11 ms·
Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change
- gdubs 7y agoIn terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyards again, and reduce the amount of monocrop farming and all the global transportation and chemical fertilizer production that goes along with it. 1: “The Carbon Farming Solution” 2: Victory Gardens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden
- bjoli 7y agoConsidering how much arable land is used to produce animal feed (about 50%) there is quite a lot of room for improvement, especially considering how inefficient meat production is.
- efnx 7y agoThe first and easiest thing we can each do, individually, is eat less meat (or better - no meat). My wife and I have been mostly vegan for a year for health reasons and it’s surprisingly easy. Throw on the eco benefit and it’s a very good feeling. Very worth it.
- godtoldmetodoit 7y agoMy wife and I made the switch to vegetarian about 3 months ago, and it's been much easier then I expected. I love meat, but knowing both the health and ecological impacts I just couldn't justify my consumption anymore.
- hkeide 7y agoWhat health effects specifically are you talking about? There is a lot of shaky science in the nutrition field.
- jeffdavis 7y agoMy daughter is vegan and sometimes I worry about her diet. A diet is what you do eat, how much, when, etc.; but being vegan only tells you what you don't eat. Surprisingly little about vegan promotional stuff gives practical advice. It's mostly talking about how wasteful meat is and how foolish meat-eaters are. Where is practical material about daily eating habits? Like, what should an athletic teenager eat, how much, and how often? Preferably with pictures of actual normal daily food, not "here's an arcane recipe requiring twelve ingredients and ten steps that you will eat once and forget about". And preferably with approximate nutritional value. For adults it's probably pretty easy simply because adults don't need a lot of food to be healthy, and can skip meals without much downside. Adults are also in many ways less busy. A teenager needs food in the morning rushing to school, and probably needs to pack lunch also because there probably isn't a real vegan meal available at school to buy.
- vzidex 7y agoI'm a young, vegetarian person who is working on going vegan - and making good progress. If you do a cursory search of vegan material, or only pay attention to stuff that pops up on your Facebook/Reddit/HackerNews/Twitter feed, you'll definitely get a lot of "meat = bad"-type material. However, if you put in a little more effort there's a lot of good material available - from recipes, to nutrition advice, to guides on what products are vegan/are not. Hint: I've found appending the term "vegan" to my Google searches for recipes tends to work quite well and yield healthy, reasonable, scalable meals. By putting in the work, I've gotten a bunch of YouTube channels, saved recipes I like, and nutrition advice.
- jeffdavis 7y agoLooking for vegan recipes in google usually doesn't result in staple meals that you can have several times per week. More importantly, a recipe doesn't tell you how much or how often you should eat it in your diet.
- simonsarris 7y agoI'd be very worried about brain development and health. I suspect they are making a big mistake, but its especially so for children. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2018.1437024 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2018.1... > The present paper argues that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics ignores or gives short shrift to direct and indirect evidence that vegetarianism may be associated with serious risks for brain and body development in fetuses and children. Regular supplementation with iron, zinc, and B12 will not mitigate all of these risks. Consequently, we cannot say decisively that vegetarianism or veganism is safe for children. I seriously recommend you read the entire review. I do not think it's something that can be trivially solved with supplementation. Eg: > The AND says that “[v]egans must regularly consume…B-12-fortified foods or B-12-containing supplements,” and “[m]ost vegetarians should” do the same (Melina, Craig, and Levin 2016). The results of Herrmann et al. (2003) suggest that even with supplementation vegans may still tend to cluster in the deficient-to-borderline-deficient range. Vegetarians can achieve adequate B12 levels with supplementation, but some are still in the deficient and borderline-deficient range. Whether it is realistic for vegetarians/vegans to maintain adequate B12 levels throughout their entire childhood via supplementation is an open question. > The consequences of B12 deficiency in childhood for brain and body development are extensive, severe, and can be irreversible. Potential consequences include (among many others) impaired cognitive development/school performance, depression, weakness, fatigue, nerve damage, and failure to thrive (Graham, Arvela, and Wise 1992; Rasmussen, Fernhoff, and Scanlon 2001). Breastfeeding infants whose mothers are vegetarian/vegan are also known to be at risk for B12 deficiency (Graham, Arvela, and Wise 1992; Kühne, Bubl, and Baumgartner 1991; Roschitz et al. 2005; von Schenck, Bender-Götze, and Koletzko 1997).
- hkeide 7y agoThat's not true in the US. Less than 15% of the feed used for animals would be edible for humans, and much of the land in the US is not suitabe for growing crops other than grass. Most of the food given to animals are farm waste products and leaves etc. Using regenerative farming, cows can even be net carbon negative, meanwhile a lot of human feed uses artificial fertilizer which is a big contributor to carbon emissions. See White Oak Pastures for an example (verified by third parties): https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019...
- gdubs 7y agoOak Savanna and regenerative farming, in general, are great things. If we committed to only farming animals in these types of regenerative systems, it would _greatly_ reduce the supply. As a vegetarian, I’m all for that. As someone who really wants us to address climate change, I’m all for that. The fact is, our current system not only ignores the negative externalities of (animal intensive) agriculture — we subsidize it. That’s why I think a carbon tax is a good idea. It would mean meat would become more expensive. This angers a lot of people. But if we get serious about measuring the actual environmental effects of agriculture, it needs to be reflected in the cost. To me, if we solve this problem the world would eat a lot more plants, and the meat that is consumed would be produced by carbon negative, regenerative practices.
- bjoli 7y agoThat is not what I said. I said that fodder production takes up a very large part of arable land. In my home country, animal feed and human food take up the same amount of area. That land is suitable for growing human food as well. I suspect that arable land use is about the same in the US. Land that is capable of storing carbon is generally great farmland since the process in carbon sinks is what leads to humus.
- apatters 7y agoVictory Gardens worked because they had a patriotic, pro-war, pro-America appeal. Sort of a "Keep America Great" thing. I suspect there's zero chance that this type of sentiment could be harnessed for "Hey, let's offset carbon emissions [of whom the #1 emitter is our chief political rival, China]" In fact that's the biggest problem with broadening support for decarbonization in general. The largest share of global carbon is emitted by countries like India and China, which billionaires exported thousands of American jobs to, profiting from looser environmental regulations in the process. Of course the average American outside of the SF ivory tower is skeptical about changing his or her own habits to clean up that mess!
- Karunamon 7y agoPer the article: >While Victory Gardens were portrayed as a patriotic duty, 54% of Americans polled said they grew gardens for economic reasons while only 20% mentioned patriotism. (which cites the book Eating for victory : food rationing and the politics of domesticity) Combined with the produce shows and competitions mentioned, I'd put indirect social pressure and saturation advertisement above the patriotism angle with this in mind. I'd wager that if there was a push to have people grow their own veg again, citing economic reasons, and calling them "freedom gardens" or some such, we could see a similar level of success.
- apatters 7y agoI guess if Chinese carbon turns half the planet into a desert we'll be able to use the economic motivation too!
- tzs 7y ago> The largest share of global carbon is emitted by countries like India and China India emits about 7% of global emissions. The United States emits about 16% [1]. Per capita India emits about 1/9th what the US does. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...
- 7y ago
- goodname 7y agoI'm aware you said its still a ways off but "green bridges"[1] as well as other persistent pests could become a big issue especially in a broadacre monoculture operation (which is what agriculture generally is if we're talking staple crops). Also from experience with dealing with perennial pastures removing them should the disease get out of control would be a nightmare when the root systems are established. Victory Gardens definitley sound like a good idea though. Just my 2c 1: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/grains/control-green-bridge-pest-and-disease-management https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/grains/control-green-bridge-pest...
- alisson 7y agoI think for agriculture the way to go is syntropic agriculture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE I've seen people implementing this very successfully, I've been doing it myself for around 4 years now, and its very impressive how much carbon the soil stores after a few years on this practice.
- jnordwick 7y agoEverybody becomes a part time farmers? Yeah, I'll pass and almost everybody else will too. Let's try to stay in reality.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoA principle pillar of our modern civilization is, we went from 50% farmers to <2% farmers. Freeing all those people to, well, invent our modern civilization. Everybody going back to farming is a way to use the unemployed I guess. Maybe it'll have a comeback once we've automated everything (we're well down that path now).
- michaelt 7y agoI don't know if you've ever tried growing food in your back yard to eat? It's a fine hobby if you enjoy gardening and find satisfaction in the honest simplicity and hard work of digging over soil, weeding, and spreading manure. But the truth is: supermarket food is incredibly cheap, and you'll be putting in 50 hours of labour to grow $20 worth of vegetables. If you enjoy the process and don't mind not getting much output, by all means enjoy it as a hobby. But as a way to feed the nation? I'm skeptical.
- ptah 7y agoperennials require less work than annuals
- gdubs 7y agoAbsolutely, but in the context of this conversation we’re talking about moving away from annuals and all of the labor and inputs associated — towards perennials. Therefore, I’m not saying we should copy the Victory Garden from WWII verbatim, but use it as a model for how every person can use their backyard to combat climate change. The point is not to replace all of agriculture, but find ways that, collectively, individuals can make a dent in the problem. Even if it’s as simple as planting more oak trees and fruit trees. But, some of the comments here lack imagination (to speak kindly of the some of the negativity and snark in some of the other replies) in how we could take a 20th century idea and update it for today. We have more technology available, and more knowledge.
- bashmelek 7y agoGrowing food in one's yard is a good use, better than the USA's biggest crop: grass. In the log term, we ought to also build housing that has smaller lawns. Those who do have large lawns could help by growing their own food, trees or having a more low-maintenance plan for it
- piokoch 7y agoI don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it does not seem we will without major technological leap. In addition, in large parts of the World they just does not make sense as there is not enough sunny/windy days. For nuclear energy we have everything - knowledge, infrastructure, experience. What makes people so blind to the simple solution of the problem we have now? Eco people fought vigorously nuclear energy for years and now we are where we are. Time to say that they've made a costly mistake and move on.
- gdubs 7y agoI’m all for nuclear. But we haven’t yet replaced petrochemicals or concrete, for example. Energy production is just one slice of the pie.
- jnordwick 7y agoIn the words in Rahm Emanuel: "Never let a serious disaster go to waste." I think you are missing out on modern environmentalism's most important goal, control. Control of the economy and control of the social structure. The end goal for most seems to be green socialism, not just green. It wasn't a mistake that most of the Green New Deal had nothing to do with the environment and most to do with takeover of the economy and social structure. Any solution that doesn't let them do that, is not acceptable. Being center left, I would love for more practical solutions to be used, but the more progressive wing of my party (D) will never accept any solution that doesn't also include a huge power shift to government and progressive causes.
- fredgrott 7y agonot Solar, we have battery ways of storing it now..my local high school uses it in fact.
- Maximus9000 7y agoI too am pro-nuclear, but isn't it too late for traditional nuclear to save us? We need solutions very quickly and the typical nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build. In my uneducated opinion, the only way I see nuclear working is if there are small modular reactors that are produced quickly in a factory assembly line.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoAs the article indicates, the basic problem is a international co-ordination problem. Nordhaus won a Nobel Memorial Prize proposing a solution: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/ To oversimplify: carbon tariffs on any country not doing their part.
- CaptArmchair 7y agoHm. This article seems to wield several non-descriptive terms such as "deep decarbonization" or "green steel" while skipping discussing fossil fuels themselves. One of the main reasons why we can't replace fossil fuels is because they are arguably the most efficient way of storing and transporting a huge potential of energy. Think about it like this. It's easier to store a ton of coal for 50 years then it is to store the same amount of potential energy as electricity in a battery. It's more efficient to transport a ship filled with coal then it is to transport the same amount of energy as electricity through power lines. Fossil fuels have a high energy yield per unit and they are abundant. So, fossil fuels are far easier to scale towards diverse and large energy needs compared to clean energy sources. The author hears the bells chime, but can't find them: he alludes to the higher price of "green steel" and how subsidies are a necessary to support these innovations. But he ultimately draws the wrong conclusion. For one, he compares Denmark to China. Which represents 18% of the World's population. Sure, if China would switch to wind energy, the effects would be massive. But that's discounting vast economic differences between those countries.
- jeffdavis 7y agoWhat ever happened with Project Vesta? https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/
- hackeraccount 7y agoWhen I read about that it did make me wonder more then a bit - What exactly is wrong with this plan?
- matznerd 7y agoHi Jeff, Project Vesta is making great progress building out our scientific team and deployment plan! We have an update coming out very soon, our last poster in December was featured in the SF Chronicle under the titled "Could putting pebbles on beaches help solve climate change?" -> https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/Could-putting-pebbles-on-beaches-help-solve-14911295.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/Could-puttin...
- topkai22 7y agoI always find it odd that atmospheric carbon capture isn't a greater part of the conversation on climate change. It's basically assumed that we'll need to be able to take carbon out of the system to meet our goals, but so few people are willing to mention it as part of the overall solution to transitioning to a net negative economy. It seems like a technology that still has a lot of runway left before we start hitting any sort of fundamental limits on efficiency.
- jackdeansmith 7y agoI think air capture is an important part of the discussion when we talk about trying to get temps back down later this century, but I have serious doubts about it playing a large role in determining what the peak CO2 concentration will be around the middle of the century. Capture is orders of magnitude more expensive than emissions reductions, and will be for a long time. When you invest in capture, you get lower net emissions and that's it. When you invest in emissions cuts, at least while there's still a lot of low-hanging-fruit, you get the same net effect while also getting a productive asset like a power plant. Totally onboard with research budgets going way up for capture tech, we're 100% going to need it, but later rather than sooner I think.
- andy_ppp 7y agoI always wonder if we could heat large blocks of salt in the desert with mirrors and then make power at night extremely expensive. Cable it all up with huge direct power cables... once the infrastructure is built sure this becomes nearly free energy?
- LatteLazy 7y agoLike so many other articles on this subject, the authors first identify the problem (a global scale prisoners' dilemma) and then pretend it can be solved at a local level by individual actors. I actually find it terrifying that people think this way. It's the same intentional blindness that climate change deniers show, only with more steps and information. The author even goes as far as parroting George W Bush's (now decade old and stupid even when it was fresh) vague hope that technology will just magically fix the problem. Of course, he is allowed to be bat shit insane because he is on "our side". This problem is (geo-)political. It's not about technology or ideas or campaigning. It cannot be fixed by any local action (except maybe building flood defenses and watching everyone else drown?). Until people accept that they won't be able to fix this by composting more and hoping others take the bus, we will be doomed. Given that, a great article about how much Madrid could cut it's emissions is pointless and distracting.
- perfunctory 7y agoOk, it's a (geo-)political problem. So what do we do now? Besides posting HN comments that is.
- LatteLazy 7y agoYou write to your representatives. You vote for greener parties. You donate to green peace etc. None of those things are actually likely to work. But they're infinitely more likely to work that talking about local action and cutting back your meat intake. Sorry if I wasn't clear, this problem is really hard. Likely unsolvably hard. But that doesn't make an impractical solution practical.
- kiliantics 7y agoThere are effective things you can do but they require coordination with your community. Mass protests and worker strikes can force the hands of governments and big business. There are many historical examples that this works and just look at how much success the French are having right now. But they need to happen at scale and very frequently. Voting only happens once every few years for a reason.
- teslaberry 7y agowind power sucks. no one who has watched and studied ot for the last 20 years refutes this. it has NO place in the enegry mix of the future. it simply CANnot scale on the ground and airborn floating versions of it have failed. tidal and river power may scale one day. maybe. for now we do with damming up rivers. the three gorges will prove the limits of dam building. solar CAN scale. Nuclear DOES scale. fusion power MIGHT scale. burning EXISTING SUPPLIES of carbon has ALWAYS scaled. nature has placed mass and energy in various locations and densities. wind on the ground is the worst of all. emvracing the worst as a solution to something that already works isnt decarbonization, ..if done to excess, malivenstment is suicide of our civilization. one CaNNOT ignore the need to maintain an energy surplus to invest into building the next energy revolution. if we fail to maintain a surplus in the name of decarbonization, we will surely wind up in a dark ages of sorts for an umpredictably lomg period of time. surplus turns to scarcity much faste than scarcity naturally turns to surplus. with respect to civilization...what can be lost over a century may take centuries to recover.