4 ms·

Sorry, I think the point I was trying to make was, do we really want to transform this unique geography? I live in Utah and if someone came here and said, "you

by krupan 8y ago

Sorry, I think the point I was trying to make was, do we really want to transform this unique geography? I live in Utah and if someone came here and said, "you know all this red rock and sand in the south, we could change that into a lush green landscape," there'd be massive opposition to that idea.

kurthr 8y ago
The Sahara desert is in fact growing (some 10%)... likely due to global warming. So it's constantly transforming in any case. https://www.livescience.com/62168-sahara-desert-expanding.html https://www.livescience.com/62168-sahara-desert-expanding.ht...
xyzzyz 8y ago
Do you think there would a massive opposition if someone came here and offered changing 2% of Utah into lush green landscape? I believe this change would be welcome, as people like some variety. Now, area of Utah is 2% of Sahara's area, so we could literally transform some patch of Sahara of the size of Utah, and still have 98% of it untouched, and get enough electricity to power most of Europe.
- krupan 8y ago
  You haven't followed the recent Bears Ears controversy, have you? :-)
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    Not really, though I imagine you'd be able to find 2% of Utah that nobody will care about in particular. I love Utah as much as anyone, especially in winter, but I wouldn't want all of the US look exactly like Utah -- and the whole US is about as large as Sahara is.
  - krupan 8y ago
    Here's another example. I grew up in Washington state. We have dams on a lot of rivers in the Northwest generating clean renewable energy before anyone had ever heard of climate change (Grand Coulee is the most famous). They literally did change the barren desert of Eastern Washington into a fertile farming breadbasket with the irrigation water and power they provide. Despite that, there are people who hate them because they changed the rivers into a series of lakes and are threatening the wild salmon population. Pick any part of the Sahara and transform it and some species unique to that area, some native people, some curious weather pattern, some unique geologic formation will be lost and people will be upset.
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      I'm quite familiar with the dams, I live in Washington myself, and visited them multiple times. I agree that someone will always be upset, but this is generally true about every change ever. The point is to do changes that are most beneficial to the most, don't carry extremely serious side effects, and are net win over the alternative, which in this case is keeping burning coal. There's still plenty of coal left in Roslyn fields, and if not for the dams, it would probably continue to be extracted today.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Surely that coal is as big an argument for Saharan solar farms as it is for Washington dams?
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Question is, what do you care more about - the unique geography, or people living there?
- sulam 8y ago
  Very few people live in the Sahara. However, to your larger point, many people live in Europe and the Middle East, and being able to power their cities could in turn obviate the need to emit quite a large amount of CO2, potentially affecting the entire planet in a positive way. I would give up some portion of the Sahara (up to all of it) if it meant the planet doesn't warm 4 degrees. Of course that's easy for me to say -- I don't live there. :/
rossdavidh 8y ago
It is in fact still a matter of active debate as to whether or not the Sahara is natural. Some evidence suggests humans may have played a role in its expansion to current size, at least: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314111320.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314111320.h...

by krupan 8y ago

kurthr 8y ago

The Sahara desert is in fact growing (some 10%)... likely due to global warming. So it's constantly transforming in any case. https://www.livescience.com/62168-sahara-desert-expanding.html https://www.livescience.com/62168-sahara-desert-expanding.ht...

xyzzyz 8y ago

Do you think there would a massive opposition if someone came here and offered changing 2% of Utah into lush green landscape? I believe this change would be welcome, as people like some variety. Now, area of Utah is 2% of Sahara's area, so we could literally transform some patch of Sahara of the size of Utah, and still have 98% of it untouched, and get enough electricity to power most of Europe.

krupan 8y ago
You haven't followed the recent Bears Ears controversy, have you? :-)
- xyzzyz 8y ago
  Not really, though I imagine you'd be able to find 2% of Utah that nobody will care about in particular. I love Utah as much as anyone, especially in winter, but I wouldn't want all of the US look exactly like Utah -- and the whole US is about as large as Sahara is.
- krupan 8y ago
  Here's another example. I grew up in Washington state. We have dams on a lot of rivers in the Northwest generating clean renewable energy before anyone had ever heard of climate change (Grand Coulee is the most famous). They literally did change the barren desert of Eastern Washington into a fertile farming breadbasket with the irrigation water and power they provide. Despite that, there are people who hate them because they changed the rivers into a series of lakes and are threatening the wild salmon population. Pick any part of the Sahara and transform it and some species unique to that area, some native people, some curious weather pattern, some unique geologic formation will be lost and people will be upset.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    I'm quite familiar with the dams, I live in Washington myself, and visited them multiple times. I agree that someone will always be upset, but this is generally true about every change ever. The point is to do changes that are most beneficial to the most, don't carry extremely serious side effects, and are net win over the alternative, which in this case is keeping burning coal. There's still plenty of coal left in Roslyn fields, and if not for the dams, it would probably continue to be extracted today.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Surely that coal is as big an argument for Saharan solar farms as it is for Washington dams?

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Question is, what do you care more about - the unique geography, or people living there?

sulam 8y ago
Very few people live in the Sahara. However, to your larger point, many people live in Europe and the Middle East, and being able to power their cities could in turn obviate the need to emit quite a large amount of CO2, potentially affecting the entire planet in a positive way. I would give up some portion of the Sahara (up to all of it) if it meant the planet doesn't warm 4 degrees. Of course that's easy for me to say -- I don't live there. :/

rossdavidh 8y ago

It is in fact still a matter of active debate as to whether or not the Sahara is natural. Some evidence suggests humans may have played a role in its expansion to current size, at least: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314111320.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314111320.h...