It's axiomatic, isn't it, that a large scale operation (40K McDonald outlets) is more efficient than scattered small scale operations (40K coffee shops, diners, cafes, etc.). That doesn't make McDonald's good, from several perspectives, or the small scale operations bad.

Operating thousand-cow dairies has downsides for both the cows and the community. 1000 dairy cows are going to spend very little time outdoors grazing and cud-chewing. A small operation (50 cows) can be pastured, and a good share of the cow manure will be deposited on the pasture. Fly larvae will help break it down, as will sun and air. Shifting 50 cows from one grazed pasture to an ungrazed one is doable. Moving 1000+ cows around is a cattle drive,

A thousand cow dairy barn will produce more manure than can practically and usefully be spread on fields -- so it goes into sewage lagoons or tanks where it will produce noxious by-products and likely pollute ground water or streams. 1000 cow dairies are likely to be milking 24 hours a day, each cow being milked 2 or 3 times daily. Maximizing production and profit is the reason for thousand cow dairies, and it's likely the cows will be getting bST (bovine Somatotropin) to increase milk production, which is hard on the cows.

Huge hog operations and massive chicken and egg production facilities are more efficient too -- but at the cost of the animals' quality of life and the quality of the end product. Pigs like to be outside -- they are probably the brightest bulb in the barn yard next to the dog. Chickens are, well, not "smart" but they benefit from movement outside as well -- actually being outside with room to move around and eat whatever is crawling around for an extended period of time.

Hey Agree: I hope that you will now review Mitloehner's article from U Cal that you referenced and reconsider your opposition to reducing biogenic methane emissions. — EricH

I have looked at Mitloehner's article from U Cal again and I can see 2 statements that misled me. These are:

Bottom line: Fossil methane increases the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which drives warming. — Dr. Frank Mitloehner

As part of the biogenic carbon cycle, the carbon originally utilized by the plant is returned to the atmosphere contributing no net gain of CO2. — Dr. Frank Mitloehner

The first statement says that fossil methane is bad. This is correct and the same applies to fossil CO2.

The second statement says that biogenic carbon is not bad because it is part of a cycle. I assumed that biogenic carbon meant both CO2 and methane. While it is true that biogenic methane is part of a cycle, the amount in the atmosphere at any particular time can make the amount of global warming bigger or smaller.

Farming practices (e.g. farming efficiency, feed crop yields, veterinary care, sustainable feed practices, animal nutrition, etc) affect the amount of methane in the atmosphere. The number of cows also affects the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

So reducing the number of cows would lower the amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere and lead to less global warming.

However, reducing the number of cows has some possible negative effects.

Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose? — Samantha Werth, CLEAR Center at UC Davis

They [cows] turn low-quality proteins [crops] from a human nutritional perspective into high-quality protein [beef and dairy] with a more balanced amino acid profile. — Pamela Tyers at CSIRO

Many people want to eat beef and drink milk. These may become more expensive if supply is limited.

Many people will lose their jobs and have to retrain. Some people will not be happy about that. Farmers are obviously affected but there are many other associated jobs.

In the end the decision on the number of cows we should have is a compromise based on many factors.

It's axiomatic, isn't it, that a large scale operation (40K McDonald outlets) is more efficient than scattered small scale operations (40K coffee shops, diners, cafes, etc.). That doesn't make McDonald's good, from several perspectives, or the small scale operations bad. — BC

You make many good points. I was only commenting on the efficiency of fossil fuel use.

In addition efficiency only leads to more use. So portions get bigger, for instance. Voila, obesity.

China is permitting the construction of about 2 coal power plants per week.

if I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to think China rejects the science of climate change

if I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to think China rejects the science of climate change — Merkwurdichliebe

Either that or they just don't give a flying fuck

China is permitting the construction of about 2 coal power plants per week. — frank

Two odd things about this: 1) they decided to drastically increase their use of coal because it was so hot last year that the air conditioners were too big a load on their grid. And 2) that this is not particularly big news. Trump's latest circus is huge, but this, arguably a decisive fork in the road, is just miscellaneous news.

if I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to think China rejects the science of climate change

Well, Xi Jinping is a chemical engineer by training.

Well, Xi Jinping is a chemical engineer by training. — LuckyR

With that in mind...The very fact that he is not spending his time inventing alternatives for coal power plants shows that he doesn't "give a flying fuck", to use the words of a wise man.

China produces about 70% of the world's coal output, although they only have about 13% of the world's coal reserves within their borders. But two of the biggest reservoirs are in countries that orbit China: Australia and Russia. So there is no incentive for them to reduce coal burning. Coal will continue to be a cheap option as their economic development continues.

The fact that they're now building new coal power plants instead of nuclear means that humanity's chances of reining in CO2 emissions is fading. One possibility would be that scrubbing technology could be developed to make coal plants carbon neutral. But what incentive would make that economical?

One possibility would be that scrubbing technology could be developed to make coal plants carbon neutral. But what incentive would make that economical? — frank

The incentive would be that we wouldn't need to inevitably fubar the grid and effectively cripple the economy by disintegrating coal plants. . . We either create that technology, or prepare for drastically diminished standards of living (excepting China of course).

The incentive would be that we wouldn't need to inevitably fubar the grid and effectively cripple the economy by disintegrating coal plants. . . We either create that technology, or prepare for drastically diminished standards of living (excepting China of course). — Merkwurdichliebe

That sounds awfully rational.

Anyone have solid/reliable numbers for

• amount of fossil fuel deposits (let's say oil and coal)
• amount of fossil fuels burned by humans

since (or shortly before) the industrial revolution, something in that range?

I wouldn't expect much added to the deposits in this (geologically short) timeframe, but haven't come across solid numbers on available deposits. Numbers for burned fossil fuels since then are easier to come by, or estimates at least (Our World in Data). Graphing them out over time, should more or less be "opposite", the former going down, the latter going up, and adding them should more or less be constant over time in this timeframe.

There are cars, vehicles, machinery, houses, buildings, people, ..., all over the place, happily burning deposits in one way or other. Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff (geological timeframe) in a century or two without noticeable effects...? At least there's active research into fusion.



Suppose, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is a red herring, but we still do something about it. What's the worst that could happen? Longer oil supply? Less plastic in the oceans?
Suppose that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is quite impactful, with consequences for future generations, and we do nothing about it. What's the worst that could happen?

We have not merely been given the world from our parents, we are also borrowing it from our children. — some African proverb I think

Trolls would have us do nothing about it, despite evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change, pollution, etc.

Anyone have solid/reliable numbers for

• amount of fossil fuel deposits (let's say oil and coal) — jorndoe

I think it's classified. Just kidding. It would need to be a pretty recent assessment because of fracking. Pre-fracking numbers would be way too low.

Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff (geological timeframe) in a century or two without noticeable effects...? — jorndoe

It would take a few centuries to burn it all. There will definitely be a noticeable effect. :grin:

amount of fossil fuel deposits (let's say coal) — jorndoe

According to the Energy Information Administration (US gov): as of December 31, 2021, estimates of total world proved recoverable reserves of coal were about about 1.16 trillion short tons, and five countries had about 75% of the world's proved coal reserves.

amount of fossil fuel deposits (let's say oil) — jorndoe

Global consumption of oil is currently estimated at roughly 96.5 million barrels per day. According to OPEC, global demand is expected to reach 109 million barrels per day. Estimations vary slightly, but it is predicted that - if demand forecasts hold - we will run out of oil from known reserves in about 47 years. (2023 estimate)

"Oil reserves" is complicated by the adjective "recoverable". Some oil is buried so deeply that more energy is required to obtain the oil than the oil itself contains. Western Canada's tar sands can be dug out and cleaned up enough to qualify as "crude oil" but the whole process is quite polluting.

Trolls would have us do nothing about it, despite evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change, pollution, etc. — jorndoe

Well, count the major energy companies as trolls, because they are not doing anything very significant about it. And they have company. While government at various levels have taken some actions, while various companies have either worked towards a lower carbon output or manufactured equipment to reduce green house gas emissions, the world response to the threat of a global heating catastrophe has been sluggish.

Unfortunately for us all, the world's energy economy was shaped into its present form what... 200 years ago? 150 years ago? 100 years? Changing a 100 - 200 year pattern of voracious resource consumption just can't be done quickly EVEN IF everyone was enthusiastic about it, and lots of people are not even slightly enthusiastic, but are bitterly opposed to the level of change that is required.

Trolls would have us do nothing about it, despite evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change, pollution, etc. — jorndoe

What percentage of humans are "trolls"? Perhaps trolls outnumber non-trolls.

I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change.

China is permitting the construction of about 2 coal power plants per week. — frank

Don't tell Mikie because he/she thinks that the whole world is standing around a campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

Having folks who have the resources to compensate for the fallout from climate change be the policymakers on cimate change is the height of folly.

lots of people [...] are bitterly opposed to the level of change that is required — BC

I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change. — Agree-to-Disagree

Right, hence the failure in the second supposition above.
Ego-priorities — of those that will be gone soon enough, leaving our children's children...
Just don't be surprised if such moral failure is met with scorn.
But changing path doesn't mean everyone goes back to stoneage living.

I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change. — Agree-to-Disagree

I think they would if they felt everyone was doing it collectively, but we would need a strong world government to make that happen.

I know for a fact that the wealthy (most of them, anyway) wouldn't do even the bare minimum unless they were forced. I've spoken with people who find it literally mind boggling to think that someone would pass on having their very own yacht or cruise ship because of environmental reasons.

"You would avoid doing something just because doing that thing contributes significantly to climate change? Wow, that's inconceivable." Literally the mindset of at least like half the planet. Not just the wealthy.

I think they would if they felt everyone was doing it collectively, but we would need a strong world government to make that happen. — RogueAI

When you say "a strong world government", I think that you mean a "dictatorship".

A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials. — Wikipedia

Is that really what you want?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is a red herring, but we still do something about it. What's the worst that could happen? Longer oil supply? Less plastic in the oceans? — jorndoe

I don't think this is entirely fair. Doing something about anthropogenic climate change is reducing our use of fossil fuels. Reducing our use of fossil fuels is reducing our energy consumption. And without a certain surplus of energy, modern societies as we know them are simply not possible.

The worst thing that could happen, is the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, we can try to find ways to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels, but that is by no means something that is easy, there are trade-offs (economic as well as ecologic), and it takes a lot of time and costs a ton.

This is not just a matter of political will.

A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials.
— Wikipedia

Is that really what you want? — Agree-to-Disagree

If it accomplishes our goals whereas democracy, or in the case of the global political scene, anarchy, doesn't, then why not?

If it accomplishes our goals whereas democracy, or in the case of the global political scene, anarchy, doesn't, then why not? — frank

That sounds awfully rational.

, nature isn't particularly fair (or unfair). But maybe fusion could be like a "magic bullet"?

The source used by (I think, feel free to correct), briefly discusses strategies, solutions, consequences:

When will we run out of fossil fuels?
^{— Ama Lorenz · FairPlanet · Apr 30, 2023}

Just FYI, one of the numbers I was looking for was the net amount of available fossil fuels (over time). This would give an indication of net anthropogenic chemical/physical change of our shared environment, and then an assessment of net effects over time. ("Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff [...]".)

Anyway, I think only a minority of radicals demand immediate drastic political/societal change of the sort that destroys civilization, e.g. Ama Lorenz doesn't. On the other hand, I'd personally prefer not being among the generations of which our children's children say "they knew, and did nothing".

If it accomplishes our goals whereas democracy, or in the case of the global political scene, anarchy, doesn't, then why not? — frank

Do you have any goals which aren't related to global-warming/climate-change? What if the world dictatorship doesn't support or allow these other goals?

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely — Lord Acton (and others)

Frank, be careful what you wish for.

It's a cycle. Monarchy becomes corrupt and gives way to oligarchy (statesmen or clergymen), which become a burden on the people and gives way to democracy, which fails and gives way to monarchy. Over and over...

It's a cycle. Monarchy becomes corrupt and gives way to oligarchy (statesmen or clergymen), which become a burden on the people and gives way to democracy, which fails and gives way to monarchy. Over and over... — frank

Frank, do you have a personal preference for which system you would like to live in? Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy?