Mayer Hillman on the futility of cycling

Koobcam

'With doom ahead, making a case for cycling as the primary mode of transport is almost irrelevant,” he says. “We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels. So many aspects of life depend on fossil fuels, except for music and love and education and happiness. These things, which hardly use fossil fuels, are what we must focus on.”'
From today's Guardian

Discuss...

Lumen

He doesn't say cycling is futile. He says that relying on a small thing to fix a big thing is futile.

Which is so obvious as to not need stating, but...

magicbastarder

having read the article, he certainly did not suggest cycling is 'futile' - he just implies it's not a panacea to climate meltdown.

magicbastarder

or what Lumen said.

ford2600

Sounds like he just misses the 60's

Weepsie

Was he even an elected Mayer?

OleRodrigo

For every well qualified opinion forecasting doom, theres another well qualified
opinion forecasting redemption

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/21/ray-kurzweill-climate-change

magicbastarder

ray kurzweil, famously well qualified climate scientist.

ford2600

magicbastarder wrote: »

ray kurzweil, famously well qualified climate scientist.

This isn't the first energy crisis, we have being having them along time

https://nature.berkeley.edu/er100/readings/Nef_1977.pdf

While doomsayers have their role, it is human ingenuity/ people who can visualise a different future which will get us out of the mess(if we are to get out of it).

Cutting back on energy use, more efficiency(higher efficiency is always a hotter higher order system) etc are all pipe dreams for solutions. There are a few certainties. Population will increase and gross energy use per head will also increase; it always has since the first hunter gatherers decided to try a bit of farming and put order on the world.

Order has a high price in terms of gross energy usage, you are resisting an overwhelming force in the opposite direction.

magicbastarder

this is not an energy crisis though. we're not short on energy.

rollingscone

I happened to be in Copenhagen at the time of the 2009 Climate Change summit and fell in for an evening with a group of scientists from a Climate Change thinktank.

They were very much of the opinion that although cutting our C02 production was essential to species survival the rubicon had already been crossed and in the end we'd have to gamble on some
high risk geo-engineering solutions to survive the consequences of our actions.

(These are things like orbital mirrors that could cause catastrophic damage if they crashed, or seeding the Oceans with iron to create a massive carbon sink, that might catastrophically poison the Ocean... that level of high risk).

ford2600

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is not an energy crisis though. we're not short on energy.

We have the same amount we always had and will ever have.

The entropy has increased which is irreversible.

magicbastarder

but the original point was about climate change, rather than entropy. and how fast we can pivot to a carbon free source.

mathie

Clickbait title is clickbait.

ford2600

magicbastarder wrote: »

but the original point was about climate change, rather than entropy. and how fast we can pivot to a carbon free source.

Climate change is a result of increased entropy in system. Carbon flying around in atmosphere is much more disordered than locked away a mile under ground.

The hope that if we stop putting more up things will turn around might be fanciful. Thermodynamics doesn't work like that.

To manage a carbon free future with increased population and increased energy use per head will require lateral thinkers/people who see solutions rather than doomsayers.

jon1981

Might as well say the futility of electric cars given the electricity they require is derived from fossil fuels.

Alek

The hope that if we stop putting more up things will turn around might be fanciful. Thermodynamics doesn't work like that.

Process of living is essentially fighting the entropy. Don't forget it was living organisms that have already accumulated all that carbon underground. Although it took millions of years to do so and only 200 for us to dig most of it up, with the current progress of biotechnology we may shyly start thinking of getting some of that carbon back where it belongs...

droidus

The little things can help but without the big things they will be futile.

Like it or not we are in for some massive changes in the next few decades, the effects will be more severe and come on a lot sooner than is generally believed. We're going to have to switch, we already have the technologies, the question is if will we do it in time to preserve civilisation as we know it.

magicbastarder

jon1981 wrote: »

Might as well say the futility of electric cars given the electricity they require is derived from fossil fuels.

not all electricity is generated that way.

anyway, yes, moving to renewables on their own is not going to remove what has already been pumped into the atmosphere, and replanting every lost forest is not going to make up for the excess.

the future lies in capturing that atmospheric carbon and making nice carbon bikes out of it. this is how i plan to make my millions.

droidus

rollingscone wrote: »

I happened to be in Copenhagen at the time of the 2009 Climate Change summit and fell in for an evening with a group of scientists from a Climate Change thinktank.

They were very much of the opinion that although cutting our C02 production was essential to species survival the rubicon had already been crossed and in the end we'd have to gamble on some
high risk geo-engineering solutions to survive the consequences of our actions.

(These are things like orbital mirrors that could cause catastrophic damage if they crashed, or seeding the Oceans with iron to create a massive carbon sink, that might catastrophically poison the Ocean... that level of high risk).

Yeah, a sizable component of IPCC targets rely on carbon capture and amelioration. Problem is there are no scalable new technologies and no prospect of them in the near future.

We could of course start replacing some of the 3 trillion trees we've cut down...

droidus

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway, yes, moving to renewables on their own is not going to remove what has already been pumped into the atmosphere, and replanting every lost forest is not going to make up for the excess.

Actually, it probably would. Land use changes and reforestation are some of the more practical and achievable ways to capture carbon. there's several very good plans to plant millions of quick growing tree species, cut them, burn them, capture the carbon & then replant.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

the future lies in capturing that atmospheric carbon and making nice carbon bikes out of it. this is how i plan to make my millions.

to be fair, woodelo beat me to the idea and i get the impression those lads are still saving up for their caribbean island.

magicbastarder

droidus wrote: »

Actually, it probably would. Land use changes and reforestation are some of the more practical and achievable ways to capture carbon. there's several very good plans to plant millions of quick growing tree species, cut them, burn them, capture the carbon & then replant.

i'd be curious to see the figures (and how long it would take); not only would it have to make up for the existing level of deforestation, but also all coal and gas that's been burned. while leaving room to grow crops.

droidus

There's a ton of research on rewilding and carbon capture - one snap shot:

According to the Royal Society, carbon capture by the world’s farmlands, if they were better managed, could total as much as ten billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – more than the annual carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere. Carbon Farmers of America, a company selling ‘Carbon Sinks’ to clients interested in helping reverse climate change, endorse this. They estimate that if the content of organic matter in the world’s farmed soils was increased by as little as 1.6%, the problem of climate change would be solved.

Alan Savory, Zimbabwean ecologist, proponent of holistic land management and, in particular, a rotational, natural grazing system with the power to return areas of desert, or ‘brittle zones’, to productive grassland (a system that has come to be known as ‘mob grazing’), goes one step further. He estimates that restoring the world’s five billion hectares of degraded grasslands to functioning ecosystems could return ten or more gigatons of excess atmospheric carbon to the terrestrial sink annually. This, he claims, would lower greenhouse gas concentrations to pre-industrial levels in a matter of decades.

https://knepp.co.uk/carbon-sequestration/

tomasrojo

ford2600 wrote: »

Climate change is a result of increased entropy in system. Carbon flying around in atmosphere is much more disordered than locked away a mile under ground.

It's not because of increased entropy. It's because CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, both as it arrives from the sun and when the Earth radiates IR back. Quite a lot of what is higher-frequency radiation on arrival at Earth is radiated back at lower frequencies (including IR).

tomasrojo

droidus wrote: »

Yeah, a sizable component of IPCC targets rely on carbon capture and amelioration. Problem is there are no scalable new technologies and no prospect of them in the near future.

We could of course start replacing some of the 3 trillion trees we've cut down...

The IPCC are under considerable pressure to include extensive carbon-capture in their headline forecasts. As you say, it's not actually feasible in any meaningful way yet, and may not be in any useful time frame.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's not because of increased entropy. It's because CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, both as it arrives from the sun and when the Earth radiates IR back. Quite a lot of what is higher-frequency radiation on arrival at Earth is radiated back at lower frequencies (including IR).

indeed - if i was to release 10 billion tons of (insert non-greenhouse gas here) into the atmosphere, it would be more entropic, but not exacerbate the greenhouse effect.

yes, the atmosphere *is* more entropic as a result of the extra CO2, but the entropy is not the cause of the greenhouse effect.

magicbastarder

droidus wrote: »

There's a ton of research on rewilding and carbon capture - one snap shot:

cheers - there's one issue offseeting current emissions, then the making up for lost ground. it's the latter which i'm curious about and how long that would take.

ford2600

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's not because of increased entropy. It's because CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, both as it arrives from the sun and when the Earth radiates IR back. Quite a lot of what is higher-frequency radiation on arrival at Earth is radiated back at lower frequencies (including IR).

Where did the extra carbon come from? Fossil fuels?

Which is more ordered state a lump of coal under a Welsh hill or the same amount of carbon flying around the atmosphere?

magicbastarder

it's not the disorder which creates the greenhouse effect though.
it's not an immutable law of physics that the more disordered the atmosphere is, that the greater the greenhouse effect will be.

OleRodrigo

magicbastarder wrote: »

ray kurzweil, famously well qualified climate scientist.

A bit like you and cycling then