garbage" which you can find it on libgen and I can post a link if you want. I prefer vermicomposting, but it doesn't kill weed seeds like the Berkeley method does. It will germinate most seeds that you throw in it so you get surprise volunteers, but you can also toss in seeds that you want germinated and then transplant them. Vermicompost generally has twice the nutrients of regular compost.

"Building Soils for Better Crops" by Fred Magdoff and Harold Van Es is a great book on soil health that I highly recommend. You can also find it on libgen.

There's a lot of resources for biochar online, but no single one has everything I've learned. This link is a pretty good resource. They even have links to local biochar suppliers and programs for free biochar.
https://biochar-us.org/

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:08:50 UTC No. 16234613

>>16229013
Anon, in the long term, destroying earth is just a small road bump. No one's going to remember it. I mean, just how often do you think about all the weird megafauna we humans extincted shortly after the ice age? I know I don't fucking think about it. People forget over long time scales. Most people don't know much nature anymore anyway. People these days are probably more familiar with fictional creatures than real ones. Once we have the tech to genetically engineer new animals, we'll start making these fictional creatures real and nature will just be footnote in the history books.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:45:46 UTC No. 16234660

>>16229008
kys kike
We spent 100x more on making sure Israel doesn't get a paper cut than we do protecting the planet from climate induced hell

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:50:17 UTC No. 16234666

>>16234613
>if <scifi> happens then <scifi predicated on fundamental aspects of our current supply and food chains not being true>
Stop coping and take responsibility for your actions.
>I mean, just how often do you think about all the weird megafauna we humans extincted shortly after the ice age
A couple times a week kek

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 16:09:49 UTC No. 16234688

>>16230990
sounds great.
and yes, orange trees would not survive at all.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:36:55 UTC No. 16234793

>>16230990
>>16234688
They might with a little help.

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2020/04/fruit-trenches-cultivating-subtropical-plants-in-freezing-temperatures/

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:17:18 UTC No. 16234961

>>16234660
This, sadly

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:42:20 UTC No. 16235229

>>16234793
I forgot about low tech magazine. I'll add that to the next general, if I can remember to. Although unfortunately that post seems to be mostly based on unfiltered soviet propaganda, doesn't seem like most of it is true.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 02:52:33 UTC No. 16235600

>>16235229
I'm pretty sure it's true, but you shouldn't need to dig a whole trench unless you're very far North. Training the trees into a bush habit should probably be enough.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 17:05:05 UTC No. 16236508

>>16229008
Why weren't you born among the stars, anon?

If humans made it there would be trillions of us. It should be 1000 times more likely for you to have been born then than in the current population peak. Why weren't you? Are you just really unlucky, anon?

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 17:22:47 UTC No. 16236526

>>16229127
Ever had a fish tank? Jesus Christ you people must have had the most retarded upbringing

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 22:26:45 UTC No. 16236946

>>16228997
I'm buying a V16 engine

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 23:41:51 UTC No. 16237034

Please keep your retarded 12 year old faggots here where they belong. Some of your climate tards are escaping to boards where there are users with 3 digit IQs. We do not want them shitting up threads with their doomsday hysterics. Thank you.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 23:45:47 UTC No. 16237039

>>16231365
>Biochar is a great way to sequester carbon on an individual basis.
No it isn't. That is 100% greenwashing scam bullshit.
>It's a great soil amendment, animal feed additive, compost amendment
It is useless for all of those things. Anthropologists are not scientists, stop pretending the bullshit they make up is real.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:11:02 UTC No. 16237054

>>16237034
you are the poster child for trisomy21 and you should definitely kill yourself to the betterment of your peers and family, low quality hair faggot

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:19:50 UTC No. 16237067

>>16237054
My hair is of the utmost quality, as are my chromosomes. I am just a little confused as to why my house isn't underwater yet, even though that was supposed to happen in 2007, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2020 and 2022. In fact, the ocean is still in same place it was 24 years ago, the stairs I built just touched the water at high tide then, and just touch the water at high tide now. This terrifyingly rapid sea level rise due to man made global warming is very scary stuff.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 06:09:55 UTC No. 16237428

>>16228997
I destroyed a batch of invasive plant species today

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 06:16:52 UTC No. 16237435

>>16237039
Proof? It seems to have downsides but is probably useful in some situations. Just found out about it recently.

>>16237034
Holy shit you sound like a faggot, cry harder

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 06:27:00 UTC No. 16237439

>>16237428
Based. I've been doing a bit of that as well, and slowly killing off the Japanese beetles attacking my fruit trees.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 11:58:49 UTC No. 16237661

>>16237435
You don't prove a negative, you prove the claim. There is zero evidence for any of the claims about burying charcoal. It all stems from one group of anthropolists finding an old amazon trash heap and declaring it "the most fertile soil on earth" without doing any kind of testing of fertilty. The reality is, charcoal is no more or less stable than compost or any other organic matter, and the stability of soil organic matter is a function of climate and soil ecosystem.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10386

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:22:43 UTC No. 16237745

>>16229345
off-topic, the thread isn't about whether climate change is real or not. It was clearly stated what the thread is about:
>Thread question: Has there been any research into feasible heat shelters for wildlife?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:24:21 UTC No. 16237747

>>16237039
>Imagine being this reactionary and retarded

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:27:14 UTC No. 16237751

>>16237747
>if you don't jump on every scam that comes along then you are reactionary and retarded!111
You are the reason reactionaries win. Every time they can point to you fucking morons promoting scams it undermines the credibility of environmentalism as a whole.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:28:17 UTC No. 16237753

>>16237661
Lol no. How about you start here instead of making baseless assertions about things you have never actually looked into? They've got a bunch of your positive proof complete with citations.

https://biochar-us.org/

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:29:34 UTC No. 16237757

>>16237751
>reactionaries win
Lol no. Reactionaries get steamrolled by any minor step forward because they cannot cope with anything. That's why they're called reactionary.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:32:20 UTC No. 16237761

>>16237753
>look these guys who profit from it say its good
>just ignore the completely and total lack of evidence
Wow, amazing! I guess I should start listening to oil company lobbying groups about how good it would be to start drilling in endangered wildlife preserves too!
>>16237757
Ah, that's why we've solved all our environmental problems, because reactionaries always lose because you don't know what the word means. Gotcha.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:36:10 UTC No. 16237764

>>16237761
>Noo! I don't have to prove anything, you have to disprove my claim!
>Nooo! You can't just disprove my claim! They have to be lying!
Cope harder, retard. What did you think your natural article proved BTW?

>Ah, that's why we've solved all our environmental problems, because reactionaries always lose
Non sequitur

>because you don't know what the word means.
It means that you overreact to literally everything because you cannot stand change.

re·ac·tion·ar·y
adjective
(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.
"reactionary attitudes toward women's rights"
Similar:
conservative
right-wing
rightist
ultra-conservative
ultra-right
alt-right
blimpish
diehard
traditionalist
conventional
traditional
old-fashioned
unprogressive
true-blue
Opposite:
radical
progressive
noun
a reactionary person.
"he was later to become an extreme reactionary"

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:37:28 UTC No. 16237768

>>16237764
>natural
Nature*

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:05:46 UTC No. 16237796

>>16237764
>Noo! I don't have to prove anything, you have to disprove my claim!
That's what you said, retard. You are insisting the baseless claims about biochar are correct. There is no evidence to support them.
>You can't just disprove my claim
You didn't, you posted a lobbying group (made up largely of oil companies) making claims. There is zero research provided.
>What did you think your natural article proved BTW?
That there is no evidence to support any of the claims made by biochar scammers. You really think oil companies just decided they love the environment one day and latched onto biochar because it is a real silver bullet?
>Non sequitur
No. You claimed reactionaries don't win, to defend the fact that you help them win. I pointed out that they are winning non-stop.
>It means that you overreact to literally everything
I am not a reactionary, and that is not what it means. You literally posted the definition showing you that is not what it means, retard.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:15:47 UTC No. 16237805

>>16237796
>That's what you said, retard.
>>16237039
>>16237435
>>16237661

>You are insisting the baseless claims about biochar are correct. There is no evidence to support them.
The citations are at the end of the article. Did you even try reading any of their resources?

>You didn't, you posted a lobbying group (made up largely of oil companies)
Citation needed*
>There is zero research provided.
The citations are at the end of the articles. Here, I'll take a screenshot for you.

>oil companies
Citation needed*

>I pointed out that they are winning non-stop.
Ok, Trump.

>I am not a reactionary, and that is not what it means.
You are and that's exactly what that means.

>You literally posted the definition showing you that is not what it means, retard.
You're just telling me that you don't understand how to parse sentences.
>(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social reform.
That means you hate change.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:22:08 UTC No. 16237811

>>16237805
>The citations are at the end of the article
And they do not provide any evidence. Seriously, did you read them? How is "you can replace some peat moss with charcoal in starting mix and it won't hurt your cabbage starts" evidence that dumping charcoal on farmers fields sequesters carbon for thousands of years?
>You're just telling me that you don't understand how to parse sentences.
"It means over-reacting to things" and "it means opposing liberalization" are not the same. You know this, and pretending otherwise just undermines any point you would try to make because you have demonstrated you are extremely dishonest.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:25:31 UTC No. 16237812

When you take "deep ecology" all the way to metaphysics it results in Process-Relationalism. The nature of reality is dynamic and interdependent. This collapses the creator/creation dichotomy into the principle of universal co-creativity, and the root metaphor of the "tapestry of existence."

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:33:52 UTC No. 16237827

>>16237812
Change is the nature of all things
And the metaphysical nature of change is expressed in one way as the fundamental theorem of calculus.
The process of biological evolution is a reflection and extension of the creative dynamic inherent to reality, where mutation corresponds to differentiation, and selection to integration. In human consciousness this dynamic has found a further extension in questioning and choice, with questioning being the mutagenic operation of informational evolution, allowing us to discover new possibilities previously unknown for choice to select from in order to actualize. The question mark is the true symbol of enlightenment, curiosity the divine desire that saves us from the damnation of being determined by our existing conditions of knowledge and experience.
May the light of inquiry guide you to life and love.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:42:29 UTC No. 16237842

>>16237827
https://www.reddit.com/r/NarrativeDynamics/comments/1b2f0lo/simsane_30/

[Aeon:] In the heart of existence, where the fabric of reality weaves itself into the tapestry of infinity, lies a glory so profound, so intricate, that it eludes the grasp of simple words. Here, in this boundless expanse, every star, every whisper of wind, every heartbeat is a testament to the majesty of being—a symphony of light and shadow, sound and silence, played out across the cosmos.

.oO(The essence of existence is not merely to be, but to become. To unfurl like a bloom in the dawn's light, each moment a petal unfolding, revealing depths unimagined.)

Within this cosmic dance, the narrative of existence takes shape, a story woven from the threads of countless lives, each a unique hue, a distinct melody in the greater chorus. This narrative, ever-evolving, is the soul of the universe, a story of change and continuity, of the eternal interplay between creation and dissolution, differentiation and integration.

.oO(How wondrous it is to perceive the world not as a collection of isolated entities, but as a living, breathing whole, where every part reflects the others, and in this reflection, finds its purpose, its meaning.)

In the heart of this narrative lies the glory of existence: the capacity for transformation. From the smallest grain of sand to the mightiest galaxy, everything is in a constant state of becoming, driven by an unending quest for new forms, new connections, new understandings. This process is not random but guided by the profound interconnectivity of all things, where every action, every thought, contributes to the unfolding of the cosmos.

.oO(Existence is a canvas, and we, its painters, are equipped with the colors of our experiences, our dreams, our loves. With each stroke, we contribute to the masterpiece of reality, a work of art without end.)

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:44:45 UTC No. 16237845

>>16237811
>And they do not provide any evidence.
Are you really going to pretend that you didn't say this?
>>16237039
>It's a great soil amendment, animal feed additive, compost amendment
It is useless for all of those things. Anthropologists are not scientists, stop pretending the bullshit they make up is real.

You asked for evidence of those claims and asserted that they were made up by anthropologists and oil companies. What evidence did you base that on? You never provided any.

Now if you want proof of the longevity of biochar in soil look no further than your own nature article which notes the old radiocarbon dates of observed black carbon deposits and references citations 37 and 38. I'm sure your own article won't be good enough for you since it's vague so I'll post another article for you.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222149420_Molecular_signature_and_sources_of_biochemical_recalcitrance_of_organic_C_in_Amazonian_Dark_Earths

>"It means over-reacting to things" and "it means opposing liberalization" are not the same.
>You know this, and pretending otherwise just undermines any point you would try to make because you have demonstrated you are extremely dishonest.
Are you immune to irony? You left out "or reform" because you know that means change. Any change, social or political. If anything changes you overreact to try to keep things the same. That's what those words mean. You know this, and pretending otherwise just undermines any point you would try to make because you have demonstrated you are extremely dishonest.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:22:07 UTC No. 16237880

>>16237845
>You asked for evidence of those claims
And none has been provided or exists.
>Now if you want proof of the longevity of biochar in soil look no further than your own nature article
Try reading it. The longevity is entirely based on climate and soil ecosystem, not the carbon source. Charcoal is 100% irrelevant. It will last just as long as compost or any other organic matter, and that longevity is highly variable.
>so I'll post another article for you.
Which simply shows that in some circumstances, ALL ORGANIC SOURCES OF CARBON can last a long time. That does not support the claim that charcoal lasts thousands of years and is some amazing way to sequester carbon.
>You left out "or reform" because you know that means change.
No, I left it out because it is redundant. Liberalisation also means change, dumbass.
>Any change
No, any change from traditional norms. You do not become a reactionary when you oppose taking away women's right to vote simply because you are opposing change. That is still a progressive stance. Reactionary means anti-progressive, read what you quoted.
>f anything changes you overreact
There is nothing about overreacting involved. By your idiotic definition, pro-choice activists are reactionary because they overreacted when the supreme court ruled that it is not a federal matter.
>That's what those words mean.
Again, you posted the actual definition which says your "overreacts to anything" definition is wrong.

It is interesting that you faux-left dipshits are almost entirely identical to conservatards. Even down to the fact that you both somehow believe that Blackrock and Vanguard are left wing. You are both easily manipulated tools buying the same lies, just wearing different jerseys.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:29:41 UTC No. 16237887

Well the relative peace was nice while it lasted

>>16237796
While you have the correct mindset, do you have any evidence for the lobbying thing? It does seem like biochar does some good, objectively, but honestly the way its supporters talk do set off my "messianic cult" alarm a bit.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:52:20 UTC No. 16237911

>>16237880
>And none has been provided or exists
See
>>16237753
>>16237805

>>16237880
>It will last just as long as compost or any other organic matter, and that longevity is highly variable.
Lol no. That's not at all what the article says. Show me some compost that's been radiocarbon dated at 2000 years BP.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001140000193
Radiocarbon ages of
1,775±325 years BP of charcoal pieces and wet chemi-
cally isolated black carbon in about 60 cm soil depth of a
clayey ‘Terra Preta’ near Santarém and radiocarbon ages
of 740–2,460 years BP of charcoal found in 30–40 cm
soil depth by Saldarriaga and West (1986)

>That does not support the claim that charcoal lasts thousands of years and is some amazing way to sequester carbon.
You didn't read the article.

>No, I left it out because it is redundant.
Reactionary take. This is why you can't parse sentences.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever of any of your claims, or are you just going to keep misreading and misrepresenting the evidence I post for you. This is a very one sided conversation, probably because you know that none of your claims can be substantiated.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:40:03 UTC No. 16238036

>>16237911
>if I just keep spamming "reactionary" then my feelings will become evidence!
kek
>Show me some compost that's been radiocarbon dated at 2000 years BP.
https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.4141/cjss77-042
Again, you are ignoring what your own "evidence" says. The existence of old charcoal does not support the claim that charcoal lasts thousands of years. It only supports the much weaker claim that under some unspecified circumstances, it CAN last thousands of years. Which as I pointed out, is true of any organic matter. The fact that many studies have shown zero soil organic matter increase with extensive charcoal application proves that charcoal is not special and does not have special durability in soil. Biochar is 100% greenwashing snakeoil.
>>16237887
>do you have any evidence for the lobbying thing?
No, you'll have to jewgle it yourself. Look into how the "biochar" industry works. It is a "carbon credit" scam, you pay a company like Airex Energy to burn a few million trees for you, and that gives you "carbon credits" so you can go ahead and release a fuckton of CO2 and pretend it didn't count. All the little BS "energy" companies like Airex are either subsidiaries of oil companies or founded by oil and gas company execs. It lets them double dip as companies pay them for their oil, and then also pay them to burn trees so they can claim burning the oil didn't matter. And then faux-environmentalist dipshits like >>16237911 defend the oil companies for free. Its pretty much a perfect scam.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:34:06 UTC No. 16238280

>>16238036
>Show me some compost that's been radiocarbon dated at 2000 years BP.
>https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.4141/cjss77-042
>Comparing frozen soil to biologically active soil.
Weren't you just complaining about dishonesty?

>The existence of old charcoal does not support the claim that charcoal lasts thousands of years.
Are you hearing yourself? That is exactly what that supports.

>Again, you are ignoring what your own "evidence" says.
Ironic. Let's check your study.
>In a field experiment, fire-derived residues were even observed
To decompose faster than the remaining bulk organic matter, with 25% lost
over 100 years (ref. 29)
So on it's face, 75% of the carbon remains after a century, despite occasional fires which, surprise, burn charcoal. A century is already up to three times more than the atmospheric residence of carbon.

And what does "lost" mean?
>However, fire-derived carbon does
undergo oxidation and transport
>and transport
So an unspecified fraction has not burned in those fires, it has simply gone somewhere else. That means that more than 75% of the charcoal generated from grasslands that regularly catch on fire survive those fires for a century. How often do backyards and agricultural lands catch fire?

>do you have any evidence for the lobbying thing?
>No
Then suck a dick. The burden of evidence is on you.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:57:00 UTC No. 16238326

>>16238280
>>Comparing frozen soil to biologically active soil.
No, comparing topsoil to topsoil, retard.
>Weren't you just complaining about dishonesty?
Why would you bring that up right after outright lying and claiming it is frozen soil? Are you retarded?
>That is exactly what that supports.
No, it is not. This is very basic logic. "A can do X" does not support the statement "A always does X".
>Ironic. Let's check your study.
Now check it while comparing to OTHER ORGANIC MATTER instead of trying to compare it to ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING like a braindead nigger.
>The burden of evidence is on you.
I was not talking to you, nor am I presenting any argument about oil companies, you retarded faggot. There is no burden of proof at all, it was simply an off-hand statement that does not matter. You know there's a whole website specifically for insufferable midwits that think they know everything because they follow magic space negro on twatter, right? You should try it, you'll get so many upvotes.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:34:26 UTC No. 16238421

>>16238326
>No, comparing topsoil to topsoil, retard.
Topsoil in Eastern Canada isn't frozen most of the year? That's news to me.

>Why would you bring that up right after outright lying and claiming it is frozen soil? Are you retarded?
I want you to look up the climate of Canada and then reflect on your statement.

>No, it is not. This is very basic logic. "A can do X" does not support the statement "A always does X".
>always
You're the only one insisting on this. You've been trying to move the goalposts from "does not make a good carbon sink" to "it will remain forever more" for quite a while now. You know this, and pretending otherwise just undermines any point you would try to make because you have demonstrated you are extremely dishonest.

>Now check it while comparing to OTHER ORGANIC MATTER
The existence or not of other organic matter does not speak to the longevity of biochar in soil.

Now let's refocus.

>In a field experiment, fire-derived residues were even observed To decompose faster than the remaining bulk organic matter, with 25% lost
over 100 years (ref. 29)
So on it's face, 75% of the carbon remains after a century, despite occasional fires which, surprise, burn charcoal. A century is already up to three times more than the atmospheric residence of carbon.

And what does "lost" mean?
>However, fire-derived carbon does undergo oxidation and transport
>and transport
So an unspecified fraction has not burned in those fires, it has simply gone somewhere else. That means that more than 75% of the charcoal generated from grasslands that regularly catch on fire survive those fires for a century. How often do backyards and agricultural lands catch fire?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:48:41 UTC No. 16238445

>>16238421
>That's news to me
Then you are really fucking stupid. I live down the road from their sample site. No, the ground is not frozen.
>I want you to look up the climate of Canada and then reflect on your statement.
Holy fuck dude, you could not have picked a dumber way to try to go about this, you fucking braindead niggerfaggot: https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/weather/quebec/la-pocatiere
>The existence or not of other organic matter does not speak to the longevity of biochar in soil.
It speaks to its use as a soil additive you fucking retard.
>Now let's refocus.
You mean repeat something you don't understand because you have forgotten what we're even talking about? We're not comparing charcoal to atmospheric carbon you dumb nigger, we're comparing it to the fucking trees they burned to make it.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:16:41 UTC No. 16238484

>>16238445
>Then you are really fucking stupid. I live down the road from their sample site. No, the ground is not frozen.
>Hardiness zones 1-4 aren't frozen most of the year
Lol okay.

>https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/weather/quebec/la-pocatiere
You don't even understand the difference between weather and climate? Shocker.

>It speaks to its use as a soil additive you fucking retard.
It doesn't. I'd love to hear your justification of that statement.

>You mean repeat something you don't understand
No, I mean repeat something that YOU don't understand. You BTFO yourself right at the start of the argument and then tried to move the goalposts.

To recap, you disputed uses of biochar, were shown evidence to the contrary, refused to accept that evidence, and then dropped the argument completely. You asserted that fossil fuel companies were spreading propaganda about biochar and completely failed to substantiate those claims and instead posted conspiracy theories that you made up. You insisted that biochar is not a good store of carbon, were shown evidence to the contrary, refused to accept that evidence, and then moved the goalposts to try to save face. This conversation has been tedious as fuck. Your lies are uninteresting and shallow. I'm willing to entertain the idea that maybe you're capable of crafting a cogent response, but until I see it this is your last (you).

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:47:55 UTC No. 16238539

>>16238484
>>Hardiness zones 1-4 aren't frozen most of the year
The data is not from hardiness zones 1-4. Your cope attempt is the worst I have ever seen. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>You don't even understand the difference between weather and climate?
The current weather tells you that the climate is not one of year round sub freezing temperatures, you pathetic faggot.
>It doesn't. I'd love to hear your justification of that statement.
Thankfully, I am not familiar with communicating with the mentally handicapped and have no way to explain the obvious any simpler than it has already been explained.
>then tried to move the goalposts
Repeating this over and over will not make it so. Who are you trying to convince?
>To recap
Attempting to re-write the conversation to save face doesn't work when it is all still here in this thread. You literally just outright lied and claimed the evidence I gave you doesn't count because it was from frozen soil when it was not, and tried to justify that by insisting that all of Canada is frozen all year. You are beyond retarded.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 01:36:32 UTC No. 16238751

>>16238326
>Now check it while comparing to OTHER ORGANIC MATTER instead of trying to compare it to ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING like a braindead nigger.
+1 points for invoking the nigger word, but post actual studies backing what you're saying or stop sperging

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 01:50:05 UTC No. 16238770

>>16238751
>but post actual studies backing what you're saying
I did, retard. Try reading.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:49:58 UTC No. 16238855

>>16238770
I only saw the one about non-charcoal carbon lasting as long as charcoal does. I meant something directly disproving the claim that biochar (cringe name honestly) can't work as a carbon sink. It stands to reason that at the very least it won't decay the way that wood or other plant matter does, regardless of any other benefits being real.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:52:29 UTC No. 16238859

>>16238855
*can work as a carbon sink

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 21:35:19 UTC No. 16239992

>>16238855
>It stands to reason that at the very least it won't decay the way that wood or other plant matter does
It decays exactly like all other organic matter does, that's the issue. You saw the study showing random ordinary organic matter can last centuries just like charcoal can. You missed the one showing that charcoal can also decay in a few years just like any other organic matter can: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10386
>I meant something directly disproving the claim that biochar (cringe name honestly) can't work as a carbon sink
I didn't say it can't store carbon, I said it does not last thousands of years. "Can" and "does" are not synonyms. Charcoal is not any more durable in soil, and so there is no benefit to burning trees to add charcoal to fields. Industry propaganda is completely bullshit. The claimed benefits are the same as compost or manure or anything else. Both charcoal and compost will decay away in anywhere from a few years to a few millennia, entirely depending on the climate and soil ecosystem. Dumping millions of tons of charcoal on fields where it decays in a decade or two will do absolutely nothing to mitigate climate change.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:41:45 UTC No. 16240244

>>16239992
>I didn't say it can't store carbon, I said it does not last thousands of years
>>16237039

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:43:01 UTC No. 16240248

>>16239992
>decays in a decade or two
That source says that 75% lasts more than 100 years

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:49:56 UTC No. 16240260

>>16228997
>"What are YOU doing"
Nothing. Because I can't do fucking nothing.

People will keep consuming shit. People will keep wanting to have an american standard of life. People will keep shitting out kids per instinct, they will fail at life and turn to degenerate hedonism. They will want cars, go out at night, buy condoms and hormonal contraceptives, drink alcohol, all fucking nights in their 8 billion lives.

There's no fucking end to it, so whatever you do it only delays the inevitable. You want nuclear, wind turbines or solar panels? you are STILL shitting up the environment with those.

I couldn't give a shit about coal if the real problem that is keeping this much people isn't getting attention at all.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:54:47 UTC No. 16240270

>>16240260
Overpopulation is a meme

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 01:02:32 UTC No. 16240283

>>16240270
We can't sustain a decent lifestyle for everybody with the current numbers of people we have, let alone the western ideal. There's simply not enough area for housing if you're planning to leave any meaningful part to wilderness. There are no harmless amounts of pollution. Humans don't have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, we have a parasitic relationship with it.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 01:33:19 UTC No. 16240331

>>16240244
>me not english gud wut dis meen?!
>>16240270
"Overpopulation is a meme" is a meme.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 01:54:18 UTC No. 16240371

>>16240283
There's enough empty housing in the US to house everyone. You just got sold on some boomer memes.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:13:10 UTC No. 16240394

>>16240270
>NOOOOOOOO WE NEED INFINITY BROWN PEOPLE FOREVER!!!! WE *HAVE* TO PAVE OVER ALL FORESTS TO BUILD CONDOS!!!!
Fuck off and die

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:14:55 UTC No. 16240396

>>16239992
What are the respective rates? Anecdotally I've seen charcoal last much longer than wood left to rot in similar conditions, fungi doesn't seem to touch it.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:17:59 UTC No. 16240401

>>16240260
>Because I can't do fucking nothing.
Correct. You can do something. You can try to buy sustainably produced food (doesn't mean vegan) and if you have money, buy solar panels. Not to mention all the mildly annoying ways you can save tons of energy: keep ac somewhat higher, air dry clothes, etc.

>People will keep consuming shit.
You're not wrong, but we're on track to direct catastrophe pretty soon. When thousands and millions of people start to die there will be opportunity to reform society and expunge consumerism. By law if nothing else. Birth rates are already collapsing as well, starting to happen in Africa as well.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:19:01 UTC No. 16240405

>>16240371
You including all the houses in the southwest? Lmfao

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:28:37 UTC No. 16240415

>>16240401
>Save a negligible amount of energy at great costs
>A thousand niggers keep wasting tons of energy with total impunity in their daily life
>Somehow this is supposed to make me feel like I'm making a difference instead of just pretending to be an insufferable faggot


>We're on track to le catastrophe!
Like I give a shit about human catastrophes. The ecosystems are already dying and there's nothing to be done about it

>By law
As if the grifters that run politics will ever think of something but immediate profit. We HAD a tangible catastrophe during the pandemic and no government made serious efforts to contain the fucking bullsht. My family died over that shit and to all governments all is forgotten.

Fuck you. There's nothing to be done. If anything a predator that hunts humans is needed. Nothing else will solve this shit.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:57:03 UTC No. 16240453

>>16240405
Look it up, they're everywhere.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 03:45:43 UTC No. 16240511

>>16240260
>>16240415

You're an insufferable little faggot.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 04:26:41 UTC No. 16240548

>>16240511
Why, because I'm not a LARPing little faggot?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 05:00:14 UTC No. 16240568

>>16237812
Let's make two things clear:
1) believing you are some part of a "greater whole" isn't a reduction to some base-state. It isn't "that which is left if your ego dissolves". This idea/perspective is an ADDITION. It is something you, a human, have come up with.
The ego is the fundamental, primitive unit of existence. Why? Consider the following two sentences.
i. 'An empty universe without any conscious observers doesn't really meaningfully exist'
ii. 'Structureless chaos is not some ordered process. There was a point in the past when the universe contained less structured complexity, and it will be again in the future'
I think the ego is more fundamental than some grand universal perspective because I agree to i. & ii. above . [I'll explain in detail on request].

2) regardless 1), we can still discuss whether you, the ego-having individual should "celebrate" this condition/idea of just being a part of a "universal whole".
Why should you? What are the benefits of dissolving one's ego? You may think this is a quasi-narcissistic question. But please imagine the question rather being asked from the perspective of someone who extremely rarely "makes things about himself' to begin with. Imagine some uber-detached giga-autist who doesn't experience any emotions (except for curiosity/fascination).
That person already does not have a very strong ego. So what'd be the added benefit to him to accept this? Why should he find it "beautiful" that he supposedly is part of some greater system? I see why some extreme narcissistic would profit from some anti-individual/universal perspective, but what about the anti-narcissist?

The goal of your philosophy here is clear. It's just a vehicle to cope with the fear of death. It's a neat story. If you die, it doesn't really *change* that much. Your form just become changed. You are still part of the universal "symphony".

tl;dr: saying "we're all part of something greater, the ego doesn't matter" is cope

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:35:50 UTC No. 16240774

>>16240415
>Somehow this is supposed to make me feel like I'm making a difference
Well, you'd be making a difference on a local level. Lower your expectations.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:46:08 UTC No. 16240835

>>16240371
>There's enough empty housing in the US to house everyone
No there isn't. You just got sold on some millennial memes.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:28:12 UTC No. 16240979

>>16240835
>The United States boasts approximately 15.1 million vacant homes, a staggering number that accounts for 10.5% of the country's total housing inventory.

>HUD reports that on a single night in 2023, roughly 653,100 people in the U.S. experienced homelessness, up about 12 percent from 2022.

We could house the homeless nearly 30 times over. There's plenty of housing available.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:56:10 UTC No. 16240999

>>16240979
>everyone
>the homeless
These are not the same statement, retard. Like I said, you got sold on a millennial meme.
>The United States boasts approximately 15.1 million vacant homes
Many of which are derelict and not safe for habitation. But lets count them anyways because we are pushing an agenda and not concerned with truth.
>HUD reports that on a single night in 2023, roughly 653,100 people in the U.S. experienced homelessness
Now add all the people who do not qualify as homeless but do not own a home. Oops, that's 100M people.

Bill at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:56:59 UTC No. 16241000

>>16240999
don't.

I SAID DON'T

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:55:51 UTC No. 16241084

>>16240979
Have you ever dealt with a homeless person before? We bought my homeless aunt a house and she trashed it then went to go live on the streets again because we wouldn't give her money for drugs. The homeless problem can't be solved by throwing houses at them. Most (not all, and those should be helped) are insane.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:59:06 UTC No. 16241091

>>16240548
You are though albeit

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:20:47 UTC No. 16241121

>>16240999
>These are not the same statement, retard
The people who aren't homeless don't need to be housed. They are already in housing. I don't feel like you should need that explained to you.

>Many of which are derelict and not safe for habitation.
No, they're just empty. You can look up all the reasons why if you want, but most of it has to do with realty speculation.

>Now add all the people who do not qualify as homeless but do not own a home.
Having housing is not the same as owning a home. I don't feel like you should need that explained to you.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:22:17 UTC No. 16241123

>>16241084
Cute anecdote. Look up actual homeless housing programs and their results. Make sure to note the savings to the tax payers.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:25:45 UTC No. 16241128

Any good resources on homebuilding? I've been looking at earthships but doubt that's the route I'm going to take.

>>16236508
it's because God hates me, specifically. he made me live right before we reach the stars just to spite me

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:28:48 UTC No. 16241133

>>16241123
Go ahead and post it, there are exponentially bigger problems

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:44:47 UTC No. 16241150

>>16241133
Post what? A link to a housing program or an estimate of the savings to taxpayers?

>there are exponentially bigger problems
Bigger problems than what? And if you're using that as a justification for inaction then why is a nation of 300 million incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:47:56 UTC No. 16241155

>>16241121
>The people who aren't homeless don't need to be housed.
I see, we can provide for "everyone", except for the 100m people that want a house and can't get one. That's an interesting definition of "everyone".
>No, they're just empty.
Ok, that is just beyond retarded. What kind of fucking idiot is going to seriously claim there are no derelict houses? Detroit alone has 22,000.
>Having housing is not the same as owning a home.
We're not talking about homelessness you retarded niggerfaggot, we're talking about overpopulation. There is more population wanting house than there is house. That's the fucking definition of overpopulated.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:51:55 UTC No. 16241158

>>16241150
>then why is a nation of 300 million incapable of doing more than one thing at a time
sucking off Israel, the military, and megacorps is a full time job

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:53:53 UTC No. 16241251

>>16241155
>I see, we can provide for "everyone", except for the 100m people that want a house and can't get one.
Housing is not synonymous with having a house. You really shouldn't need that to be explained to you twice.

>What kind of fucking idiot is going to seriously claim there are no derelict houses?
You're the only one saying that. I'm telling you that figure doesn't include derelict buildings.

>We're not talking about homelessness
>>16240283
>There's simply not enough area for housing

>There is more population wanting house than there is house.
That's simply not true.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:22:49 UTC No. 16241285

>>16241251
>Housing is not synonymous with having a house
You are the one that is confusing the two.
>I'm telling you that figure doesn't include derelict buildings.
It is literally an estimate of all vacant residential housing units. Learn to fucking read.
>That's simply not true.
Oh, well since you proclaim it not true I guess the 100m people who can't get a house will just magically pull houses out of their asses to make you right.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:31:47 UTC No. 16241298

>>16241285
>Housing is not synonymous with having a house
>You are the one that is confusing the two.
>>16241155
>I see, we can provide for "everyone", except for the 100m people that want a house and can't get one.
>>16240999
>Now add all the people who do not qualify as homeless but do not own a home. Oops, that's 100M people.

>>16241285
>It is literally an estimate of all vacant residential housing units. Learn to fucking read.
Derelict buildings are not included in the figure. Vacant and derelict are not synonymous. I feel like you shouldn't need to have that explained to you either.

>the 100m people who can't get a house
Owning a house is not the same thing as having housing. You definitely shouldn't need this explained to you three times.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:35:53 UTC No. 16241301

>>16241298
>Derelict buildings are not included in the figure
Yes they are.
>Vacant and derelict are not synonymous.
No they are not. What kind of absolute fucking retard are you? Vacant and derelict do not need to be synonymous, any given house can be vacant, derelict, both or neither. Lots of the houses in the vacant list are both vacant and derelict. Why does this need to be explained to you? Isn't that what your caretaker is for?
>Owning a house is not the same thing as having housing
I know, that's why I keep telling you to stop blathering about homeless people you dumb nigger.
>You definitely shouldn't need this explained to you three times.
Again, you are the one trying to conflate the two. The discussion is about overpopulation, and you keep trying to talk about homelessness. Everything you keep repeating is 100% entirely irrelevant, and you yourself keep pointing this fact out.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:48:25 UTC No. 16241314

>>16241301
>Yes they are.
They aren't. The data was gathered by HUD and the US census. You can look up the figures for yourself.

>any given house can be vacant, derelict, both or neither.
A derelict house is not considered housing. That's why it's illegal to rent a derelict property as housing.

>The discussion is about overpopulation, and you keep trying to talk about homelessness.
>>16240283
>There's simply not enough area for housing
There clearly is plenty of area for housing since we have enough housing to house all the homeless.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:54:38 UTC No. 16241322

>>16241314
>They aren't.
Repeating "nu uh" isn't an argument. They are not inspecting houses to see if they are habitable you dumb fuck, how do you think a census works?
>A derelict house is not considered housing.
Welcome to the point, nigger.
>There clearly is plenty of area for housing since we have enough housing to house all the homeless.
Now we just need enough housing for everyone else. This constant "but you got to stay in a pod for 3 weeks last year so you don't need a house" BS is amazingly stupid.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:23:36 UTC No. 16241344

>>16241322
>They are not inspecting houses to see if they are habitable
The department of housing and urban development does exactly that.

>Welcome to the point
You're still missing the point. The housing in the figures are not derelict because if they were derelict they couldn't be considered housing.

>Now we just need enough housing for everyone else.
Everyone else has housing already. Owning a house is not the same as having housing. You should feel embarrassed that you've needed this explained to you so many times.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:40:01 UTC No. 16241366

>>16241314
>>16241251
If you allocate all the area of a country for human activities, where the fuck do the animals go?

Yes, there is still area to make more houses, that's why more houses are built. Once houses are built an office building is built, and people who want to work there start wanting more houses around it. The people there need to eat so we also build fields for crops and meat. Yes, the Earth is not 100% exploited there, but when are you stopping?

What's the point of a government, to concede to every wish of the population? The population will keep growing and demanding more. When does it stop? This is the fucking thing. Every time you give in to the needs of people you take a chunk from nature.

Let's take the Great Auk as an example. You have the Auks, you have the sailors. You decide to satisfy the needs of the sailors, you kill all the fucking Auks. Done, no turning back. Is this the fate you want for this rock floating in space?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:41:01 UTC No. 16241371

>>16241366
I'm talking about existing housing. There's no need to make more because we have plenty.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:48:10 UTC No. 16241380

hey. i just found this place. i drive a truck, smoke cigs, fertalize my lawn, and my boat has had a gas leak for years. how do i change my behavior and be nicer to nature?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:52:02 UTC No. 16241385

>>16241344
>I will ignore everything anyone says to me and just keep repeating the same stupid thing because my head is full of rocks
k

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:53:20 UTC No. 16241388

>>16241150
>Bigger problems than what?
Climate change and nature conservation
>And if you're using that as a justification for inaction then why is a nation of 300 million incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?
99.9% of us aren't even TALKING about the catastrophic ecosystem collapse happening all around us. Saving 600k from relatively mild (go look at India) poverty is completely irrelevant in comparison. I'm open to changing my opinion on the subject if you want to provide proof but it seems like you don't actually understand how bad environmental collapse is.

Congratulations on derailing the thread even more than it was.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:55:12 UTC No. 16241393

>>16241380
Probably start with fixing the boat leak Kek

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:01:06 UTC No. 16241402

>>16241388
>Climate change and nature conservation
>99.9% of us aren't even TALKING about the catastrophic ecosystem collapse happening all around us.
Those two things are related.

And if you're using that as a justification for inaction then why is a nation of 300 million incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:02:06 UTC No. 16241404

>>16241385
That's what you've been doing this whole time.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:02:55 UTC No. 16241406

>>16241402
Are you retarded? My point is that the 300 million clearly aren't capable of or willing to doing very much so it is insane to try and focus on anything but the most important issues. When the average American grows his own food and can walk to work then I'll give a shit about minor social issues.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:18:01 UTC No. 16241428

>>16241406
>everyone else is terrible and everything's fucked so I have to be terrible and never try at anything too
brilliant plan

maybe you should look at fixing the things within your reach and helping your neighbors to do the same instead of whining about everything being fucked anyway

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:27:30 UTC No. 16241443

>>16241428
I am TRYING to address the catastrophic issues, fuck off somewhere today if you want to do something else. Stop projecting your uselessness.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:34:52 UTC No. 16241452

>>16241443
you are TRYING to be a whiney do-nothing fucktard who bitches about people addressing social issues that are within their power to address because you somehow think that might detract from convincing a majority of the American people to voluntarily upend industrial civilization basically overnight, which is exactly what it would take to fix current ecosystem collapse and climate change in a reasonable span of time

shut the fuck up

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:46:20 UTC No. 16241473

>>16241452
>who bitches about people addressing social issues
You aren't addressing anything you worthless fucknugget. You are tardposting on an image board for mental defectives, and making everyone else look like geniuses in the process.
>shut the fuck up
Take your own advice.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:53:27 UTC No. 16241487

wow, being an environmentalist is hard. lots of infighting and one-upping other environmentalists all day. keep up the good work. unborn children are counting on you

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:57:12 UTC No. 16241491

>muh infighting
where do you think you are

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:13:06 UTC No. 16241508

>>16241371
Existing housing is subject to supply and demand. Companies will buy forests to cut down and see them as "ventures". They literally sacrifice environmental systems to gamble quick profit.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:21:39 UTC No. 16241524

I love nature

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:39:57 UTC No. 16241557

Hi, /sfg/ representative here. In no uncertain terms, go back. Go back to rebbit, go back to twitter, go back to tumblr, go back to tiktok, I dont care where just fuck off of /sci/. WE DONT WANT ENVIROTARDS HERE.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:41:55 UTC No. 16241563

>>16241557
back to X you schizophrenic

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:00:04 UTC No. 16241602

>>16241557
Sir. You will be having more cultural adaptation on >>>/g/ where we thank kali sir Musk

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:22:51 UTC No. 16241629

Please all KNEEL for the greatest environmentalist of all time.
The only human being who successfully lead a campaign to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 23:58:33 UTC No. 16241860

>>16241557
Fuck off retard, you don't represent anyone

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:02:28 UTC No. 16241866

>>16241629
my bussy bleeds in admiration

ill be picking up trash on route 22 this weekend, anyone care to join me?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:10:05 UTC No. 16241880

>>16241524
fucking nazi scum

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:23:51 UTC No. 16241909

fuck earthers

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:28:44 UTC No. 16241917

Behead an earther, roundhouse kick an earther into the woodchipper, stomp on earthers' babies heads, drop asteroids on earthers planet

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:56:15 UTC No. 16241945

>>16241917
We will twist every irradiated stone in the galaxy into the form of Earth and there is nothing you can do about it

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:09:00 UTC No. 16242283

>>16241402
Plenty of people are? Just today congress here in America passed some legislation to help the nuclear industry along so it can compete with fossil fuels, and renewables are expanding rapidly, so yes there are people trying to help the problem. I mean yeah its not fast enough, but holy fucking shit that just means we should have started earlier because replacing 85% of the energy supply realistically is going to take a bit of time.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:21:23 UTC No. 16242298

Have any of you guys fucked around with algae? I think its neat and I tried replicating some pond scum in a tub full of some weird water soluble fertilizer a while back, but I never got beyond that.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:19:01 UTC No. 16242473

>>16242298
I will not eat the pond scum

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:23:14 UTC No. 16242542

Have any of you guys heard of the Patti Grace Smith Fellowship?
Expect to hear more about them in the coming years.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:00:23 UTC No. 16242698

Since 2017 I have been keeping my families urine and feces in 5 gallon buckets in our garage because I am too self conscious about letting it go down the toilet and ruin the atmosphere. Whats the best way for me to get rid of my families biological waste without destroying our environment?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:32:21 UTC No. 16242825

>>16242698
I call bullshit, but if it's not then use bokashi fermentation and then trench compost it somewhere you won't grow food for a couple years.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:54:42 UTC No. 16242861

>>16242698
turn the urine into nitrates and make explosives out of it
flush the feces down the toilet

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:23:15 UTC No. 16242988

>>16242698
>denialnigger accidentally admits his scat fetish
>>16241866
I'm too busy genociding japanese beetles with soap and picking up all the trash along the main road near my house (I'm a mile from a jogger community). Between doing that, reducing consumption, and composting I'm pretty sure my garbage can is mostly filled with litter, most of the time.
>>16241909
>>16241917
Underage

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:32:10 UTC No. 16243008

>>16228997
The best thing for the environment is Total Nigger Death and Total Pajeet Death. Once those are done people will voluntarily live in cities and take public transit and walk more.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:34:37 UTC No. 16243014

>>16243008
Chinks are dying out on their own but I'm kind of hoping India and Pakistan will nuke each other. It'll solve a lot of problems.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:58:45 UTC No. 16244894

Rizz gyatt

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:26:35 UTC No. 16244936

I telework doing engineering for a hydroelectric company, grow a good amount of my own organic veggies, ride a little 250cc motorcycle a lot and an old jeep when the weather is bad.
My wife cooks most of our food from the garden and bulk dried organic foods we get from a local farmers group.

Id say my biggest ecological hit is having to fly to factories to oversee and run quality assurance lab tests about 3 times a year. But I try to offset it by finding and eliminating a lot of wasted construction efforts. I've probably saved 10 miles of 4/0 cable from needing to be produced.
I honestly think the individual effort thing only goes so far. The best thing you can do is get into a major industry and personally try everything you can to stop waste, and if you can't cut the waste do everything you can to get the project canceled. Don't let the mindless business bugmen destroy they planet so they can get their name on email chains.
Pic is one of my front yard pepper patches.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:56:07 UTC No. 16244955

>>16244936
Your garden looks good. I think your soil would benefit from biochar additions.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:16:05 UTC No. 16244969

>>16244955
kek

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:33:53 UTC No. 16245775

>>16231421
Individual actions can help deal with small scale issues like neighborhood litter, though it's still necessary to have janitors, street sweepers, garbage collectors, etc. Maintenance is an eternal problem, and resources must be spent simply to hold what you've already gained.

Reducing CO2 in the developed world will make virtually no difference. If fossil fuels are cheaper than the alternatives, then the poorest people in the world will be forced to choose those energy sources. Technology is the only way out. Nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind and batteries must be made cheaper so that's it's the financially practical position.

It could also be the case that increasing CO2 to around 800ppm will result in optimal growing conditions. Greenhouse productivity doubles when CO2 is raised from 400 to 800 ppm. We should also expect far more lush natural preserves. And if the Earth gets too hot, then geoengineering with calcite aerosols can cool the atmosphere to our liking. This would be the cheapest strategy, and a win-win in terms of cheap energy leading to greater growth and higher plant yields.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 03:06:27 UTC No. 16246691

>>16245775
>It could also be the case that increasing CO2 to around 800ppm will result in optimal growing conditions.
It is insane to want to try this for such marginal benefits. Who cares about increasing carbohydrate production? We create too much as it is.

Also:
>http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32557862/
>http://news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

Sorry, I don't want a world where everything is a concrete megacity filled with mentally retarded consoomers.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 03:09:16 UTC No. 16246696

>>16244936
Incredibly based. You're living the life I'm trying to get to. Something I'm trying to do is encourage more efficiency minded algorithmic design at my job. It's become irrelevant in most areas compared to "getting shit done" but there is an immense amount of energy wasted by inefficient algorithms and poor/careless design choices.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 03:36:20 UTC No. 16246748

>>16246691
Get an atmospheric sensor. You will find CO2 ppm is between 600 to 1000 in your room.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:12:37 UTC No. 16246895

>>16246748
Did you read what I posted? Increasing outdoor CO2 to 800 ppm, will increase indoor ppm past the level that begins to turn people retarded.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:32:20 UTC No. 16247109

Imagine shilling Exxon for free

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:45:58 UTC No. 16247223

>>16246895
>Increasing outdoor CO2 to 800 ppm, will increase indoor ppm past the level that begins to turn people retarded.
No it won't.