permaculture

["Gene Monaco" <efmonaco@comcast.net>]

I'm with Toby on this one.

It's hard to imagine that anybody seriously thinks that some technical
solution is going to bail us out of this mess, although I know that there
are many out there that think just that.  Perhaps it's because they can't
see any other way out?  Maybe some hidden alien technology will be revealed
at the last moment to give us unlimited free perpetual-motion energy.  Let's
keep up business as usual and look for those solutions.  Oh Please.

This is why I'm against nuclear power.  It's business as usual, only with a
smart and now green (washed) technology.  We might slow the carbon release
of what it would otherwise be, but for how long?  Long enough to dismantle
the coal plants, while at the same time running all the cars on electric
power and the trucks on natural gas?

Let's stick to permaculture basics: blocking and tackling; berming and
swaling; build soil; tree crops; plant food; craft local materials from
cultivated and care-taken systems; abandon dominion; share the surplus.

-Gene



Subject: Re: [permaculture] Giant Ray-Bans (formerly 'Hail Mary' ..)

Seeding the ocean with iron is an idea that came and was seriously enough
studied that the results are mostly in. In the opinion of most, it's not
worth pursuing and has some potentially dangerous drawbacks. Yes, we need
phytoplankton to form the base of the food chain as well as to suck up some
of our excess CO2. And the planet would be in grave shape if we were to
start running a serious deficit on these supremely "green" critters. But we
did the study and added to our store of knowledge, while finding that we
didn't greatly affect the rate of planktonic growth. Lots of iron enters the
sea naturally.

I think the question before us is whether we should seriously consider every
bright idea we can think up.. or whether we must rule out as a class of
ideas, all approaches involving geoengineering. And I don't think we are at
liberty to rule out the area in which the solution will most likely be
found.

This comes from the view that we now have nearly seven billion (up from six
billion back in 2000) consumers and potential consumers, all insisting that
the world economy give them the necessities of life, including factory foods
from across the globe and personal autos with which they can go to the
store. 
True, there are millions of us trying to warn them of the dangers. But in
the end I'm thinking the relentless pressure from these global consumers,
combined with the indulgence of the most powerful forces on the planet
(global
corporations) will outpace any steps the rest of us can make toward serious
moderation of our species' limitless demand for energy.

So I think it's a given that at some point we will burn up every iota of
fossil fuel our technology can dredge from the bowels of the earth.. and
that efforts to slow down the rate of burning will only defer the day when
our accessible biosphere has been utterly converted to carbon gas. That
pessimistic view indicates that we need to develop a Plan B.

GIANT RAY-BANS.  This is a field of very small reflectors, placed in
coterminous orbit (I forget if that's the term they use) interposed between
the sun and the earth. They have already calculated how many tons of
reflector material would be needed, and the optimum rate of replenishment to
keep the shield in shape.

In fact, by varying the rate of replenishment the sunscreen can be used like
tilt-blinds, depending on how much sun we want striking the atmosphere.

It may very well be that eventually some cautionary finding will indicate
this is a bad idea. But until we get to that point, I think it's the most
optimistic idea we have right now. The forces that create excess CO2 operate
very rapidly, while the rate at which it is returned to the carbon cycle is
very slow. 
We're heading toward a carbon bubble that I doubt we can avert entirely by
car pooling and trying to convince the rest of the planet to eat locally.

I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts in this area.

Michael