Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Restraints: Population food supply

Assuming the government could simply mandate the freezing of all unspoilt food that is thrown out by suppliers, how difficult is it to plan a global reigning in of industry in a cautionary fashion that might allow some respite for addressing the climate issue?

Postpocelipse said:

Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Restraints: Population food supply

Assuming the government could simply mandate the freezing of all unspoilt food that is thrown out by suppliers, how difficult is it to plan a global reigning in of industry in a cautionary fashion that might allow some respite for addressing the climate issue?

Really depends on the timeline. Over a 50 year period you could do it without breaking a sweat. Over a 10 year period you could probably not do it without Fascism.

>>Over a 50 year period you could do it without breaking a sweat.

How the hell will I be able to fly to London in 24 hours for a holiday?

Peak Warming Man said:

>>Over a 50 year period you could do it without breaking a sweat.

How the hell will I be able to fly to London in 24 hours for a holiday?

Not by hitching a ride on the north pole, which I read has now shifted it’s wobble from moving in the direction of the east coast of the US to moving toward england at 7 inches a year, due to ice sheet loss allegedly.

Food production is only a small part of total GHG emissions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Food production is only a small part of total GHG emissions.

I was thinking that you would have to cut down on peoples work hours in general but still supply them proper nutrition.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>Over a 50 year period you could do it without breaking a sweat.

How the hell will I be able to fly to London in 24 hours for a holiday?

By flying in an aeroplane fueled by biofuels or by fuels produced by captured CO2 (by various suggested means).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Food production is only a small part of total GHG emissions.

But significant: something like 12% of emissions are due directly to agriculture.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Food production is only a small part of total GHG emissions.

But significant: something like 12% of emissions are due directly to agriculture.

Which was part of why I referred to food waste.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Food production is only a small part of total GHG emissions.

But significant: something like 12% of emissions are due directly to agriculture.

There would be a bit on top of that for food transportation, preservation etc, and deforestation and other land use changes associated with ag.

dv said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Food production is only a small part of total GHG emissions.

But significant: something like 12% of emissions are due directly to agriculture.

There would be a bit on top of that for food transportation, preservation etc, and deforestation and other land use changes associated with ag.

Uncontrolled wild-fires in Indonesian peat-forests supposedly surpassed the entire GHG emessions of the USA last year.

I wonder if we’ll have fusion energy in 50 years time or if it will be still 30 yaers away.

Peak Warming Man said:

I wonder if we’ll have fusion energy in 50 years time or if it will be still 30 yaers away.

I’m going to put my money on the table and say that in 50 years fusion power will still be impractical, or at least uncompetitive with other zero emission sources.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Food production is only a small part of total GHG emissions.

I was thinking that you would have to cut down on peoples work hours in general but still supply them proper nutrition.

Removing all sources of GHG emissions due to grossly inefficient industrial practices would be a better place to start, which allows the process to make people (on average) better off, rather than worse off.

…or at least uncompetitive with other zero emission sources.

this is my view too.

Postpocelipse said:

Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Restraints: Population food supply

Assuming the government could simply mandate the freezing of all unspoilt food that is thrown out by suppliers, how difficult is it to plan a global reigning in of industry in a cautionary fashion that might allow some respite for addressing the climate issue?

Any measures that require a gross reduction in economic activity are just not going to happen in any democratic system, not as a part of deliberate policy anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Restraints: Population food supply

Assuming the government could simply mandate the freezing of all unspoilt food that is thrown out by suppliers, how difficult is it to plan a global reigning in of industry in a cautionary fashion that might allow some respite for addressing the climate issue?

Any measures that require a gross reduction in economic activity are just not going to happen in any democratic system, not as a part of deliberate policy anyway.

So perhaps the GFC was a strategic effort to ameliorate GHGs without requiring democratic support… There’s a conspiracy theory you don’t hear much.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Restraints: Population food supply

Assuming the government could simply mandate the freezing of all unspoilt food that is thrown out by suppliers, how difficult is it to plan a global reigning in of industry in a cautionary fashion that might allow some respite for addressing the climate issue?

Any measures that require a gross reduction in economic activity are just not going to happen in any democratic system, not as a part of deliberate policy anyway.

So perhaps the GFC was a strategic effort to ameliorate GHGs without requiring democratic support… There’s a conspiracy theory you don’t hear much.

As conspiracy theories go, I think it’s got a lot going for it :)

I think a lot of this co2 is being caused by countries cooking books.

Peak Warming Man said:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png!

I think a lot of this co2 is being caused by countries cooking books.

So we can now blame Nigella and Jamie?

Peak Warming Man said:

!http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

I think a lot of this co2 is being caused by countries cooking books.

Well at lest we can say the NAZI’s started it.

Just put a couple of more logs on the fire.
I have two types, gum and iron bark, the iron bark has more BTUs.

Peak Warming Man said:

Just put a couple of more logs on the fire.
I have two types, gum and iron bark, the iron bark has more BTUs.

Best Wrong Thread ever.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Just put a couple of more logs on the fire.
I have two types, gum and iron bark, the iron bark has more BTUs.

Best Wrong Thread ever.

Makes note “ban scouts…”

> Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Step 1. Stop all bushfires.

Step 2. Kill all animals.

Step 3. Oops, we’re already dead.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Any measures that require a gross reduction in economic activity are just not going to happen in any democratic system, not as a part of deliberate policy anyway.

So perhaps the GFC was a strategic effort to ameliorate GHGs without requiring democratic support… There’s a conspiracy theory you don’t hear much.

As conspiracy theories go, I think it’s got a lot going for it :)

Bloody shonky bankers messing with democracy. Can’t trust them for one minute.

or

Thank our lucky stars we have such perceptive and responsible bankers who are prepared to do what it takes.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I wonder if we’ll have fusion energy in 50 years time or if it will be still 30 yaers away.

I’m going to put my money on the table and say that in 50 years fusion power will still be impractical, or at least uncompetitive with other zero emission sources.

Since that’s basically the story of the past 50 years, I’d say most likely correct.

JudgeMental said:

…or at least uncompetitive with other zero emission sources.

this is my view too.

This is obvious as a sentiment but the purpose of the OP is defining manageability.

Example: If any nation is amenable to some form of martial law it is Australia, provided the effort is appropriate. Consider,

Drafting of anyone unemployed willing and able to be applied in logistics areas: Warehousing and distribution managed by the military.

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

…or at least uncompetitive with other zero emission sources.

this is my view too.

This is obvious as a sentiment but the purpose of the OP is defining manageability.

Example: If any nation is amenable to some form of martial law it is Australia, provided the effort is appropriate. Consider,

Drafting of anyone unemployed willing and able to be applied in logistics areas: Warehousing and distribution managed by the military.

My philosophy would provide that elements of essential product and service should be assigned to military management as a general rule rather than simply in emergency management.

Business requires competition if it does not fill a natural vacuum. These vacuums are what capitalism is modelled on but capitalism takes it too far by allowing for artificial vacuums to be created in lieu of ability to fill a natural one. Capitalist management of food supply for instance is proven to create significant waste.

Assigning the military the task of food supply management potentially addresses the following:

a) Universal job security in areas of high employment turn-over

b) Maximisation of delivery economy due to removal of requirement for competitive practices

c) Minimisation of jobless rates and associated housing issues

There are likely further positives but starting here might allow appropriate negatives to be addressed before complications develop.

An economy that creates waste to supply essentials is not an economy. It’s a wastology.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Restraints: Population food supply

Assuming the government could simply mandate the freezing of all unspoilt food that is thrown out by suppliers, how difficult is it to plan a global reigning in of industry in a cautionary fashion that might allow some respite for addressing the climate issue?

Really depends on the timeline. Over a 50 year period you could do it without breaking a sweat. Over a 10 year period you could probably not do it without Fascism.

I’m less convinced that 50yrs is a “not breaking a sweat” timeframe and to achieve that timeframe I think you also need a level of government intervention that would border on fascism as well..

The key elements that’s you would need are:

• global consensus on GHG emission reduction methods
• a global government to legislate, monitor and control progress
• a strategic buy out of all redundant GHG industries

*

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Restraints: Population food supply

Assuming the government could simply mandate the freezing of all unspoilt food that is thrown out by suppliers, how difficult is it to plan a global reigning in of industry in a cautionary fashion that might allow some respite for addressing the climate issue?

Really depends on the timeline. Over a 50 year period you could do it without breaking a sweat. Over a 10 year period you could probably not do it without Fascism.

I’m less convinced that 50yrs is a “not breaking a sweat” timeframe and to achieve that timeframe I think you also need a level of government intervention that would border on fascism as well..

The key elements that’s you would need are:

• global consensus on GHG emission reduction methods
• a global government to legislate, monitor and control progress
• a strategic buy out of all redundant GHG industries

Nah come on that’s ages.

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

Agenda: Plan for a methodical shut-down of carbon producing industry.

Restraints: Population food supply

Assuming the government could simply mandate the freezing of all unspoilt food that is thrown out by suppliers, how difficult is it to plan a global reigning in of industry in a cautionary fashion that might allow some respite for addressing the climate issue?

Really depends on the timeline. Over a 50 year period you could do it without breaking a sweat. Over a 10 year period you could probably not do it without Fascism.

I’m less convinced that 50yrs is a “not breaking a sweat” timeframe and to achieve that timeframe I think you also need a level of government intervention that would border on fascism as well..

The key elements that’s you would need are:

• global consensus on GHG emission reduction methods
• a global government to legislate, monitor and control progress
• a strategic buy out of all redundant GHG industries

Or a simple agreement between allied countries to pool military resource and management strategy.

Our military and that of some european nations have an almost working fascism inbuilt. Why create more work with unnecessary institutions when the existing best examples can be adjusted to fill a common natural vacuum?

It seems providential that prohibition is being addressed at the moment. An army rides on it’s stomach and all…..

Other b-listers might be Billy Zane and Russel Crowe, the 1995 versions.

dv said:

Other b-listers might be Billy Zane and Russel Crowe, the 1995 versions.

Showing some brother-love. Are we all going somewhere?

Hmmm. Should kit this hypothetical logistic platoon in Camo-pattern Hi-Vis…….

Postpocelipse said:

Hmmm. Should kit this hypothetical logistic platoon in Camo-pattern Hi-Vis…….

And it will be called joining the Army Preserve……..