Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

TSLA, biodiversity collapse & climate change

Jackl1956

Active Member
May 11, 2013
2,013
16,576
Los Angeles
While I am retired now, at one time I worked as an electrical mechanic for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. One of my responsibilities was the installation and maintenance of Gas-Insulated-Switchgear; in most cases that meant sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) circuit breakers. These are not the breakers found in home panels, but rather circuit breakers the size of one-half of a single car garage.

Since this is a fairly detailed subject, I will break it up into a number of posts. Let me begin with a primer on Gas-Insulated-Switchgear from the EPA:


Per the EPA, SF6 is 22,800 times more potent than CO2, and has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years.

87F45C06-69FD-45AC-9895-754A05319164.jpeg


This is an SF6 Circuit Breaker, for a frame of reference, the point where the wires connect the top is probably on the order of ten feet.

The thrust of my posts will be the improper maintenance of SF6 circuit breakers; the inadvertent release of sulphur hexafluoride.
 

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
2,581
14,484
QLD Australia
Too bad you aren't consider my complete answer: the IPBES says climate change is not the biggest threat (see above). Did you actually read their assessment report? The press articles you linked to are about the IPBES report so they clearly misinterpreted it.

As for robotaxis and the end of parking spaces, do you really believe that the Jevons paradox will be broken *this time*? If so, why?

I've seen lots of parking spaces being removed already (we're removing half of the parking space in my city, for once) and none is being turned into natural space. Zero. Nada.

People do want to have some flora around them, but that is not helping biodiversity if we continue to choose things for being green (see: Are our lawns biological deserts?). I can also point out many positive initiatives like local attempts to regenerative farming, but for now, all these remain anecdote in the huge cycle/funnel of additional pressures on ecological niches. To me, taking the tobacco industry as examples, it seems like rejoicing to hear that the industry will be adding filters to all packs: sure it helps on a cigarette basis, but if people allow themselves to smoke more due to this *innovation*, we're heading into the wall at high speed. And unlike cancers an human lives, there may well be a point of no return w/ regards to biodiversity.
My opinion is based on the understanding that the press are reporting a summary of IPCC reports. When in doubt I read IPCC reports.

The most adverse impact of climate change is total ecosystem collapse, meaning most things in the ecosystem become extinct.

There is a lot wrong with modern agricultural and fishing and there are alternatives,
People will not consume resources beyond their natural need, the fastest path to improvement is satisfying natural need in a fully sustainable way.
By this I mean fully sustainable means exactly what it says and causes no environmental damage or depletion of natural resources.

IMO it is easier to change how we satisfy human needs than it is to get people to change their needs and desires. The battle for effective action on climate change shows this.

If you have an alternative solution, please state it.
 

9837264723849

Active Member
Aug 24, 2014
1,004
4,465
France
My opinion is based on the understanding that the press are reporting a summary of IPCC reports. When in doubt I read IPCC reports.
That's why we have difficulties understanding each other. IPCC is about climate, IPBES is about biodiversity and ecosystem services. This thread is about the latter but you're basing your knowledge mostly on the science made for the former.

The most adverse impact of climate change is total ecosystem collapse, meaning most things in the ecosystem become extinct.
This shows you're doing things backwards.

We can save the climate (say, within +1.5°C) and still have a biodiversity collapse. I'm well aware of the urgency of saving the climate (see Tesla's mission) and I believe there's a consensus on this (among scientists but also politicians, the mainstream media and the public opinion). I know we're still no acting on this realization but things are moving forward.

What I'm talking about is the massive neglect of the IPBES findings (see https://ipbes.net/sites/default/fil...ssment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf) but I explain as follows
  • We, as society, are slowly digesting the IPCC reports. It's difficult to talke multiple things at once, especially if the first thing in mind requires our full attention and to comit all resources at hand (work, money, politics...).
  • We're not even sure we can handle the climate catastrophe so most people simply discard the biodiversity problem, even though it may be a bigger threat than climate change
  • Those we accept to consider the biodiversity issue usually plan to address it once the climate problem is solved... even though 1) we don't have enough time to do things in series, 2) fixing climate change will do little to prevent the biodiversity collapse, 3) if we don't fully take into account biodiverstiy when solving climate change, we may worsen the second in exchange for a easy-quick-fix
  • Many businesses were built to solve the climate change problem, including Tesla (what a coincidence!), nuclear, solar/wind industry, mining, hydrogen, etc. Very few companies expect to profit from the transition required to solve the biodiversity collapse (we're don't even know what this transition will look like, because the IPBES is still in its infancy like the IPCC in the 80's). There are a few options (e.g alternative meat) but in aggregate, the foreseeable loss in business vastly exceeds the economic contraction that is required to save the ecosystems that are going extinct. This happens at a much faster speed than we could be saving them, even taking the best IPCC scenarii
  • Many feel that solving climate change is about sacrifices: a way of live, small but important guilty pleasures, the right to YOLO without caring for the environments, etc. Many being to accept these sacrifice on the condition that the transition will give new rights to enjoy nature: if I buy an autonomous EV, let me drive further into wildlands (see what TMC dreams about the Cybertruck), if I invest in a house with solar, let me enlarge my swimming pool and articial garden, if my airplane switch to biofuels, let me travel more frequently, if I my Tesla drive itself, let's buy a remote house and play all these great games during commute, etc. What happens post lockdowns is a great example of this mindset: people had the opportunity to reconnect with life and yearn for nature so they plan to enjoy nature more... which ends up with nature being overwhelmed more than being protected (loving is about desiring and caring, but for now it's mostly about desiring and caring about our own needs for nature not the nature's needs).
  • Businesses knows this so they feature everything that with nature as being the way forward, as if people should go back into nature (let's reconnect!). People now wants to leave the cold, dirty, artificial cities and meet nature again, as if living in cities where a bad thing for the environment (so many environmentalists believe that it's best for our environment to live in a small house near a forst and in an appartment in the city... they have no idea about the differences in energy needs and nature footprint between the two). It's no coincidence that Elon promotes Starlink as helping remote communities, but 90% of the conversation is about urban people planning to buy a remote house or a camper to enjoy the wilderness again). With the energy transition (designed to fix the climate problem), we're adjusting our desires to stop emitting CO2 in exchange for more time in nature, without knowing yet how we're hurting ecosystems)
The only way to understand the two issues really is to consider them as unique. Of course, they have many relations (see co workshop btw IPCC and IPBES). We **could** fix both at once, or at least ensure that fixing one does not worsen the other, but for now, I observe that the more we work on the first, the more we start to close our eyes on the second.

People will not consume resources beyond their natural need, the fastest path to improvement is satisfying natural need in a fully sustainable way.
Do you assume that natural needs are fixed? Explain why, then, people's needs for transportation exploded over the last two centuries. Also their need for meat. For housing. For things. For everything.

People will consume as much resources as they possibily can, if so they desire. Fortunately, like people's needs, their desires can change. But for now, the speed of change regarding sustainability does not follow the speed of biodiversity collapse. We spend so much time on climate (mostly CO2) that we seem to forget that climate change is not the only (if not even the main) threat to sustainability. Once must read the IPBES reports to realize that though.

IMO it is easier to change how we satisfy human needs than it is to get people to change their needs and desires. The battle for effective action on climate change shows this.
This only works if you assume that people are perfectly rational in the way they evaluate their needs. I doubt it. A good % of consumption is about desires and not about needs, IMO. At least the part that is ruining our planet and biodiversity.

Let's me (35 y-o) and my father (65). We have the exact same "needs" today but very different desires. He needs to travel the world as much as possible (i.e long distance flights). I don't. He needs a big SUV. I bike. He needs exotic fruits daily. I eat local.

If by mean you mean the basic stuff needed to survive, they we've know who to satisfy that centuries ago. And this has nothing to do with all the problem we're discussing: most of the CO2 is emitted to produce things that satisfies the desires of a small subset of the world's population. And if the carbon footpring of the rest of the population increases, it's because we must expect the poor to desire to live like the rich (is more car per capita a need or a desire? why would the need for aviation increase? meat? etc).

The battle for effective action on climate change shows this.
I'm sure it will show at some point, but for now, Jevons paradox - Wikipedia is alive and well.

I agree that action on climate change requires a practical solution such as desirable EVs. But I can't think of a single thing that people strongly desire (or need) that would help fight the biodiversity collapse.

Personally, I desire beans (as a meat replacement) but only because I care about the environment. I desire my bike more than a Tesla for the same reason. I desire my flat versus a nice charming house. A few days in the countryside versus a vacation in Hawai, etc.

If you have an alternative solution, please state it.
Ah, you want me to solve the biodiversity crisis in one go! I'm not there yet or I would have find the next TSLA already, or a Nobel Prize, or something.

Also, should we not discuss a problem until it is solved? At this point, I'm only trying to state the problem honestly by acknowledging that solving the climate != preventing biodiversity collapse, by obserbing that many pro-Tesla don't really care about biodiveristy (whatever the reasons), by pointing out that desires are much bigger drivers than actual needs, etc. This biodiversity thing is so big and growing so fast we can't afford to tell ourselves nice stories.

But I promise to let you know when I have find the solution ;)

PS: I do have solutions that fit all people needs but go against they desire. We can discuss this but you keep saying this would not work so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
2,581
14,484
QLD Australia
We can save the climate (say, within +1.5°C) and still have a biodiversity collapse.
We are looking at issues from a different perspective, partially as a result of lived experience.

In my case I have been to Australian land and sea based wilderness reserves, I know how big they are how well they are managed, and how few, if any, people ever go there...

In the marine case, it is illegal to go to most parts of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and in the land based case the difficulty of travelling to some parts of the national park reserves can't be overstated, There are no roads or trails, may paths can't be taken or taken or are 10X as hard as the easier path,. No one would intentionally go to the difficult parts, there is nothing to see ,the experience isn't pleasant, and just getting out of there is hard work.,(I know from personal experience.)

So this is the gold standard in preserving biodiversity, have wilderness areas preserved as far as possible in their pristine state, and have very few people ever visit those areas.

But even with the gold standard, climate change represents a major threat to the sea and land based parks and there is nothing better management practices can do about that. I'm not assuming climate change is fully solved until we have solved it.

Beyond that most loss of biodiversity relates to farming practices and if we can improve the productivity of farming practices we can free up farm land to be returned to wilderness areas.

Note: It isn't enough to create more wilderness areas, the rules need to keep people out of those wilderness areas, to a very high standard.

There are much better ways of producing food which will free up some farm land to be returned to wilderness areas, there is also a need to keep plastic and pollution more generally out of the environment,

Humans have mostly been very poor at managing the environment, when we have clean energy and transport, the priorities can shift.. Once climate change is fully solved, I agree biodiversity is the next highest priority, and we should be doing something about that now.

We need to understand human nature, if the reason behind rules are well explained, most humans will respect rules which preserve biodiversity. For things like meat, producing it with minimal environmental impact is better than trying to convince people not to eat it. Keep the rules and restrictions to the most important cases, where there is no other alternative, and to where we can clearly explain why the rule exists.
 

9837264723849

Active Member
Aug 24, 2014
1,004
4,465
France
Aren't we're talking circle here?
Humans have mostly been very poor at managing the environment, when we have clean energy and transport, the priorities can shift.. Once climate change is fully solved, I agree biodiversity is the next highest priority, and we should be doing something about that now.
You're doubling down on my 3rd bullet point:
Those we accept to consider the biodiversity issue usually plan to address it once the climate problem is solved... even though 1) we don't have enough time to do things in series, 2) fixing climate change will do little to prevent the biodiversity collapse, 3) if we don't fully take into account biodiversity when solving climate change, we may worsen the second in exchange for a easy-quick-fix
I wonder if you've read the IPBES assessment report, at least from page 28 of https://ipbes.net/sites/default/fil...ssment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf (summary of the main drivers). Climate change is *not* and won't be the main cause before decades. Agriculture and fishing are in the top concerns, but they still don't account for most of the problem. What about land use for forestry and urbanization? Land uses of sea and coastal lands? Mining? Plastic pollution? Invasive alien species?

Of course, clean energy must be a priority along with biodiversity preservation. Of course, one needs the other. But trying to fix climate change while neglecting the second is an extremely dangerous path.

Your words: "Once climate change is fully solved, I agree biodiversity is the next priority (...)". Biodiversity will have collapsed like a house of card long before we will have fully solved climate change! The dire consequences of losing critical ecosystem services will stop us abruptly and prevent us from completing the energy transition for good.

Biodiversity is collapsing at very fast speed (loss of 80% of insects in Europe, 30% of birds in just 30 years, and it's still accelerating). The energy transition is coming, finally, but even if all new vehicles are 100% BEV by 2025, the effects are extremely slow (still takes decades to convert the whole fleet). It will take even longer to switch the grid to solar. And we're not even sure that the Jevons paradox - Wikipedia will not apply this time (cf. Bitcoin and coal, which even Elon initially neglected when it was well-known to anyone following cryptos)

Teslarati:

Swisher pointed out that it was odd for Musk to speak on behalf of the industry he’s been so tough on in the past, but Musk reminded her that his foray into electric cars was more about running out of oil vs. the dangers of burning it and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere. In his early years, the Tesla chief wasn’t aware of the environmental impact of fossil fuels as much as understanding that running out of them would bring the collapse of civilization.
My point is that most people that are supporting the clean energy revolution seem to underestimate the biodiversity catastrophe (and what it entails). And the more we accelerate the transition to renewable energy, the more we'll believe that biodiversity will be fixed soon or easily.

Again, I know that making the transition to renewable will help dearly with preserving biodiversity but we cannot afford not to accept now that both wars must be fought at once. In "all-out" mode.

I'm sharing this here because I'm reading more and more comments on TMC that imply that the transition should allow us to enjoy nature more but never consider the state of these ecosystems (beyond the impact of engine noise and emissions). Or among Tesla main supporters, it's less and less about the mission but what we can finally do more affordably (see tweets like this one).

At the risk of being killjoy...
 

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
2,581
14,484
QLD Australia
I would be concerned if biodiversity was being lost in remote wilderness areas.

Where farmers are using pesticides, it is odvious why biodiversity is being lost.

The alternative farming methods I listed don't use pesticides.

The likely outcome is that the new farming methods will economically out compete existing farming methods and free up more land to be turned into wilderness reserves.

It is also very likely thst wilderness reserves can preserve biodiversity, if they can't we will just need to adapt as best we can.

These are the solutions, stop pesticide use, new fsrming methods, wilderness reserves. Some of that is already happening. And as I posted earlier human visits to wilderness reserves must be strictly controlled and limited.
 

9837264723849

Active Member
Aug 24, 2014
1,004
4,465
France
I would be concerned if biodiversity was being lost in remote wilderness areas.

Where farmers are using pesticides, it is odvious why biodiversity is being lost.

The alternative farming methods I listed don't use pesticides.

The likely outcome is that the new farming methods will economically out compete existing farming methods and free up more land to be turned into wilderness reserves.

It is also very likely thst wilderness reserves can preserve biodiversity, if they can't we will just need to adapt as best we can.

These are the solutions, stop pesticide use, new fsrming methods, wilderness reserves. Some of that is already happening. And as I posted earlier human visits to wilderness reserves must be strictly controlled and limited.
>Over 40% of insect species are threatened with extinction.

Of course, intensive agriculture is the main factor, but remote/wild areas aren't protected because it's a global decline and some threatened species are keystone. Also, birds and mammals are affected by many factors that are not related to farming but things are combining in a vicious cycle.

We could easily transform agriculture today but given the current forces and the speed at play and our mono focus on climate change, things will have collapsed by the time we start seeing some systemic changes.

If we cannot challenge and control our mimetic desires (e.g "need" for single-family detached houses, need for frequent travel, for exotic food imports, for meat, etc), and if we should only improve how we satisfy them (with technology), then we can have a good time rearranging the chairs on that Titanic...
 

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
2,581
14,484
QLD Australia
Starting imminently - doesn't seem likely there will be a groundbreaking deal.
I've never had much faith in politicians, but I;ve got a bit more faith in technology and economics...

Anything extra Politicians manage to do might accelerate the process because economics already favors clean energy and transport.

Overall humanity needs to start making smarter more sustainable decisions, and that also requires the election of smarter, less selfish, more proactive politicians...

We need politicians who want to make the world a better place, not simply line their own pockets, reward their backers, or do the bidding of lobbyists..

Total transparency around political donations lobbying, corruption and election funding is needed...

A lot of BAU, lobbying and political denotations, looks to me like corruption that satisfies the interests of the few, at the expense of the many...
 

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
2,581
14,484
QLD Australia
In relation to ending world hunger, I hope Elon feels free to design his own solution...

Sketching an example of what they might be, a prefabricated shed, with solar power on the roof, rainwater harvesting into tanks, solar powered hydroponics.
Supplying food, water, electricity and sanitation... also internet communication via Starlink
Sanitation needs some way of harvesting, recycling water water and a way of treating, waste to make safe fertiliser for the crops... this is by far the hardest part of the project...

The reason for hydroponics is, less water needed, no pesticides should be needed, and no danger of wild animals eating the crops..

Where local harvesting of water isn't enough, desalination can be done near the coast and waters shipped in in tankers..

It is important that the shed ships in as a flat pack, at least the structural elements of it.. walls could be mud-brick, hempcrete, bamboo, or some other material possibly sourced locally... it also doesn't need to be an overly fancy design...so apart for water pumping, hopefully no moving parts inside the shed.

if the local populace can grow their own food, or some of their food in a drought proof manner, that is the best way to end hunger...

If locals get jobs helping to build the sheds, that is also a good way to spend money...

Elon would get more bang for his buck, and maybe Bill Gates would also be interested in contributing... Bill has been working on related problems, and might have good ideas...

They need to start with countries / regions that are politically stable,.... otherwise warfare or wilful destruction will simply demolish the sheds...
 

nativewolf

Active Member
Jul 21, 2015
1,049
3,063
viena va United States
I would be concerned if biodiversity was being lost in remote wilderness areas.

Where farmers are using pesticides, it is odvious why biodiversity is being lost.

The alternative farming methods I listed don't use pesticides.

The likely outcome is that the new farming methods will economically out compete existing farming methods and free up more land to be turned into wilderness reserves.

It is also very likely thst wilderness reserves can preserve biodiversity, if they can't we will just need to adapt as best we can.

These are the solutions, stop pesticide use, new fsrming methods, wilderness reserves. Some of that is already happening. And as I posted earlier human visits to wilderness reserves must be strictly controlled and limited.
Globalization is wiping out diversity. Just go to Australia and you'll see feral cats destroying bird nesting colonies. Etc etc. On the East coast of the USA we've lost American Chestnut and Chinkapin, American Elm, White/Gray/Green Ash, Eastern Hemlock, Sassafras is on way out, Beech is going etc and so forth. Today I worry re the health of Black Oak as they seem to be dying out everywhere here. They are replaced with Oriental bittersweet, mile a min weed, autumn olive, japanese honeysuckle, privet, and on and on. Don't even get me started on the invasive insects.

I'm not at all hopeful that "wilderness" can preserve biodiversity, in fact the opposite. I think preserving biodiversity means lots and lots of human intervention and I'm just painting a pic of the large easy to see issues. As someone who is literally on the ground...this is a more than a theoretical problem. How do I plan a forest for 30 years of growth when virtually every forest dominant is under attack? Groups like the Nature Conservancy and Conservation Fund should be leading an effort but they seem to have disappeared on this one.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Buckminster

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
2,581
14,484
QLD Australia
I'm not at all hopeful that "wilderness" can preserve biodiversity, in fact the opposite. I think preserving biodiversity means lots and lots of human intervention and I'm just painting a pic of the large easy to see issues.

Yes, I am well aware of these issues and there is no easy fix....

Having "wilderness" areas at least provides a space where biodiversity can be preserved/rebuilt, but human management is necessary... at a minimum reducing invasive species... and having barriers to keep them out.....

Humans will need to preserve some species in captivity and repopulate areas once the conditions are right...

I also think more areas of viable habit gives local species more place where they can potentially survive... plants also invade slower than animals and insects, generally being less mobile... fences can keep some invasive animals out... insects are very hard to deal with... we can't win every fight... so pick the ones we can win...

Farming, human occupation, domestic pets, roads and vehicles are the biggest causes of a loss of biodiversity, none of these are a problem in "wilderness" areas, it is down to a battle between the locals and the invaders.. we want to help the locals as best we can.
 

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
2,581
14,484
QLD Australia
I would be concerned if biodiversity was being lost in remote wilderness areas.
Just to be clear the type of wilderness I'm talking about there,,,, is miles from any road or walking track, it probably averages one human visitor per square mile per year.. Still not perfect, but the best we can realistically hope for.
 

nativewolf

Active Member
Jul 21, 2015
1,049
3,063
viena va United States
In relation to ending world hunger, I hope Elon feels free to design his own solution...

Sketching an example of what they might be, a prefabricated shed, with solar power on the roof, rainwater harvesting into tanks, solar powered hydroponics.
Supplying food, water, electricity and sanitation... also internet communication via Starlink
Sanitation needs some way of harvesting, recycling water water and a way of treating, waste to make safe fertiliser for the crops... this is by far the hardest part of the project...

The reason for hydroponics is, less water needed, no pesticides should be needed, and no danger of wild animals eating the crops..

Where local harvesting of water isn't enough, desalination can be done near the coast and waters shipped in in tankers..

It is important that the shed ships in as a flat pack, at least the structural elements of it.. walls could be mud-brick, hempcrete, bamboo, or some other material possibly sourced locally... it also doesn't need to be an overly fancy design...so apart for water pumping, hopefully no moving parts inside the shed.

if the local populace can grow their own food, or some of their food in a drought proof manner, that is the best way to end hunger...

If locals get jobs helping to build the sheds, that is also a good way to spend money...

Elon would get more bang for his buck, and maybe Bill Gates would also be interested in contributing... Bill has been working on related problems, and might have good ideas...

They need to start with countries / regions that are politically stable,.... otherwise warfare or wilful destruction will simply demolish the sheds...
It's not hard to beat hunger from my experiences overseas. Just have a defensible legal system, land tenure, and education for women. No hunger at scale anywhere that has these qualities. Maybe weather can kick some teeth in but humans are adaptable. Not to be too critical but your posts does not reflect the experience of someone that has farmed in the third world...or farmed in the developed world either. Or lived in a country that still uses slate and chalk to teach. Most importantly you have to realize what Elon already knew: if $6 billion in investment could solve hunger than the market would have already done so.

To start with you don't grow cereals with hydroponic systems. The hydroponic system is worth more than a multiple lifetimes of crops. Cereals are the basis of almost all diets (or starch roots- cassava, potatoes, etc) . Livestock don't live hydroponically. If the price of cereals ever became high enough to make hydroponics feasible than we'd either all be dead or US, Russian, Canadian, and Ukrainian farmers would be producing cereals like no tomorrow and it would be raining money on them. There is going to be a massive crash in corn pricing soon so that would be welcome news to global commodity markets.

Then the hydroponics created crop needs to be shipped, etc etc. You know why cereals are grown when farmers have excess land- easy to store and ship and it creates income. Hydroponic systems are just terrible for anything that can be grown and harvested with tractors. It's why there are so few hydroponic crops consumed- a few high value veggies but that's all.

Urbanization will suck most farm workers off the farms. That enables best farmers to manage the most land and lets them scale and gain the advantage of mechanical labor. Educated women have far fewer children. Urbanize, educate, justice. Doesn't have to be perfect. Just something. Urbanization also allows more efficient distribution of food, markets are better and more advanced.

Sanitation in most farming communities is a hole behind some sort of screen. Or just on the ground consumed by pigs and chickens. Urban sanitation in developing world...don't get me started. First off it needs to exist....that is hurdle 1 on urban sanitation in developing areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buckminster

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
2,581
14,484
QLD Australia
It's not hard to beat hunger from my experiences overseas. Just have a defensible legal system, land tenure, and education for women. No hunger at scale anywhere that has these qualities. Maybe weather can kick some teeth in but humans are adaptable.
I agree.. Most hunger is a direct result of bad government.

I was focused mainly on the part of the problem that is caused by droughts, and climate change... reducing the amount of water needed to grow food is important... and I was entirely focused on food for local consumption in the area where it is gown.. Cities would need their own hydroponic systems for that part of the food... Food doesn't travel anywhere, or is never stored for long periods of time, it is consumed locally after being produced.

You might not be aware but in Australia a few years ago a stat was posted that 1 kg or cereal crops, consumed 1 kg of topsoil which is permanently lost... Any method of farming that consumes a non-renewable resource is not sustainable... Often that resource depletion is disguised by importing extra nutrients and water from external sources, which may or may not be sustainable.

People are working on hydroponic production of cereals and rice... whether or not that happens does remove the fact that hydroponics can produce food with a lot less water.. and a lot less usage of pesticides...

I am saying if we are looking at loss of biodiversity the way we do farming is the by far the biggest contributing factor, and it works better in some climates and regions than others... In dry areas, the way we do farming can at times be an abysmal failure... when the rains don't come the crops die...

Also this was meant to be an example of a solution... it might not be the best solution.... but IMO any solution needs to be drought proof, 100% sustainable, and not rely on imports of food, fertilisers or pesticides.
 
Last edited:

nativewolf

Active Member
Jul 21, 2015
1,049
3,063
viena va United States
Just to be clear the type of wilderness I'm talking about there,,,, is miles from any road or walking track, it probably averages one human visitor per square mile per year.. Still not perfect, but the best we can realistically hope for.
It's lost there too and frankly ....there just isn't much such wilderness left. Especially in the biodiversity rich tropical countries. Also to be clear ...that other than Australia and perhaps Malaysia (both of which have good rule of law-good not perfect) there isn't really anywhere in the tropics that I'd make much of a bet on a large "wilderness" area being preserved. No where in SA really. Africa...forget it. So you have to protect biodiversity in closer proximity to humanity.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top