Collapse Is Already Here

So the “Climate Change” taxes that Macron put in place were there to offset the tax cuts he gave to his rich friends. I certainly can understand the ire of the Yellow Vests for being forced to eat a “climate change” tax so that Macron’s buddies do a bit better.
While I do think a gasoline tax would help deal with the overall predicament by reducing consumption, I’d want to make sure that the money collected went, dollar for dollar, into an actual, new spending program that would actually help address some aspect of the predicament.
But if that gasoline tax just went to fund a tax cut to the rich, you end up with a revolution.
It really has to be seen as being something fair that will actually benefit “the people” and at the same time materially encourage our transition into a less gasoline-driven economy - such as a public transit system. Or something like that.
But we need to be careful to watch who the winners and losers will be with all these programs.
Last two cents: if your favorite climate change politican flies around in a private jet, what they say can be safely ignored as they are utter hypocrites.

So I’m thinking about making click heaters, and ran the numbers for a formula. It looks to me like to make 1.3 cups of sodium acetate trihydrate, you need to work 1/2 cup of baking soda SLOWLY into 1 gallon of 5% acidity vinegar, and then boil down to the desired volume, or slightly more. Maybe you want 4 waters for every Sodium acetate, in which case you’d stop it short.
But then I got thinking: if I wanted to make a green homeless cart, I’d make one with a stove that burns wood or trash efficiently, but I’d put the stove in the middle, and insulate with click heaters. That way, when I want to sleep, I activate the click heaters, and there is no carbon monoxide; and I efficiently catch the waste heat for nighttime.
Then during the summer and fall, use the same click heaters to dry harvest, long term.
Don’t know if the idea is any good, but I thought I’d toss it out there. If I try it and find out, I’ll let y’all know.

Doug, the point is that it’s pointless to pursue a remedy that makes things worsre than in the current paradigm.
I could expound on how the US government’s involvement in nutrition in the 1970’s and the resulting food pyramid was a direct contributor to the obesity epidemic and all of the resulting downstream diseases. It occurred because the gov. listened to a fish biologist who knew nothing about human nutrition and tuned out the real experts while big agriculture and big food industries were whispering into the government’s ear.
Or, I could explain in detail how doctors are completely mistreating type 2 diabetes and in the process are actually hastening the progression of the disease and sending their patient’s on an accelerating pathway to the downstram consequences of heart disease, stroke, alzheimers, and increased chance of cancer. They are trying to help their patients but because they misunderstand the cause and true dynamics of the disease they are actually hurting their patients.
Doing something can actually be worse than doing nothing if you are doing the wrong thing.

Quote:
pointless to pursue a remedy that makes things worse than in the current paradigm.
The current paradigm is on track to get worse all by itself. Instead of just dissing what other people think, float some ideas for remedies that you'd approve of. I'm curious, Old Man: how would you have us prepare for the day when fossil fuels are so scarce as to be unavailable to ordinary mortals? It won't happen tomorrow, but it WILL happen.

Good for you.
As we said back in the 60s and 70s, think globally, act locally. My local actions are in the context of community gardens. My near term goal is to persuade the town to institute a large scale composting operation for the benefit of the entire area. That would sequester carbon and recycle it into fresh vegetables.
After that I would like to work on urban forest gardens.
All the while, of course, I will continue to work for election of a new Congressperson to replace the current Trump punch. In order for democracy to work we must participate.

After that I would like to work on urban forest gardens.
Then you might be interested in the book I have just started reading - 'The Food Forest Handbook - Design and manage a home scale perennial polyculture garden' by Darrell Frey and Michelle Czolba

I wouldn’t post my solution on this site because it would make people’s heads here exolode as it is based on the assumption and reality that CO2 is not a problem and in fact that more is beneficial. That is clearly not the operating assumption on this site so you are asking me to give a solution to what I consider to not be a problem. I have no solution to the CO2 is bad thesis problem. In my view, the problem is the CO2 is bad thesis.
But I have said what I have to say and realize that I am banging-up against the power of superstition. Science and facts are helpless against the dogma fueled by superstition so I will make no further effort.
Superstition is a self-encapsulating proposition that refuses to let itself be disturbed in any way by anything, least of all by reason and facts. It entertains no doubt and leaves no open cracks through which might leak-in something unpleasant.

But if you wish to rectify the situation, it can easily be accomplished by marrying a princess.
But may I ask Why you allude to Archduke Farquad’s mirror?

Selbstverstaendlich, for the pointing finger, that it might observe itself in all its glory!

Old Guy, may I ask - since you are so quick to discount the collective expertise on this site, the collective scientific findings many of us here at least find credible, and the collective anecdotal evidence many of us have each experienced regarding ecosystem collapse - why are you here? Bringing the light of knowledge to the savages? Knowledge to the ignorant?

Oh, and what’s your PhD in? I don’t recall hearing your qualifications. Asking for a friend.

-S

speaking especially to the most passionate on here who are worried about CO2.
This may be the mirror you seek.
Although, over the years here on this site what I have seen as that none of you, even the passionate believers, respond to this and talk about each of our actual details and ways we can support each other in gettting better at it ! But, maybe this time… so instead of making a Group as was tried before, maybe we just meet back here on this thread within a week with our results
Yes, our calculator is a bit dated, I think it shuld have a tab for air miles, makes it easier. Instead if you fly, put in your share of airliner fuel based on type of plane/#of passengers. Otherwise, it gives a real good idea.

Here it is : http://www.greenknowe.org/r4a/
here are the rules : http://www.greenknowe.org/content/riot-4-austerity-7-categories
You can look at the power mix in your state to see how much on average comes from which source. This is the most accurate way right now. Solar you make at home is more obvious that of course that part is solar, but it still has an impact and you dont get unlimited amounts. Pounds of trash includes recycling.

There are many ways we can say this is or is not perfect, but it is the best calculator we have seen and if we all just do it, then we have a baseline of comparison.
The nice thing about this calculator is every household gets to do it in their won way so a suburban househould may use more gasline but way less heating fuel and grow all their vmeat eggies in the back garden. The calculator gives a final number based on each individual mix

ANd, again, for a mainstream start to cutting back, look to build it solars half project, and once you have that deon, and are buying local and in bulk, we can talk more… https://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

I don’t understand what we are judging or categorizing.
My home is all electric; it’s a 62x11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank – maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that’s 72x18= 1300 gal. There’s six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that – so what’s that, maybe 200-220 gal per person.
We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal.
So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don’t see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What’s the purpose of the 90% goal?
Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage):
44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods… 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet… and 53% of national average.
So I’ve shown you mine. What’s it all mean?

Except there IS a difference.
When I presented a rationale for why I think CO2 can’t cause warming I didn’t get a counter rationale. I got statements such as:
We know CO2 warms the earth
It’s all been debunked before
It has warmed where I live
We know CO2 traps heat
In otherwards, why not counter my argument in a similar vein as my argument. Show me where it is wrong in the details. Persuade me. I am open to detailed argument. That’s how I arrived at my position in the first place. But I am not going to capitulate my position without persuasion.
But when there are only expressions of faith and canned talking points thrown at me then I can’t credibly be accused of being obstinate because that didn’t shift me off of my position. In fact, it can only raise in me suspicions of what I am dealing with.

Michael_Rudmin wrote:
I don't understand what we are judging or categorizing. My home is all electric; it's a 62x11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank -- maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that's 72x18= 1300 gal. There's six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that -- so what's that, maybe 200-220 gal per person. We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal. So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don't see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What's the purpose of the 90% goal? Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage): 44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods... 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet... and 53% of national average. So I've shown you mine. What's it all mean?
I guess I thought you could go backwards to the main page of hers http://www.greenknowe.org/content/riot-4-austerity and read the blurb, and maybe go read Tom Murphy link. The point of 90% reduction is that that amount of reduction is what everyone was saying it would take to keep below 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. ALso, just using the calculator gives you a basis of how you compare to national average and what areas you might be able to improve in, and yes gasoline useage for rural is usually our tough spot. One can get a baseline of now, and then after making changes, see how far you have got. Even if you dont make it as low as to 10%, which is hard, you can reduce further. I am currently at 13% due to driving, and I willpost seperate on how and why on mine. SO, if you were worried about your households contribution to CO2 emmisions, from looking at your numbers you might do something like buy less non-local wet foodstuffs and more bulk food rpoducts. Does Azure standard deliver in your area ? https://www.azurestandard.com/ that is an example that would reduce your carbon footprint. The other thing would be to look at reducing you electric usages. There are many ways to do this and it will save you money. If you are heating with electric heat, anything that keeps the heat in. This usually means caulking ( look to the Build it solar site I linked to for cheap ways to save). Turn the electric water heater down, maybe put it on a timer, insulate the hot water pipes ruinning under the mobile home, if they are exposed there. Look for energy vampires, put all electronics on a power bar to turn OFF when they are off, etc... Look at that half project I linked, he goes thru all the least expensive ways to cut down and which things gave the most bang for the money. Money saved on electric could be put aside to save for a more expensive energy saving idea later ( home made solar hot water heater)

The thing is, this is mine now, I have been working on this for a long while, it is a process, and sometimes has backsliding.
For right now:
15 gallons diesel per person per month for transport. But, we took a driving vacation, highly unusual, so averaging this over the year I think would add another 5 gallons per person per month – so I put 20 gallons in to the calculator
300kWh of Solar produced eletric per month, that is 2kW of panels on the roof. I am making it within that budget. This includes water pumping, well and pressure pump, so my gallons of water impact is shown here.
less than 2 cords of wood per year, last few years this is dead down wood from my own yard, so counts as zero but even if I count it it only raises the percent by 2%
1 pound of garbage/recycle per person per week. We compost and work hard to not buy packaging no throw away cups or bags.
New stuff right now is about $100/month, used about $25 month in gneral, some months used is much higher and new is less, but I have been buying a few things lately
local 20%, bulk 60%, wet 20% I can get wet down to almost zero when the cards are all aligned right, but not lately
that is 13.5% of national average CO2 emisions my household is responsible for.
Transport is the sticky part for being in the suburbs, but that is canceled out by having wood heat in an area of trees, and room to store canners and home canned and bulk foods. Also, I have worked on my habits over the years to get packaging and trash down, electric usage down and finding places to buy bulk foods. I bought a small solar system 20 years ago and have worked to keep our usage within that budget.
Here are some things done over the years.
Solar hot water heater saved alot of electric for many years, but is presently needing to get a panel fixed. I also turned the thermostat down on the electric water heater and put in very low flow shower heads, 1.5gallons per minute, and trained the kids to shorter showers, this saves alot of hot water even without a solar water heater. There are many other things to cut down on hot water – wash clothes in cold water, etc…
I have an all electric house, but I put in a wood stove to heat with as I live in an area with alot of tree and wood waste. I bought a recent, energy efficient and low pollution one for its time used, so then we could afford it. That stove made us use 1/2 of the wood than the old woodstove that came with the house.
In the summer, I use a solar cooker quite a bit, I did this much more when all the kids were here, it was also convenient to have food ready when they got home. This absolutely has paid for itself vs the electric range, not to mention the convenience of unattended cooking that doesnt burn. Goodwill often sells electric breadmakers, this is great for the winter when the sun is not out and uses less power than the oven. Crookpots also do not use much power and are easily bought used and work in the winter.
Gardening is a learnign process, it can take a while to get successful. In the meantime buy local at the farmers market, and you can can what you buy there, for example I have bought flats of tomatoes, peaches, berries in season and that farmers market and canned at home to eat all year. This is a 2 for, local food and no trash as the jars are reused. It also build skills without waiting for your own garden to take off. Buy dry goods in bulk, like grains, flour, rice, beans either by the 25lb bag thru a bulk buy, like azure or Costco etc… or go to your local healthfood store, or WinnCo and buy by the pound out of their bulk bins. Bring reusable bags or jars to fill there. etc…
Driving and traveling was the hardest. I made kids carpool to school and activities. I combined trips or did without. Usually I keep a deep pantry or plan ahead to not make trips to stores. I took the train to move my youngest in to college even. We also took the train to her wedding, but carpooled with other family to get back. We keep the smallest, most fuel efficient car possible. Yes, you CAN have 5 people take a diesel Jetta (almost 50mpg on the hwy) car camping for the week, with bikes and food ! WHile work commuting must happen, sometimes carpools can be arranged. One of my kids chose to stay homeschooling for a while so that she could participate in a certain activity. I did not drive back home during this activity and had to find things to do ( most parents would go home as is was 2 or 3 hours long, I forget) SO, I would bring projects with me or work on the laptop in the car or coffee house.
etc… we have caulked, we use laptop not desktop computer, the refirgerator is bought looking at kwH per year, not style, etc…

Look to the half project for other ideas https://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

Where I live it is not unusual tho be under a high pressure system with moisture in the air at about 1%. During the daytime the temp might go as high as 32C or higher and be there up to an hour before sunset. Then by about seven hours after sunset the temp has dropped to10C with no air movement bringing in outside air. So within 7-8 hours the temp has dropped by 22C or 40F… Now ask yourself how powerful is the “trapping” power of the greenhouse gases with that kind of a temp drop in such a short time. And then consider that H2O makes up more than 95% of the heat trapping effect.
Also remember that during the day the removal of heat energy is even greater because of convection and outgoing radiation but the temp goes up because the energy input from the sun overwhelms it.
But how potent is this trapping effect when temp drops that dramatically in a few hours? In the desert the temp can go from100F to below freezing in a few hours. And the CO2 is up there all the time.

Good News: Average Family Cuts Home Electric Usage in Half
Call me crazy but I have been anxiously waiting for my electric bill to arrive this month.
Why? Because I took the 20% challenge CL & P offered recently (use 10-20% less electricity and get that same credit
on your next bill) AND I took the Half Challenge on the website BuilditSolar.com. (cut your electric use by half)
Then I did something. I actually stopped moaning about the rates for 5 minutes and did something to reduce my electric usage.
I received my electric bill today and got the news.... I was nervous. It was like opening the scores to my college boards. The result? I cut my bill in half!!!! Yes! Half!!!! All in the span of 2 months. Try it it yourself. It's easy.
For the month of July, my family used 1107 KWH (Kilowatt hours) and paid $204. Ouch!
Opening that bill was a painful experience. Then, this past month of August we used 601 KWH and
paid $115. Now I'm feeling good about that. Not good enough to stop moaning about the rates, but good enough
to slap my son five. He wouldn't let my wife open the bill until I came home. My 8 year old son is in this with me.
What did we do? What can you do? Something! Pick any one of these items below or go online and find others.
Do something... don't just sit there clicking the remote while the planet is melting.
Here's what we did. In July we had a home energy audit for $100 wherein they changed most of our incandescent lights to energy efficient fluorescent bulbs. Good deal! Plus they did a blower door test, weather stripped, sealed, changed all our faucets to low flow heads, and checked for air infiltration. They found that we have a low flow problem with the hot air return which can cause the furnace to use more oil. I gotta get that fixed before Winter.
In August I got busy. I vacuumed a decade of dust off my refrigerator coils, lowered my electric hot water heater by turning 2 screws, my wife and I started drying clothes using our new $60 clothesline instead of the electric dryer,
I began heating my water for coffee in the microwave instead of the electric stove, I unplugged the microwave disengaging the power sucked up by a useless clock, and put the TV, which has a remote, a DVD (remote) the VCR, which has a clock, and the PS2 all on a power strip. Then I turned them all off when not in use. OFF! I said.
I TURNED THEM OFF!!!!!!!!! No more phantom power for me! Does it matter? An average home will use about 50 Watts per hour of phantom power. That's 8 Gigawatts on a National level, the size of 8 large power plants. I think it does matter.
And two other things: First I kept asking myself, "Do I need to turn this on?" and secondly I repeated the phrase "Please turn the light off."
I guess our family effort worked. We cut our bill in half. Was it difficult? No. Did we spend a lot of money? $100 bucks for the audit and $60 for the clothesline. We'll make that back in another month.
I'm excited! We cut our energy use in half. We are helping. We're saving money.
We are on our way now.
Please join us.
Edward

More Conservation Stories here …
The Half Program …

https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Conservation/EdHalf.htm
Michael_Rudmin wrote:
I don't understand what we are judging or categorizing. My home is all electric; it's a 62x11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank -- maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that's 72x18= 1300 gal. There's six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that -- so what's that, maybe 200-220 gal per person. We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal. So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don't see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What's the purpose of the 90% goal? Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage): 44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods... 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet... and 53% of national average. So I've shown you mine. What's it all mean?

Doug wrote:
Quote:
My position has always been, if there isn't a solution ... it ain't a problem that can be fixed. That makes it a predicament and there are only outcomes. The outcomes can be made better or worse on an individual basis. Unfortunately, we can't make it better for everyone. It really doesn't matter how much you wish it were different.
So, again I ask, what are your alternatives? Roll over and play dead? There is no silver bullet solution. But, there are remedies that will take time, sacrifice, participation and money. It will be a long slog. It took us a couple centuries to create the slow moving nightmare, it will take some serious time to fix it. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Does that mean we shouldn't try to salvage a liveable environment for our grandchildren? What are your suggestions? There was a time in our American past when hard challenges were the norm. I've recently been doing the genealogy of my family. My earliest ancestors in this country landed in Virginia and Maryland as early as 1735. They fought in the French and Indian war, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War on both sides, WWI and my father in WWII. Reading and hearing of their exploits and struggles is like a history lesson of the nation. This is not to say that my family was exceptional, though some members certainly were, it is merely to illustrate the examples that we should be trying to emulate in confronting today's challenges. The earliest settlers confronted not only the risks of getting here, but also the incumbent challenges of surviving long enough to produce another generation. By those standards, our sacrifices to prolong our natural and environmental heritage appear kind of puny. On an individual level, we can set examples for how to live in a modest, self sustaining and benevolent manner, as espoused by PP. Beyond that, we must participate in the political process supporting policies and candidates who reflect our values and goals for environmental sanity. Government involvement is necessary for any large scale efforts to reverse our destructive past. Who else can do that? Particularly if we wish to take part in the global community in endeavors such as the Paris climate accords. Would you leave that up to the megacorporations that have been so instrumental in destroying our national and global heritage? Who would you have lead the charge for environmental sanity? Would you let DJT lead such efforts given his stated position that climate change is a Chinese hoax? Bottom line for me is that we have to be involved in the solutions. That means first, discarding the dual irrationalities of denial of climate change or believing that nothing can be done so we might as well give up. You're a smart guy Grover, what do you suggest going forward?
Doug, The problem isn't climate change or pollution or environmental degradation. Those are merely symptoms of the problem. The problem is population. Frankly, the majority must die. If government is the only force that can solve the symptoms, we're in trouble. Unfortunately, their past performance complicates the issues rather than reduces them. Humans have a deep seated urge to fix problems. This is no different. It feels good to try. But, does it really work? Let's look at some of your ancestors' likely experiences. Before doctors knew any better, they applied leeches to patients to drain the "bad" blood. Did that really improve the chance of survival for the majority of patients? Some patients lived through it and others died. Before Pasteur, doctors didn't know about microorganism caused infection. Look at the civil war casualties and the unsanitary conditions in the field hospitals. Infections took many lives, but some survived in spite of it. The doctors did what they knew to fix the problem. They just didn't know any better. Now, we know about microorganisms and their disease causing potential. Researchers developed antibiotics to get rid of the problem. It worked well for a while. Either overuse, underuse, or just repeated use for too long allowed the bugs to develop immunity. The use of these medications saved a considerable number of lives. It also has created a bigger problem. One that's very profitable for the medical industrial complex. Because of these (and other) discoveries, the population has soared. All those people need to eat and a place to live and a reason to make life worthwhile. The green revolution (occurring during your youth) provided the tools that made farmers productive enough to feed all these people. They used the best science available to increase yields at minimum costs. Chemical companies have invented ways to destroy the pests and eradicate the weeds. Sounds like nirvana, right? Unfortunately, the weeds and bugs that had more of a resistance to these chemicals were able to flourish. Beneficial bugs have paid the price, though. The food looks good enough to buy but is mostly devoid of the nutrition that foods contained a century ago. A century ago, draft animal manure fertilized the crops and provided more than just the major NPK fertilizers. Although we get plenty of calories daily, lots of those are non-nutritious empty calories. Could that be why so many today have multiple health issues? When I was in college, a common mantra was "the solution to pollution is dilution." That really is true. If you eat a large enough dose of arsenic, you will die. If you dilute that same amount in enough water, you won't have any ill effects. The first chemical company dumping a small waste stream in a river can get away with it. As the company expands and others join in, the waste stream overwhelms the river's ecosystem. The problem is too large a load for the system. That is a fractal concept that scales from the microorganism level all the way up to Gaia herself. These are all symptoms of too much. If you are 72 years old, you were born around 1946. According to http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/, the world population in 1951 was 2,583,816,786 and rising at 1.87% per year. It was likely around 2.4 million when you were born. They show that the 2019 population is 7,714,576,923 and rising at 1.07% per year. For every person alive when you were born, there are about 3.2 people alive today. Projections are that the population will peak later this century and then start to diminish. The Limits to Growth graph shows a reasonable trajectory to several trends. None of the trends are pretty. Getting back to climate change, let's assume that government is the only entity that can solve the issue. Let's ignore the costs involved and say that governments are completely successful and have defeated climate change. Does that mean that we're out of the woods and can proceed with life unfettered? What is the likelihood of another major catastrophe facing human existence after that? I've listed a few candidates, but there are many, many more and many that we're not even aware of. The pressures of too much population guarantees that other boogey men will show up. Nature abhors imbalances. In this thought experiment, I said that we should ignore the cost of letting the government respond successfully to climate change, but can we really? We've ignored government's true funding requirements for quite a while. As a result, we've got enormous debts and exceedingly large unfunded liabilities (promises) that will eventually force the government to default. Simple math shows that conclusion is inevitable. These are the good times with plenty of energy, sufficient resources, mostly livable environments, and relatively low taxes. (Taxes are low in large part because of all the cost deferment techniques deployed that have exploded the debt.) Even if we defeat climate change at enormous cost, there will be numerous other problems knocking on the doorstep to get our attention. That's why I conclude that it isn't a problem (that can be solved.) Climate change is a symptom (one of many) of the real problem. The problem is currently getting worse at 1.07% per year. Cut your nonrenewable resource usage by 99% and it still won't make it sustainable. It will just delay the inevitable comeuppance for a while. Is that a solution or just a "feel good" temporary answer? At some point, it will be obvious that there is a physical limit - just like bacteria find in a petri dish. By the time limits are evident, it will be too late. Will all of humanity perish? Probably not, but the majority likely will. Reversion to the sustainable will not be smooth and will likely overshoot. It is just how complex systems react. Those who survive will have a much lower population base to compete with - just like the microorganisms and weeds that are more immune to the chemicals we apply. Since the problem can't be fixed by us but will eventually fix itself, there are only outcomes to manage. The point I'm trying to make is to focus on what you can do to better the long term survival of your loved ones. Wasting time with government solutions to a symptom of the problem will reduce your ability to do so. Remember that nature bats last and it keeps batting until the problem is resolved. Grover