Global warming question.

J

Joshua0

Guest
Should we use high-tech or low-tech methods and means to mitigate global warming?
My usual advise is to buy when the price is low and sell when the price is high. In this case though I advise to buy high land and sell all your low land property. This would be a real good time to sell off that swamp land investment in Florida.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
My usual advise is to buy when the price is low and sell when the price is high. In this case though I advise to buy high land and sell all your low land property. This would be a real good time to sell off that swamp land investment in Florida.

:thumbsup:

But consult geologist before you buy. Because higher land always tends to slide down.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Should we use high-tech or low-tech methods and means to mitigate global warming?
Why should we choose? Seems to me that we should use what works, whether this is high-tech or low-tech is completely irrelevant.

Or am I confused and do you ask whether we should try to mitigate global warming? Seems to me we should. We got one earth, we cannot run the experiment again.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,170.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Should we use high-tech or low-tech methods and means to mitigate global warming?

Both. Or really, whatever will work. If changing peoples behavors makes a difference, I think we should inform them.

But if we want to keep some of our high energy lifestyle, we will need high-tech solutions.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why should we choose? Seems to me that we should use what works, whether this is high-tech or low-tech is completely irrelevant.

In our present economic condition maybe we can't afford the more high-tech systems. Also the low-tech approaches don't attract the interest of highly educated folks, or investment money. It looks like we've stalled out.
 
Upvote 0
J

Joshua0

Guest
:thumbsup:

But consult geologist before you buy. Because higher land always tends to slide down.
I have wondered about that all my life. When I was a kid I use to play in the area by the river where all the storm water drained. I use to see houses on a cliff that looked like they could fall if a good storm came along. As it turns out the Federal Government beginning with Roosevelt has provided money for this area to make sure it does not get washed away with erosion. In fact the last time they did a really good job and it is holding up real good now. There is a lot of money for projects like this now a days. I have a friend that worked on 80 million dollar projects on the Niagara River where he ran a tunnel machine and they were building 25 food water pipes. So high water is NO problem for the great lakes. It is very easy for them to drain off that water into the ocean. In fact people fight over that water and what it to make money off of.

So I guess here we are using high tech solutions for global warming to deal with the water. My water and sewer bill runs about $60 a month. That seems like a lot for me but it gives them the money they need to deal with all the water and any flooding. So multi million dollar projects are very common. Them old hollowed out tree trunks that they run into every now and then are just not going to get the job done of draining off all the storm water.

In our present economic condition maybe we can't afford the more high-tech systems.
They have no choice. The politicians can line their pockets with money all they want. But when houses and cars get swallowed up with a broken sewer pipe, then they have to fix it. As the old times use to say: The squeaky hinge gets oiled.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
In our present economic condition maybe we can't afford the more high-tech systems. Also the low-tech approaches don't attract the interest of highly educated folks, or investment money. It looks like we've stalled out.

Whether a high-tech system can be afforded depends on the system and what you want to use it for. I disagree that the low-tech approaches do not attract the interest of highly educated folk, my experience is that they quite like the ingenuity of low-tech solutions. Again, it would seem to me that you tailor your choice of high- or low-tech on the particular problem you want a solution for, instead of just blindly favoring one over the other

But perhaps you have some specific examples of low-tech or high-tech solution that have been favored or not?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Whether a high-tech system can be afforded depends on the system and what you want to use it for. I disagree that the low-tech approaches do not attract the interest of highly educated folk, my experience is that they quite like the ingenuity of low-tech solutions. Again, it would seem to me that you tailor your choice of high- or low-tech on the particular problem you want a solution for, instead of just blindly favoring one over the other

Perhaps low-tech would attract passing interest but little participation of brainier folks. It doesn't have enough challenge for them.

But perhaps you have some specific examples of low-tech or high-tech solution that have been favored or not?

I like tree planting and managing grasslands and croplands for carbon sequestration. Very effective, low cost and low tech. Also insulation, weatherization, off-peak electrical usage, enforcing highway speed limits. Bringing constant attention to conservation. Simple stuff like that. High-tech is nice for large institutions but has a limited general market.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps low-tech would attract passing interest but little participation of brainier folks. It doesn't have enough challenge for them.
We can do both.



I like tree planting and managing grasslands and croplands for carbon sequestration. Very effective, low cost and low tech. Also insulation, weatherization, off-peak electrical usage, enforcing highway speed limits. Bringing constant attention to conservation. Simple stuff like that. High-tech is nice for large institutions but has a limited general market.
The problem for aforrestation (planting forests where there were none before) is the sheer scale required to trap carbon. I'm currently reading a paper on it (as a lay-person trying to get my head around the science) but the idea is to desalinate enough water to irrigate central Australia and the Sahara and grow tens of thousands of kilometres of brand new forest! That could solve global warming, but at a price. TRILLIONS of dollars!

Now, it would seem to me to be more worthwhile to take that money and put it into building clean energy in the first place.

GenIV reactors will eat nuclear waste, have passive safety physics even Homer Simpson could not break, can be situated far away from large population centres and can even be built underground for extra safety. Fukushima would NOT have happened with a GenIV reactor! Not only this, but these reliable 24/7 power sources are also essential to back up any large intermittent wind and solar energy system. When the wind stops blowing and the sun goes down at night, the nukes will provide the energy we need. The BEST thing is that GenIV reactors turn the 'problem' of nuclear waste into a SOLUTION. We could run the world for 500 years on just today's nuclear waste! The rest of the land uranium could run the world for 50,000 years, and add in uranium from seawater, and we could run the world for a billion years!
For more see Dr Barry Brook, head of Climate at Adelaide University.
Sustainable Nuclear | BraveNewClimate
 
Upvote 0