Mining The Wilderness

[santaman2000]

.....Food and water are not scarce....

Really? www.epa.gov › Climate Change › Impacts & Adaptation


And this pic of lake Mead showing the drop in the last 10 years or so:

http://www.dudziak.com/pictures/cross_country_november2007/hoover_dam/lake_mead_1920x1200.jpg

The white bit on the rocks shows the original water levels.

 

[British Red]

Wook, we are now entirely and wholly dependant on resources that are increasingly depleted. Without them (and we have no replacements so far) we die in our billions. I think this is beyond foolish.

However, you and I do not agree on this subject. Lets just leave it there and not hijack the topic

 

[Wook]

Really? www.epa.gov › Climate Change › Impacts & Adaptation

Yes, really:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...d-10-billion-people-and-still-cant-end-hunger
http://www.oxfam.ca/there-enough-food-feed-world

The problem is not one of shortage, but one of access.

 

[santaman2000]

Yes, really:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...d-10-billion-people-and-still-cant-end-hunger
http://www.oxfam.ca/there-enough-food-feed-world

The problem is not one of shortage, but one of access.

Those links are for food. Mine are for water.

Yes, I know we can grow enough food using modern farming (Mississippi alone is capable of growing 10 times the amount needed to feed the world) But only when using modern methods which are dependent on petroleum based fertilizers as BR said. And again they must be transported (currently also using petroleum fuels)

None of this matters if there's not enough fresh water. It also isn't possible without fresh water for irrigation.

 

[Wook]

Those links are for food. Mine are for water.

Yes, I know we can grow enough food using modern farming (Mississippi alone is capable of growing 10 times the amount needed to feed the world) But only when using modern methods which are dependent on petroleum based fertilizers as BR said. And again they must be transported (currently also using petroleum fuels)

None of this matters if there's not enough fresh water. It also isn't possible without fresh water for irrigation.

Santaman, the Earth is mostly water, so there is no shortage. The problem, as I said, is one of access.

It would be quite possible for water rich areas like Scotland to sell fresh water all around the world. Canada alone could probably meet the drinking water needs of Africa. And that's before you even get into desalination powered by your green fuel of choice.

 

[santaman2000]

Santaman, the Earth is mostly water, so there is no shortage. The problem, as I said, is one of access.

It would be quite possible for water rich areas like Scotland to sell fresh water all around the world. Canada alone could probably meet the drinking water needs of Africa. And that's before you even get into desalination powered by your green fuel of choice.

You're back to needing fossil fuels to transport it. Don't expect current supplies (Canada or elsewhere) to remain as they are. If you believe in climate change, then you know they're all going to change.

 

[Wook]

You're back to needing fossil fuels to transport it. Don't expect current supplies (Canada or elsewhere) to remain as they are. If you believe in climate change, then you know they're all going to change.

Of course I believe in climate change. Changing is what the climate does.

As to whether I believe in what many people mean when they say "climate change", and all of the "solutions" that are part of that same package - well that's a matter for another day.

But consider this - warm air holds more moisture, so a warmer planet would experience heavier rainfall.

Also consider that shale fossil fuels are plentiful and unexploited, and that Thorium reactors right now, and fusion in the future, have the potential to provide a clean and essentially limitless source of energy.

 

[Wayland]

Snip>

However, you and I do not agree on this subject. Lets just leave it there and not hijack the topic

Wise words.

 

[Wook]

Wise words.

Well indeed, for my part I am done with derailing this thread.

Away from this thread I will consider the arguments of my interlocutors carefully, with an open mind. All I ask is that this courtesy is reciprocated.

 

[santaman2000]

Of course I believe in climate change. Changing is what the climate does.

As to whether I believe in what many people mean when they say "climate change", and all of the "solutions" that are part of that same package - well that's a matter for another day.

But consider this - warm air holds more moisture, so a warmer planet would experience heavier rainfall.....

Partly a matter for another discussion; agreed. That a warmer planet would experience more precipitation is another matter though. No, it wouldn't. it would keep the water locked up in vapor form (Just as you said: warm air holds more moisture)

 

[santaman2000]

.....Also consider that shale fossil fuels are plentiful and unexploited, and that Thorium reactors right now, and fusion in the future, have the potential to provide a clean and essentially limitless source of energy.

Alternative energy sources? Yes, I agree. But that doesn't replace the petroleum based fertilizers.

Shale fossil fuels plentiful and unexploited? Yes, for now. But they too are finite.

 

[santaman2000]

Well indeed, for my part I am done with derailing this thread.///.

As all these subjects are so inter-related, I don't believe we've really wandered off topic at all.

 

[cottonwoodroot]

I really think the film I mentioned earlier, Pandoras Promise speaks to this discussion. Agree or disagree it would be a good watch for anyone interested in the energy debat.

 

[Swallow]

Red, all resources are to some extent finite. To try and avoid using up anything at all is to cease trying to stay alive.

That's not actually true. Our most important resources recycle themselves without fuss if left alone. Air, water, plants, animals.

Wood for heat was the same until we reached certain numbers and before we cut it all down and chucked it into steam engines or whatever.

It's our thinking to the contrary that is jeopardising the above. When we think in terms of a resource to be used then we come up with solutions that work that way and then we use it up.

When our thinking evolves beyond finding a new resource, using it up, then looking for another one, then we are in with a shot.

Ray Mear's recent program show us America was full of wood and Bision until we turned up and used it for "More important" things.

That doesn't mean we can't do the technology thing it means we need to do the technology thing in a much smarter less monkeyish way that we have been doing so far.

IMO that means using technology inside the "circle of life" rather than pulling resources out and draining it.

Where would we be if stone age man had concerned himself with not depleting precious flint stocks?

The history of humanity has been one of utilization of the environment, followed by refinement and ultimately adaptation onto to the next big thing, either when that resource was depleted or when something better came along. It has always been the case.

The only way for man to have no impact on the environment is for him to go extinct. At which point, something else will come along and start using up "finite" resources with gay abandon.

 

[santaman2000]

.....Ray Mear's recent program show us America was full of wood and Bision until we turned up and used it for "More important" things....

It largely still is full of wood. And the bison weren't "used up." They were deliberately exterminated to deny food to the Indians and to make room for cattle on the prairie. Ironically, there are more whitetail deer here now than there were when Columbus landed.

Same end result though.

 

[Swallow]

It largely still is full of wood. And the bison weren't "used up." They were deliberately exterminated to deny food to the Indians and to make room for cattle on the prairie. Ironically, there are more whitetail deer here now than there were when Columbus landed.

Same end result though.

That's what I thought too. But in Rays's program it showed the angle of how the skins made belts for industrial machines and that driving the economies of buffalo hunting. Those economies make more sense than extermination for other reasons thought obviously it's too far back in time to get the full truth.

 

[TeeDee]

Just want to add that this is an interesting thread , and I hope it continues.

Good stuff guys.

 

[DavidJT]

As poster of the O.P. I raised the Guardian article, as I thought it would be of interest to many on here. I wasn't quite expecting the amount of well informed and passionate comments the thread has attracted. Lots to ponder.

My own thoughts on reading the article were, that I knew there was lots of mining up there, but the shear size of the expansion planned was shocking.

I live in the real modern world, as we all do, and so consume energy and commodities, so can't be entirely opposed to such mining - even if the vast bulk of whats produced is destined for export to the booming new economies of the world.

I only hope that the mining activity that's inevitably going to take place is carried out with a decent amount of consideration to the environment and the future of the area after the mines are closed. However I am not too optimistic about that.

 

[Swallow]

I just found this

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/boom_in_mining_rare_earths_poses_mounting_toxic_risks/2614/

about rare earths, but interestingly (and I have not checked the link below yet) I found this in the comments

"rare earth metals, essential components in wind turbines."

Wrong. Enercon has been using wound field rotors and no permanent magnets in their direct drive turbines for decades, and they are the most visible turbines in Europe.

http://www.enercon.de/en-en/1337.htm

They also have the largest turbine in production today, E-126, at some 7.5 MW capacity.

So let's not get carried away about the environmental ills of neodymium mining. Permanent magnets are a convenience, not an "essential component." Let's start by providing some education on the topic at Yale360 (and not environmental doublespeak from anti-wind energy talking points). There is also plenty of R&D on alternatives to rare earths in EVs, phones, missiles, and even nuclear power plants. Many ARPA-E projects speak to this. If we don't like rare earths, why don't we just use alternatives?

 

[santaman2000]

That's what I thought too. But in Rays's program it showed the angle of how the skins made belts for industrial machines and that driving the economies of buffalo hunting. Those economies make more sense than extermination for other reasons thought obviously it's too far back in time to get the full truth.

Yes the hides were used for that and other uses Even now, there'll still a demand for buffalo hide The railroads also hired buffalo hunters to feed the track laying crews. However, actual use, only accounted for a fraction of the buffalo killed. The vast majority were left to rot.