 Check out the bookstore at IRBS.com |
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
(no email)
Date: Sun Apr 08 2007 - 23:25:29 EDT
While not at all grim, this answer may strike all as being off the wall, but
it seems the numbers work as much as I was able to grasp them some six years
ago. Just flip the problem on its head. Is it CO2 pollution that is the
problem or is it under-utilized resource.
Take the CO2 issue in the coastal waters productivity context of a
fished-down-food-chain with benthic communities scrapped bare. Decimate the
biomass (fish, clams,etc.) and you don't have enough fish pee to keep those
best phytoplankton, I mean the large juicy, nutritious estuary ones from
being displaced by the small hard to digest pelagic ones that are better at
scrounging nutrients (high surface to mass ratios). Now when a rain driven
slug of nutrients arrive is not readily utilized. The whole system goes
through wild swings in the available-carbon/available-nitrogen ratio. Scope
for growth is unrealized because of constraints playing musical chairs.
The unutilized resources are popularly called pollution.
Now look at the fossil record of coastal marine life to get a bench mark for
the best and richest that can reasonably be hoped for. Now, flesh-out
those fossils and quantify that limit that by what is sustainable when
sunlight is the ultimate limiting constraint. We have to be specific that
we are considering a very large area and are not going to have one area
capture the sunlight limited productivity of a larger area. - so let us
think in terms of a soybean field, bare and unproductive for half the year,
but soybean fields are what we know better than our coastal waters, so we
use soybean fields to set our reasonable goal for coastal productivity -
2000 pounds of dry bean per acre - make those beans as wet as fish flesh -
and we have about 12,000 pound of yield per year. No wonder those rocks are
so amazingly.
If that 12,000 pounds yield per acre per year is a reasonable goal given
what has already happened before then the trick is reading nature to learn
how that richness was/is bootstrapped, then
1) stop breaking that bootstrap process in enough area to let the remainder
'catch on bio-fire'
2) find species' useful coping strategies that can be emulated by human
intervention to aid the cohort of other necessary species not equipped with
that coping strategy
The idea is to reproduce those geological time frame highs of coastal marine
productivity within our lifetime.
After some review of what other species have done this achievement of human
stewardship on coastal resources appears much easier and cheaper that could
have been imagined were we not learning from the best, those who have be
perfecting their strategies for longer than humans have existed.
When the coastal sequestering of CO2 and insolation in increased biomass is
coupled with economically optimal forest management it seems that the
severity of the CO2 increase problem will be radically diminished.
Economically optimal forest management will fix the problem of acidified
streams and lakes as a by-product.
We may need for most internal combustion engines to become nitrate producing
diesels - but that can come later when the whole Redfield Coefficient
Chemical Balance idea has its implications well established and accepted as
fact.
I am not saying that this is the only answer necessary. I am saying that
nature has been around a lot longer than we humans have and nature's
resourcefulness and flexibility in time frame is vast. Earth will be a
beautiful place no matter what we bring into our future.
In the time subsequent to the "Garden of Eden" humanity appears to be a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Earth in spite of evidence to the contrary.
That being so I would be surprised if we don't serve some sufficient purpose
here even if we don't know what it is.
I am not saying that I never worry - my experience is that it is easier to
work than to worry.
Liveaboards are uniquely positioned to be knowledgeable and useful in the
coastal restoration work I hope to be a part of..
Oh, looks like there may be a side-effect solution to coral bleaching in
here also.
Russell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arild Jensen" <>
To: "Rit" <>; "LIVE_ABOARD"
<>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:43 PM
Subject: lv-ab: the problem and the answer?
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rit
>> I apologize, in advance for my grimness, but it's hard to hold my
>> tongue on this one.............
>>
>> IMHO, I think we have passed the point of no return in achieving
>> our global balance with nature.
>> Each and every one of us feels we have a right to have the things that
>> oil
>> and chemicals produce. What is the answer? I only wish I knew.
>>
>> Do you have one?
>
>> Rit
>
>
>
> REPLY
> I think your pessimism is unjustified and your gloomy perspective
> excessive.
> I have heard similar doom and gloom statements before concerning something
> or other that was deemed totally beyond hope and redemption. Now, 20 years
> later the pictuer is very different and much better.
>
> I would also argue that your statement "Each and every one of us feels we
> have a right. . ." is not 100% true since I have met quite a number of
> people who do not feel that way.
> Perhaps it is true in your particular corner of the world, but globally,
> it
> isn't a valid a statement.
> It certainly is true of many people in the US, one place where I have met
> many such people. However it is equally untrue for people elsewhere in the
> world.
> I belong to a discussion forum composed mostly of engineers and they are
> discussing the very issue you have brought up.
> Their solutions are as diverse as their backgrounds. Valuable
> contributions
> and innovative ideas have come from Malaysia, China, India, and South
> America not to mention Europe and some from North America.
>
> As long as such dialogue, not to mention brain storming takes place
> without
> any prompting, I think there is hope.
> AS a first step, we do need to reduce energy consumption per capita. If
> voluntary action fails to reduce consumption enough, external forces will
> prevail. Either the energy will cost so much only a few can afford it, or
> physical force - possibly military - will compel the more selfish people
> to
> curtain their demand for energy consumption.
> When less than 10% of the world population uses nealy 90% of the world's
> energy resources, the inequity is bound to provoke a forceful reaction.
>
> The nice way to diffuse such a calamity is to mount a public awareness
> campaign. This has already started.
> Next we need to develop public peer pressure to change for the better.
> A good example of this technique is the growing discouragement of smoking
> anywhere, anyplace.
> Do we mourn the loss of livelihood by tobacco growers and whole salers.
> No!!
>
> Food production can be very energy intensive. We need to highlight which
> foods require the most energy to produce and then discourage excessive
> consumption of that food stuff. This need not cause any sort of
> nutritional
> deprivement.
> In fact many dieticians and nutritionists would argue it will lead to
> healthier lives.
>
> Lifestyle choices - especially recreational activity - also plays a major
> role in energy consumption. Some recreational activity represents a
> criminal waste of precious resources. Spending a whole week-end, every
> week-end racing around a track in high powered cars or motor vehicles is
> very energy intensive. Can this really be justified? Don't ban the sport,
> simply restrict the amount of fuel that can be used. Its called rationing.
> Or impose a ban on using certain fuels. Inventive minds will soon come up
> with alternatives.
>
> Do we really need to have so many people commuting for many hours to and
> from work each and every day?
> What if these people could live and work in closer proximity.
> Reduced or eliminated commuting would greatly reduce the amount of fuel
> used.
>
> The list of possible alternatives is long and growing.
> What is really missing is any real will power to actually do something.
> (We
> have more than enough won't power)
> Plus a positive attitude that things can be changed and it will get
> better.
>
> Arild
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> || The Live-Aboard List : send a "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" request
> ||
> || in body of message to:
> ||
>
___________________________________________________________________________
|| The Live-Aboard List : send a "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" request ||
|| in body of message to: ||
|