Save The World By First Saving Yourself

This is obviously not my field, plant chemistry.
And, I did appreciate the chemistry of the carbon cycle of trees, the chemistry of how they make cellulose. ANd, most of that is done while they grow. Ok.
But, the entire time they are living the do photosynthesis.
Again, not my field, but I have looked this up in a few places and they all say that photosynthesis reactions also have excess oxygen that is released.
so, is this true ? " There are two parts of the plant metabolic cycle that are not shared by animals. These are photophosphorylation (light cycle) and sugar reduction (known as the Calvin cycle or dark cycle). The reduction of carbon dioxide into pyruvate (three membered ring) does not require sunlight, so carbon dioxide is consumed regardless. However, reduction requires a coupled release of energy that is provided by the hydrolysis of ATP. This is where light plays the role: water serves as the electron donor to form oxygen gas at the end of the photosystem I. For every reduction, there must be an oxidation, and the formation of oxygen is this. Oxygen gas is also formed during carbon fixation, but remarkably less so.

I found lots of complicated explanations, but here is a very simpified equation for it

3. What is the chemical equation for photosynthesis?

The chemical equation for photosynthesis is the following: 6 CO₂ + 6 H₂O + light --> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6 O₂
but, Kahn academy has a few videos on photosynthesis, here is part of a transcript from one, and I bet watching a few would help understand, if we have time. Plant cells need sugar, ATP, they need energy every day, not just while growing " .... Now, I also said that part of this process, water-- and this is actually a very interesting thing-- water gets oxidized to molecular oxygen. So where does that happen? So when I said, up here in photosystem I, that we have a chlorophyll molecule that has an electron excited, and it goes into a higher energy state. And then that electron essentially gets passed from one guy to the next, that begs the question, what can we use to replace that electron? And it turns out that we use, we literally use, the electrons in water. So over here you literally have H2O. And H2O donates the hydrogens and the electrons with it. So you can kind of imagine it donates two hydrogen protons and two electrons to replace the electron that got excited by the photons. Because that electron got passed all the way over to photosystem I and eventually ends up in NADPH. So, you're literally stripping electrons off of water. And when you strip off the electrons and the hydrogens, you're just left with molecular oxygen. Now, the reason why I want to really focus on this is that there's something profound happening here. Or at least on a chemistry level, something profound is happening. You're oxidizing water. And in the entire biological kingdom, the only place where we know something that is strong enough of an oxidizing agent to oxidize water, to literally take away electrons from water. Which means you're really taking electrons away from oxygen. So you're oxidizing oxygen. The only place that we know that an oxidation agent is strong enough to do this is in photosystem II. So it's a very profound idea, that normally electrons are very happy in water. They're very happy circulating around oxygens. Oxygen is a very electronegative atom. That's why we even call it oxidizing, because oxygen is very good at oxidizing things. But all of a sudden we've found something that can oxidize oxygen, that can strip electrons off of oxygen and then give those electrons to the chlorophyll. The electron gets excited by photons. Then those photons enter lower and lower and lower energy states. ...."

so, plants ALSO respirate ! I have to go pick blackberries, so I am going to wiat for smarter plant chemistry minds. So I do wonder, are the 2 equations equivalent ? You could just have plants doing their thing, sunlight, water and they just recycle the same amount of carbon dioxide and oxygen or is it overall unbalanced and they need a gas input ?
In photosynthesis they use energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen (they then use the glucose and release the oxygen). They can only perform photosynthesis during daylight as the energy required to perform this conversion is provided by the sun.
In respiration they use glucose and oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. The energy released by breaking down the glucose is stored as ATP and used in cellular functions.
The basic equations are below, but if you want to get more technical you can look at the Krebs cycle etc.
Photosynthesis equation: 6CO2 + 6H2O —> C6H12O6 + 6O2
Respiration equation: C6H12O6 + 6O2 —> 6CO2 + 6H2O

To quote Gerald Celente: Guns, Gold and a Get-away plan

What I didn’t see in this article were concrete examples of people leaving the herd, but they are all over the place. Quiz any small business owner, and you will find that they have left the herd (or a very high percentage of them). They are trying to build wealth the old fashioned way (with very hard work) and it is very difficult since the government wants it all in taxes. Between sales tax, property tax, warehouse tax, taxes on equipment, and taxes on anything one purchases for the business, not to mention insurances of all kinds, and lest we forget? Health Insurance for a self-employed person. But that doesn’t mean people are not trying. Visit them, support them, shopt with them. They are the resistance.

Finished harvesting and recovering from the heat. Found this, which makes sense to my non-plant chemistry mind. Basically, overall plants, while they are alive, release more Oxygen than they consume for respiration, which is when they break down the sugar and need Oxygen, because it is only part of what they do with the sugar. The other parts are the need for cellulose, etc… Does make me wonder that they may not do as much photosynthesis when they are mature, why would they ? what are they doing with the sugar ? Root exudates ? Too many questions for a hot day
Everything I read seems to agree that it is the ocean, not the rainforest, producing the majority of the oxygen we need. So, I guess worry about how we are killing the oceans is more appropriate.

Not sure why anyone would want to be purchasing treasuries these days. What am I missing here? The gold/silver train is about to leave the station. All aboard, mates!

The surplus oxygen that enables life on Earth comes from the oceans. Rising CO2 levels lead to a concomitant increase in O2 levels, due to the fertilising effect of CO2. Ocean acidification isn’t really a problem because the CO2 gets used in photosynthesis. In fact, burning off all the world’s forests would cause an increase in O2 in the atmosphere.
If the Yellowstone super-volcano cooks off it will release more pollution than a hundred human civilisations but, in the long view, the Earth’s biosphere will shrug it off as it has many times before.
It’s always the apocalypse. As the article says, get your own shit in order, everything dies. It’s how you get there not where you’re going.

At the risk of being a Debbie-downer, does anyone truly believe the world will recover from the numerous, perilous predicaments created by humanity?
If we haven’t already gone over the cliff (point of no return), collectively we show little interest and no ability to address the crises, at least not in a meaningful and timely manner.

I sense the urgency in Chris’s article “Save the World by Saving Yourself First”. If you want a heightened sense of urgency, watch the informative videos from the Extinction Rebellion (ER). These folks are telling it like it is. ER’s video entitled The Truth shows a young woman speaking unabashedly about collapse, death, the Overton Window (and how they are shifting the window of what is ok to talk about), etc.
Today, a group of young college students are coming to my farm for a “Gee Whiz” tour on regenerative agriculture. I’m likely to scare the crap out of them with talk of climate change and the ongoing collapse of insects, economy, and society. It’s time.

Thanks for all the research mtnhousepermi, you basically figured it out. Overall, plants are just like us. Biochemically they are much closer to us than they are to bacteria. We respire by burning complex carbon molecules like carbohydrates in conjunction with oxygen to release water, co2 and energy. We are heterotrophs because we need to obtain those complex carbon molecules by eating some other organism. Plants respire just like we do. But they are autotrophs because they have additional metabolic pathways that enable them to make their own complex carbon molecules via photosynthesis, so they dont have to eat other organisms.
So plants overall produce o2 and store carbon as they grow. This is ultimately reversed when the plant dies and decomposes or burns. If they live in a bog then their carbon wont decompose and will get stored “forever” as coal. Otherwise it will end up back in the atmosphere.
As explained above, the real lungs of the earth are the oceans. They have chemistry that can lock up carbon and turn it into deep sea ooze or oil, essentially forever unless we drill for it. This comes from algae photosynthesizing then falling to the bottom of the ocean. That carbon doesn’t get a chance to decompose and return to the atmosphere.

Just to add a bit more perspective, over the earth’s history the concentration of co2 has generally steadily declined as carbon was stored in the ground as fossil fuels. This has coincided with the sun getting hotter and hotter. The net result has been a more or less constant average temperature. Eventually the sun will overpower the earth’s ability to reduce its greenhouse effect. This will be in the next several hundred million years. In a billion years the sun will expand to almost envelop the earth. Then the challenge for life will be to find a new habitable zone in the outer solar system.

Is it possible to set up a Roth or Sep treasury direct account?
Also I have some CD s paying between 2.8 and 3.65% and I’m finding it hard to cash them in for treasuries that pay much less. If a bank fails and the government reneges on FDIC I would imagine it would lead to bank runs and the collapse of the banking system. Isn’t it likely the FED will just print more funny money and cover the loses?

I personally view t-bills as wanting return of my investment and not return on investment. Obviously we all want a litter higher interest rate but it’s only a small difference relative to the the rapid ongoing changes of today’s financial system. Balancing out fairly safe cash equivalents are things that should do well with currency debasement (hard assets). My personal view of preserving wealth these days is fairly binary with having safe cash equivalents and hard assets.

I couldn’t edit my post above. What I was trying to say was that the very small interest rate on cash equivalents is immaterial. Security of the the cash equivalents is paramount.

Thanks for the link Waterdog14 - the video is a good watch in a believable “feet firmly planted on the ground” style - easy on the eyes and ears. All the content I‘ve read or heard here regularly on the PP site already - however it’s a good video to us to help wake up people about the seriousness of our climate and environmental predicament and also the “runaway acceleration effects” of the word Exponential… an good quality resource and message.

The entire system needs to come crashing down entirely. Usury and debt do not create wealth for the whole only for the few who’ve been able to get away with this scheme because of paid traitors in government. This system is nothing new but comes from Babylon. Those responsible for oppressing the masses globally must leave the earth in any expedient fashion. Anything associated with this existing system is smoke and mirrors.

Excellent if grim video Waterdog 14.

if we have too little oxygen burn down the Amazon? If the planet heats up too much due too humanity’s actions spray the stratosphere via SRM.
Is there really any confusion as to why we’re screwed???
Great word…

I do think the Extinction Rebellion is doing great work. They are moving the Overton Window. Allowing things to move from private into common knowledge.
That’s all spot on.
I watched the entire video and saw these pros and cons.

  • Delivered calmly
  • Giving voice to the emotional content of it all, and making room for people to feel overwhelmed or flooded with grief.
  • Laid out the facts of climate change and the systemic nature of things (feedback loops, tipping points, etc)
  • Directly 'attacked' people's faith in technology by pointing out its limits and what it might not be able to do
  • Does not talk about what actually would have to be done if "carbon were cut by 50% immediately"
  • Skips over the massive impacts on people's lives and lifestyles were we to get serious about decarbonizing
  • Did not connect the economy to energy (see above two points).
  • Was not open or honest about what success for the rebellion would look like and the impacts it would have if successful.
The cons might be expressed like this: "The truth is we are all walking oil. We eat fossil fuels. So does our economy, and everybody sitting in this room has a job and a house and transports themselves based on the surplus energy liberated by burning fossil fuels. Which means that cutting carbon by 50% will cause us to have to trim a lot of things from our current lifestyles. What shall those things be? Your job? Your home's heating and cooling? Your food? Because that's what we're really saying here. If we're successful half of this room entirely loses its income whether from job loss or the inability to service pensions." The ugly truth is the right time to have taken this all head-on was back in 1957 when Admiral Hyman Rickover laid out the logic of it all. He said:
We live in what historians may some day call the Fossil Fuel Age. Today coal, oil, and natural gas supply 93% of the world's energy; water power accounts for only 1%; and the labor of men and domestic animals the remaining 6%. This is a startling reversal of corresponding figures for 1850 – only a century ago. Then fossil fuels supplied 5% of the world's energy, and men and animals 94%. Five sixths of all the coal, oil, and gas consumed since the beginning of the Fossil Fuel Age has been burned up in the last 55 years. With high energy consumption goes a high standard of living. Thus the enormous fossil energy which we in this country control feeds machines which make each of us master of an army of mechanical slaves. Man's muscle power is rated at 35 watts continuously, or one-twentieth horsepower. Machines therefore furnish every American industrial worker with energy equivalent to that of 244 men, while at least 2,000 men push his automobile along the road, and his family is supplied with 33 faithful household helpers. Each locomotive engineer controls energy equivalent to that of 100,000 men; each jet pilot of 700,000 men. Truly, the humblest American enjoys the services of more slaves than were once owned by the richest nobles, and lives better than most ancient kings. In retrospect, and despite wars, revolutions, and disasters, the hundred years just gone by may well seem like a Golden Age. Whether this Golden Age will continue depends entirely upon our ability to keep energy supplies in balance with the needs of our growing population.
See? It was entirely possible to both see and connect the energy-economy-lifestyle dots more than 60 years ago....when the population was less than half its current size and "the economy" was several doublings smaller. While I applaud the Extinction Rebellion I worry that by skipping over the true nature of what's being asked they are committing the same "sin" as the scientists who self-censor in the interest of "not alarming people so much that my entire message is ignored." They too seem to be comfortable saying "we're moving the Overton Window, but not too far." Maybe I just missed the part where they lay out what's really being asked...that "decarbonizing" is the same thing as "de-economizing." After all, "the economy" is our religion. We pray to the gods of growth and they in turn bestow upon us super-comfortable lifestyles, new Netflix specials, and electric cars. It's quite a lot to ask people to willingly give up anything, let alone nearly everything. Tricky work. I don't have the answers. But I do think that complete honesty is essential here. People will do the most amazing things if they believe in the story. So I'd love to hear the Extinction Rebellion (XR) leaders lay out exactly what they are asking for here. If it's "better government action on and attention to climate change" I'm not really on board. There's nothing politically to be done because there's no political "win" anywhere in the story and humans, but especially politicians, are loathe to deliver losses to their constituents. If it's the "widespread reformation of everything we do economically and how we consume" then I'm keen on it. Does anybody know what success looks like for XR?