[ExI] solution to the world ending

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Mon Mar 4 23:53:17 UTC 2019

Quoting Spike:

> https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ
> The exact quote in the Green New Deal document released by Rep.  
> Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

This is the first details I have gotten on Ocasio-Cortez's plan. I  
will give her credit for her ambitiousness, her plan is the closest  
thing I have seen to a serious proposal to climate-control the entire  
planet. Political sentiment aside, I have some general technical  
criticisms of her plan.

First, I don't think her goal of eliminating combustion engines is  
even remotely possible if nuclear power is taken off the table at the  
outset. Electric cars still need to get their energy from somewhere.

Right now, fossil fuels like natural gas and coal supply approximately  
60% of our electricity. Nuclear power and renewable sources supply an  
additional 20% each. Keeping in mind that renewable sources like  
hydroelectric are defined by geographical or climatic features such as  
mountains, rivers, volcanic heating, prevailing winds and such, I  
don't see how renewable electricity generation can increase by another  
300%. While some form of nuclear energy will be necessary, fusion  
would be ideal.

> "We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions in 10  
> years because we aren?t sure we'll be able to fully get rid of  
> farting cows and airplanes that fast"
> OK then.  My question for Green New Dealers: if we are shooting for  
> net-zero emissions rather than zero emissions, why would we need to  
> get rid of either farting cows or planes?  If we are shooting for  
> net zero, that shouldn?t be hard to do.  We might be able to do it  
> without any really significant changes in our style really.  We  
> would need to divert a lot, a looooot of fresh water inland.  We  
> would need to stop dumping fresh water into the sea.  We could use  
> that water to support something really bio-massy like kudzu.  This  
> would draw down so much CO2, we could make it to carbon emissions  
> net zero that way.  We could keep our farting cows and planes and  
> still make it.

We can't seem to affordably deliver fresh water to people in Flint,  
Michigan, so how do you propose we do that? Especially without  
completely screwing the pooch with regards to hydroelectric? I am not  
being sarcastic, just wondering if you had an engineering suggestion?


I didn't see anything in the GND that precluded using fast growing  
plants to sequester CO2. According to the Guardian, the average  
American produces approximately 20 tons of CO2 per year. In order to  
preserve the American lifestyle, would have to irrigate and grow 20  
tons of new vegetation per American per year or 6 billion tons total  
per year. Can we reasonably do so? How do we protect all that  
vegetation from wild fires that would completely foil our efforts?

Furthermore, adding plant biomass will have no impact on cow farts  
which will need to be separately dealt with. I do not see nation-wide  
veganism as an option for those Americans who are genetically  
predisposed to carnivory. Trying to ban livestock and meat-eating will  
likely lead to cannibalism, especially as habitual herbivory will  
render many Americans more palatable to the more carnivorous Americans.

More practical options would include keeping livestock under  
transparent tent-like canopies made to harvest the methane which is  
lighter than air and would rise. The methane could then be used to  
fuel the machinery involved with the canopied cattle-ranching.  
Assuming we don't go the route of vat grown meat.

Besides, it is ridiculous that we would wring our hands about  
intentionally killing off malaria-hosting mosquito species yet so  
non-chalantly discuss eradicating cattle as if somehow a disease  
causing insect has more moral worth than a domesticated food animal  
that has been our symbiotic partner for thousands of years. I mean if  
society no longer has a use for cattle, we are certainly not going to  
tolerate them roaming around our land trampling our kids and farting  
all day.

I mean over-all, my impression of the Green New Deal is that it is a  
bunch of really cool large-scale environmental engineering projects  
that would be a step toward becoming a type-I civilization.  
Unfortunately it is interspersed with a lot of wasteful government run  
social programs that look unnecessary if we actually commit to the  
engineering and infrastructure aspects which should provide a bunch of  
new jobs as is. After all, how can we hope to terraform another planet  
like Mars if we can't climate-control the good old Earth?

Maybe we should separate out the Green part from the New Deal part?

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list