The impending environmental disaster

Greebo said:
Desalination plants consume 2kWh of energy to produce 1 m3 of water so it would need 726 petaWh of energy to reduce the sea levels by 1m

To put that in perspective that is 439 times the annual UK consumption of energy and at the moment we seem to be struggling to manage to supply that.

In fact, the desalination project would use more than the entire planet current consumption of energy.

The costs what be astronomical as well. AT current prices it would cost 76 trillion dollars to do this or 28 years of the UK annual total GDP.

Good luck getting the rich countries of the world to spend their entire gdp on desalination plants.

Q. Do these mad ideas sound sane when you hear them in your head?
Click to expand...

Like I said it's a big investment. But obviously we need to factor in future increases in desalination efficiency and of course a renewable energy source that is available in vast quantities in the Sahara. Solar power.

If the alternative is day z, what other choice do you have?
 
Does it matter if it isnt? What matters surely is if global warming is being sped up due to man or made much worse than what it was going to be.

Either way its something we are going to have to (try) and deal with.
 
The Running Man said:
Like I said it's a big investment. But obviously we need to factor in future increases in desalination efficiency and of course a renewable energy source that is available in vast quantities in the Sahara. Solar power.

If the alternative is day z, what other choice do you have?
Click to expand...

Granted there will be improves in desalination technology and costs will decrease like they have done since they were first used in the 70s.

But its still going to eyewatering amounts of money, a substantial percentage of the entire world's gdp. And that's just to deal with one result of global warming 0 rising sea levels and doesn't deal with all the other things we will have to address as well.

And yes there is lots of "free" solar energy available but I ad I have stated, the amoutn of power needed would be the more than the current worldwide energy consumed at the moment. I could see your point if we already had the whole world's energy supplied by solar panels in Africa but countries are struggling all over the world to get enough energy to heat houses and keep the lights on. People are already balking at the costs of changing that never mind to try and double the energy.

You have summed up the biggest problem though. Dealing with the worst affects of global warming will basically bankrupt the world and everybody's standard of living will go back 100 years just to service as a species. The better solution would be to try and prevent us reaching that stage and having to take such distract action. That costs a fraction of the money needed later and yet our Govt and other countries wont spend the billions needed now as it would adversely affect the voting public's standard of living.

We probably should be throwing the book at green policies now, paying for every home to have maximum insulation, remove all subsidies on oil/gas. But then people would see their annual income drop by £1000s and price of everything go through the roof. People arent scared enough yet to swallow that or they dont care because their life will be over before all the bad stuff starts.
 
TBH, I don't think we've got a hope in hell of mitigating things before it's too late based on our current methods of energy, food, infrastructure production and transport supporting the global economy and the sheer amount of momentum that needs to be overcome to fundamentally change the way they work.

Technology got us into this problem, our only chance I can see is more technology solving the problems it has caused, which is going to take another leap in advancement as much as the first industrial revolution was. Be that fusion power, new meta materials from our ability to manipulate things on an atomic level, AI solving problems and space travel for resources. We are on the cusp of all that, but who knows if it's going to happen in time
 
xiuZQzI.jpg
 
Freakbro said:
TBH, I don't think we've got a hope in hell of mitigating things before it's too late based on our current methods of energy, food, infrastructure production and transport supporting the global economy and the sheer amount of momentum that needs to be overcome to fundamentally change the way they work.

Technology got us into this problem, our only chance I can see is more technology solving the problems it has caused, which is going to take another leap in advancement as much as the first industrial revolution was. Be that fusion power, new meta materials from our ability to manipulate things on an atomic level, AI solving problems and space travel for resources. We are on the cusp of all that, but who knows if it's going to happen in time
Click to expand...

Me neither, is there any study completed that predicts how long it will be till it's irreversible?
 
Freakbro said:
TBH, I don't think we've got a hope in hell of mitigating things before it's too late based on our current methods of energy, food, infrastructure production and transport supporting the global economy and the sheer amount of momentum that needs to be overcome to fundamentally change the way they work.

Technology got us into this problem, our only chance I can see is more technology solving the problems it has caused, which is going to take another leap in advancement as much as the first industrial revolution was. Be that fusion power, new meta materials from our ability to manipulate things on an atomic level, AI solving problems and space travel for resources. We are on the cusp of all that, but who knows if it's going to happen in time
Click to expand...

Is there actually anyone that knows when that point is? There is no doubt man made climate is real but what is the "tipping" point when everything goes to pot?
 
dLockers said:
What a great investment..........for literally only the few folk who live where you do.

Living on flood planes should be at your own peril, not for us to pick up the cost of fixing.
Click to expand...

Would you rather starve? 30% of the countries vegetables and 20% of the countries poultry is produced in Lincolnshire. That's why it is protected.
 
Greebo said:
If water levels keep rising then Boston will be underwater anyway, no mater how much was spent on flood defences, unless you are going to build a sea wall round Boston?
Click to expand...

Sea level has risen 3 inches in the last 20 years where we have been terrible with our emissions. Even if I accelerated that to three inches every decade it would take 130 years for sea levels to rise 1 meter.
 
Ok here goes:

Energy independence: Every country imports fuel, be it gas, petrol, coal, electricity etc. So no.
Preserve rainforests: It's well documented that rainforests are being felled faster than they're being replanted. Mainly for cattle grazing.
Sustainability: There are very few products that fall into this category, and even the greenwashing ones, under a microscope, come nowhere close to being part of a circular economy.
Green jobs: What an opportunity we have on our hands with this, yet there are still no incentives or funding for people to retrain.
Livable cities: Most cities are a hub of pollution with few green spaces to enjoy. They're built around business, not people.
Clean water and air: Not even close.
Healthy children: There's a mental health epidemic. As well as serious asthma and lung problems as a result of pollution.
 
The Running Man said:
Apart from 1 and 2 which is out of our control until we go nuclear, we have all the rest.

Everything is relative look at the health of our children to say, Pakistan or India. Same with our cities.

We are miles ahead of 80% if the world.
Click to expand...

We're one of the most overdeveloped nations in the world. We have little 'wild' life left in the country as even the green spaces you see are heavily farmed or managed.
 
BUDFORCE said:
The ONLY way we are going to survive as a species in the long run is to stop this population growth.

Yes short term we need to reduce as much carbon as possible, but we cannot sustain the population, particularly doing it in an environmentally friendly way.

Problem is people still want to have 10 kids becuase "its their human right innit".....but really short of something else more drastic (bad war, desease, asteroid strike etc) ...and lets hope not, this is the only way forward. That would in itself cause short term problems with pensions etc etc, but these are all relatively insignificant given the stakes.

And another problem is this is a global problem being (not) tackled by however many goverments of countries all with their own ideas, goals and agendas.

The ****, will at some stage will hit the fan.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Passed the point of no return barring some pretty catastrophic reproductive limiting event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom