"the ocean is broken"

[trichrider]

Ocean and Sea fish are disappearing and will be gone soon

Could this be possible? Well according to a new report by a prestigious group and released through the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programs), it is not only possible but also happening right now.

The oceans will be fished clean by 2050 if nothing is done, says the report under the "Green Initiatives" program. The situation is serious and requires immediate attention is the gist of the report that warns of a global loss of most fish stocks in the near future.

We have probably all been suspecting the numbers to start lowering due to increasing demands from commercial fishing and various oil spills and possibility the effects of climate change, but until this report few people believed in the possibility of the oceans bountiful supply of fish actually running completely out.

The director of the group Achim Steiner, has announced that the only way to stop this, is to give fish certain protected zones in the seas and to pressure the commercial fishing industry by cutting subsidies to fishing fleets and cutting boat size there by limiting hauls.

But how did things get this bad one would ask? Do you like seafood?

Well here are some figures that might help you understand. Besides the millions of shoreline fishermen and game fisherman who trod our own waters and shores every year, there are millions in others in impoverished countries who use the sea as their main source of protein.

There are also over 500 million people linked in one way or another to the commercial fishing of the seas and they provide seafood for billions everyday.

The report also says that the governments encourage fleets to increase their size through their subsidies, and there by keep sending larger fishing fleets out after fewer fish.

In the US those subsidies amount to about 27 billion annually, with the entire value of the fish being caught only coming up to 85 billion, that seems like a waist.

The oceans, are thought to be over fished right now and the fleets are hauling up way too many fish. If we take care of the problem now we can sustain the supply but if we keep traveling on this wasteful highway they'll be an unknown treat to our grand kids.

We must react the right way now or soon you may have to decide whether to get ground beef instead of grouper from the local market for our dinner party and order the chicken instead of the snapper at our local restaurants.

http://voices.yahoo.com/ocean-sea-fish-disappearing-will-gone-6795972.html

this from 2010...doesn't even account for the radioactive plume from fukashima making it's way to our coast...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/fukushima-radioactive-plume_n_3853604.html

 

[igrowone]

... but I still use probably 3-4 times the electricity of my individual neighbors, and as such I don't think it's fair for me to judge anybody based on their opinion on global warming. How many of y'all in this thread decrying the human stain, talking about how the rest of the world needs to wake up, and wondering what kind of world your children will grow up in, are running over 2K of lights 12 hours/day and/or feeding your plants all sorts of exotic guanos?

^^^ indoor growing exists because of existing law, it's dangerous/difficult to grow outdoors due to law enforcement/rippers/informers and what not
change the law and the energy draw goes way down, i have my greenhouse plans all set
indoor is just a phase we're going through, large scale greenhouses will overtake it at some point

 

[WelderDan]

We've been using our rivers, lakes and oceans for toilets since forever. Even once we realized that doing so was a health hazard, we continued. And there are people who want to do away with the EPA because they feel it is a detriment to business and the free market. Knowing full well pissing, shitting and dumping toxic waste into our waters is bad for us.

I blows my mind, but as long as it is profitable to do so, people will ignore the problem and keep dumping poison into our environment.

 

[gloryoskie]

And let's remind ourselves that wholesale recycling only became
the thing to do after the process became profitable for big companies.

You're reminded it's good for the planet, by the same folks
who profit from your trash.

Politicians are lobbied heavily by big companies in favor of
profit over health of the planet. When saving the planet
can be more profitable than wasting it we'll continue to pay
the price.

To paraphrase Homer Simpson:
"Big companies are both the cause and cure for all of man's woes"

 

[thesloppy]

^^^ indoor growing exists because of existing law, it's dangerous/difficult to grow outdoors due to law enforcement/rippers/informers and what not
change the law and the energy draw goes way down, i have my greenhouse plans all set
indoor is just a phase we're going through, large scale greenhouses will overtake it at some point

While I think there is some truth to that (and I totally commend you on having an action plan to change your behavior) I don't think a change in legality would necessarily have much of an impact on the on the typical indoor grower. There are plenty of folks (like myself) for who legality isn't the main hurdle to growing outside (I'd need a yard first), probably way more folks who would still rather put their own convenience/protection above their beliefs, and even more still who don't give a damn about their contributions towards global warming in the first place.

Likewise, while a lot of folks are moving towards using local soil, and nutrient sources, and re-cycling all that stuff every cycle, there's still TONS of folks using guanos, kelps, bone meals, blood meals, fish meals, chemical & mineral nutrients coming straight from strip-mines, without giving a single thought to where that stuff comes from, or what effect it has on the earth. Even if you're buying the most sustainable, environmentally conscious medium you can find, you're still paying part of the price for having dirt acquired and moved around the world by coal/gas-burning machinery...which is pretty ridiculous, from an environmental standpoint.

....and just to be doubly clear: I am pretty much one of those folks, so please don't take my words/criticism too harshly. I'm not so much trying to pick anybody apart personally, or point fingers at individuals, so much as to say: we indoor marijuana growers as a group (and I admit I'm painting with broad generalizations here), are engaging in an activity that is a huge waste of energy resources, largely unsustainable, with direct negative impact on the environment. We really don't have to go far, if we're looking for a group of folks who waste massive amounts of energy and resources without much thought.

 

[supermanlives]

you can toss all kinds of crap in the ocean an call it an artificial reef. if ya did the same thing in a lake you would be arrested lol. I am gonna go catch my share of fish before they are gone

 

[trichrider]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/volcanoes_and_co2_and_global_temperatures/

Volcanoes and CO2 and Global Temperatures
By Joseph D’Aleo, November 14, 2009

In a recent UK Telegraph piece, Dr. Ian Plimer, author of the best seller Heaven and Earth argues CO2 is not causing global warming. The Telegraph title is correct but not one of the central themes of the story - that volcanoes are the primary source of CO2 increases. They were in the early days of the planet one of the key sources of all gases, but now other natural and anthropogenic sources dominate. Ian Plimer informs us that is what he told the reporter but the reporter got the facts incorrect.

The Pinatubo eruption was estimated to have emitted only a modest 42 megatons CO2 (Gerlach 1996), a small fraction of the total natural and anthropogenic annual emissions. Major volcanism causes global CO2 level rise to actually decrease significantly for a year following. This can be seen after Agung in 1964, after El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1992.

Alan Robock in “Introduction: Mount Pinatubo as a Test of Climate Feedback Mechanisms” (2003) showed a decrease in CO2 rate after Pinatubo, El Chichon and Agung.

He noted “enhanced vegetation growth from more diffuse and less direct solar radiation took more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than normal, temporarily reducing the observed long-term increase in carbon dioxide.”

Angert et.a; (2004) looked at whether the “Enhanced CO2 Sink Following the Mt. Pinatubo Eruption Driven by an Increase in Diffuse Radiation?” They noted in their abstract that “following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991, there was a sharp decrease in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate. It is believed that this decrease was caused by an anomalous strong terrestrial sink in the northern hemisphere. This strong sink is hard to explain, since the global low temperatures that followed the eruption (as a result of the injecting of volcanic aerosols to the stratosphere) were expected to reduce photosynthesis rate. There are currently two competing explanations for the enhanced sink. The first is that soil respiration rate declined more than photosynthesis rate, while the second suggests that the increase in the fraction of diffused radiation, as a result of the aerosol loading, caused an increase in photosynthesis.”

In their study they found that “the enhanced sink cannot be explained by decreased respiration alone, and thus can be only explained by several land and ocean sink mechanisms acting in concert.”

THE OCEANS ROLE

By going further and separating the years by El Nino state and volcanism, we see the importance of the tropical ocean in the CO2 increases. The primary source in the oceans comes from the tropical waters while the cold high latitude waters are sinks for CO2. This is the well known fizz effect from carbonated beverage. When you open a cold beverage it has a lot of fizz (pumped in CO2), let out to sit and warm on the counter and the gas escapes, eventually leaving the beverage flat. Whether a water body is a net absorber or emitter of CO2 is deternmined by Henry’s Law. Equilibrium is established between air and water or the atmosphere and ocean rapidly when CO2 levels change or when water and or air temperatures vary. We see that in both annual and interannual changes.


See large image here.

On average the greatest increases occur in El Nino years, when the tropical oceans are warmest (averaging 1.80ppm/year or 0.54%), much lower rates in La Ninas (1.05ppm/year or 0.31%) and very low rates of increase (0.61ppm or 0.14%) in years of the three major volcanoes. This suggests the major role tropical OCEANS play in CO2 production.

It also suggests that long term changes in the ocean temperatures (the warming since the last little ice age) may be responsible for much of the increase in CO2 observed just as it has in the past. Man after all is directly responsible for only 3-4% of the annual CO2 production (and given the 0.038% trace gas content for CO2, man’s annual contribution represents just 0.0001% of the atmosphere).

And importantly the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere contrary to Robock and the IPCC has been definitively shown to be the order of 5 to 6 years (Segalstad 1998) not 100-200 years or as Solomon has speculated 1000 years.

Segalstad (1992; 1993; 1996) further concluded from 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations, in accordance with the 14-C data, that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources from the Earth’s interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2 budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more important; and the sum of burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic releases (4%) much less important, than assumed (21% of atmospheric CO2) by the authors of the IPCC model (Houghton et al., 1990).


See larger image here.

Read much more about CO2 versus temperatures and how volcano aerosols are an important factor in climate changes on the short term (2 to 4 years) and when they cluster on longer time frames (most of the 1960s) here.

let's not get too bent yet...

 

[trichrider]

[YOUTUBEIF]kYSIN5zhoow[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[RetroGrow]

While I think there is some truth to that (and I totally commend you on having an action plan to change your behavior) I don't think a change in legality would necessarily have much of an impact on the on the typical indoor grower. There are plenty of folks (like myself) for who legality isn't the main hurdle to growing outside (I'd need a yard first), probably way more folks who would still rather put their own convenience/protection above their beliefs, and even more still who don't give a damn about their contributions towards global warming in the first place.

Likewise, while a lot of folks are moving towards using local soil, and nutrient sources, and re-cycling all that stuff every cycle, there's still TONS of folks using guanos, kelps, bone meals, blood meals, fish meals, chemical & mineral nutrients coming straight from strip-mines, without giving a single thought to where that stuff comes from, or what effect it has on the earth. Even if you're buying the most sustainable, environmentally conscious medium you can find, you're still paying part of the price for having dirt acquired and moved around the world by coal/gas-burning machinery...which is pretty ridiculous, from an environmental standpoint.

....and just to be doubly clear: I am pretty much one of those folks, so please don't take my words/criticism too harshly. I'm not so much trying to pick anybody apart personally, or point fingers at individuals, so much as to say: we indoor marijuana growers as a group (and I admit I'm painting with broad generalizations here), are engaging in an activity that is a huge waste of energy resources, largely unsustainable, with direct negative impact on the environment. We really don't have to go far, if we're looking for a group of folks who waste massive amounts of energy and resources without much thought.

It's not a waste considering the result.....kind bud.....
I think that to make up for all the energy wasted growing kind herb, police sitting in their air conditioned, blacked out windowed, engine idling cars talking on their cell phones, should be ordered to turn off their engines and open the windows. That will save enough energy to make up for the stoners.

 

[toketronix]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/volcanoes_and_co2_and_global_temperatures/

Volcanoes and CO2 and Global Temperatures
By Joseph D’Aleo, November 14, 2009

In a recent UK Telegraph piece, Dr. Ian Plimer, author of the best seller Heaven and Earth argues CO2 is not causing global warming..........

Pity the article doesn't mention that Dr. Ian Plimer is also a director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.

Here is taste of how his book is regarded by the Scientific community. This might be my favourite comment: "Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear."

Reactions from scientists

Canadian broadcaster John Moore said it was "widely criticised by fellow scientists as just another collection of denier hits."The Adelaide Advertiser stated that among other scientists, "Plimer is all but out in the cold".

Barry Brook of Adelaide University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, who is at the same university as Plimer and has debated climate change issues with him, described the book as a case study "in how not to be objective" and accused Plimer of using "selective evidence". Brook said that Plimer's "stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self-interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues. Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view, and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science." He said that Plimer's assertions about man’s role in climate change were "naive, reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments that had been repeatedly refuted." Brook also suggested that many of the scientific authors cited by Plimer actually support the consensus view and that their work is misrepresented in Plimer's book. Susannah Eliott, the chief executive of the Australian Science Media Centre, encouraged colleagues to read the book and comment on it, but took the view that "there isn't anything new in there, they are all old arguments".

Many reviewers highlighted factual and sourcing problems in Heaven and Earth. Colin Woodroffe, a coastal geomorphologist at the University of Wollongong, and a lead chapter author for the IPCC AR4, wrote that the book has many errors and will be "remembered for the confrontation it provokes rather than the science it stimulates." Woodroffe noted Plimer's "unbalanced approach to the topic," and concluded that the book was not written as a contribution to any scientific debate, and was evidently not aimed at a scientific audience. Charlie Veron, former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, said every original statement Plimer makes in the book on coral and coral reefs is incorrect, and that Plimer "serve up diagrams from no acknowledged source, diagrams known to be obsolete and diagrams that combine bits of science with bits of fiction."

David Karoly, an atmospheric dynamicist at Melbourne University and a lead author for the IPCC, accused Plimer of misusing data in the book and commented that "it doesn't support the answers with sources." Karoly reviewed the book and concluded: "Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear."

Ian G. Enting, a mathematical physicist at MASCOS, University of Melbourne and author of Twisted, The Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial, similarly criticised what he described as numerous misrepresentations of the sources cited in the book and charged that Plimer "fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variation."Enting compiled a list of over 100 errors in the book.

Michael Ashley, an astronomer at the University of New South Wales, criticised the book at length in a review for The Australian in which he characterised the book as "largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical." He accused Plimer of having "done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken."

Malcolm Walter, the Director of the Australian Centre for Astrobiology, University of New South Wales, commented on Plimer's "fallacious reasoning," noting the "blatant and fundamental contradictions" and inconsistencies in the book. Walter told ABC Radio National that Plimer's interpretation of the literature is confused and that Plimer "bit off more than he can chew." According to Walter, "reviewing this book has been an unpleasant experience for me. I have been a friendly colleague of Plimer's for 25 years or more. ... But..., in my opinion, he has done a disservice to science and to the community at large." On the same network, geophysicist Kurt Lambeck, currently president of the Australian Academy of Science, said that the book was "sloppy" and that it "is not a work of science; it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist."

Chris Turney, a researcher of prehistoric climate changes, of the University of Exeter's Department of Geography, stated the book was "a cacophony of climate skeptic arguments that have been discredited by decades of research." He described the number of errors in the book as "disturbingly high": "statements that are at best ambiguous and in many cases plain wrong are repeated, figures purporting to demonstrate climate change is all natural are erroneous, time and spatial scales are mixed up . . . the list goes on." Turney comments that Plimer "badly mistreats" the history of the development of climate science, "regurgitating" the fringe idea of global cooling to portray "recent concerns over warming [as] just another case of alarmism." He concludes that "Plimer's thesis of inaction is a course we follow at our peril."

Writing in Earth magazine, emeritus USGS geologist Terry Gerlach commented that the book "illustrates one of the pathways by which myths, misrepresentations and spurious information get injected into the climate change debate." He highlighted Plimer's inaccurate claims about volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide and noted that Plimer had failed to provide estimates of present-day global carbon dioxide emission rate from volcanoes. In Gerlach's view, this was ironic considering that the book professes to provide the "missing science" on climate change.

Retired meteorologist William Kininmonth, a long-standing critic of climate change theory, supported the book in a commentary published in The Australian in which he wrote that "Plimer's authoritative book provides the excuse and impetus to re-examine the scientific fundamentals [of climate change]."

The scientists' criticisms were rejected by Plimer, who embarked on a lecture tour following the book's publication in a bid to lobby the Australian government to change its policies on climate change to reflect what he called "valid science". He said that he had predicted that "The science would not be discussed, there would be academic nit-picking and there would be vitriolic ad hominem attacks by pompous academics out of contact with the community" and asserted that "comments by critics suggest that few have actually read the book and every time there was a savage public personal attack, book sales rose."

.....Don't get played by 'Denial Propaganda'.

 

[toketronix]

Good post, but about China & India: yes they use less oil, because oil is expensive, but they are burning much more coal to make up for it, and, as you no doubt are aware, coal is a worse polluter than oil or natural gas, by far. Natural gas is cheap in the U.S., but very expensive in other countries, so the cleanest of the "big three" is natural gas, which those "third world" countries do not have access to because of our restrictive export policy concerning natural gas. If the U.S. would release our surplus natural gas, these countries would not be burning the coal they are. China also has virtually no environmental laws, and the pollution there is many magnitudes greater than anything we do. So, citing oil usage as a measuring stick for pollution is misleading. Coal is a much worse polluter, and coal usage in China & India is on the rise, plus it's "dirty" coal, not subject to the environmental regulations we have here (U.S.).

The idea that 'India&China don't use as much oil because they use coal instead' is even more misleading, I haven't seen too many coal powered vehicles on the road? ...but I'm willing to bet there are more vehicles in China&India ..in fact. here are the actual numbers of registered vehicles by country, of course we have to bear in mind that China&India will have a higher number of unregistered vehicles so their number will be skewed on the low side:

USA: -------------258,957,503
China&India:-----322,013,286

& we also have to consider how much of the coal being burnt in China&India's factories are for products being exported to the USA, getting poorer countries to carry out your dirty industries....doesn't make you clean.

If you think, all things considered the average American is less damaging to the environement than the average Chinese&Indian ....you are way off the scale wrong. Most people in China&India are living hand to mouth, which means they do stuff out of necessity, while a lot of the energy consumed in the 1st world is for luxury items, ...like 8ltr cars etc.

 

[bombadil.360]

toketronix, most people quoted in the article you posted depend on their claims being accepted as truth to maintain reputation, as well as incoming funds; most of them involved in one way or another with the agenda of the IPCC.

aren't they in the same situation as many of those whose arguments are against the theses of IPCC? that is, miners, oil companies etc...?

this debate on global warming is ridiculous, since there's no definite science.

and I sound like a broken record, but we have solid definite science on many more pressing issues, like water pollution, and yet, everybody is busy discussing anything but it.

makes you wonder.

peace

 

[trichrider]

like it's different than getting 'played' by the IPCC, UN, WHO, NIH, and their ilk?

believe what you will while still able.

climate is directly affected by our star. it pretty much controls weather...hence climate.
the earths atmosphere was reduced (shrunk) by solar minimum and has not been regenerated by solar maximum... forcing extreme weather.
if the available atmosphere is reduced, the remaining atmosphere must contain the same forces as before it was shrunken. heat hotter, cold colder, winds fiercer. this is not speculation.

so when did the atmosphere begin shrinking? about the same time global warming became such a frightening prospect...the same time the NOAA changed/adjusted their monitoring. slight coincidence? itn

i feel no guilt in believing this way. sure americans use way more than anyone anywhere, but i was born into it and had no say. does that make it wrong? it's pretty hard to live like an african or indian in this country...

if the AGW were not tied to a scheme to make money by some of the most egregious crooks on the planet i might be on board...

Con game. from a carni's perspective.

be well.

 

[toketronix]

toketronix, most people quoted in the article you posted depend on their claims being accepted as truth to maintain reputation, this debate on global warming is ridiculous, since there's no definite science.as well as incoming funds; most of them involved in one way or another with the agenda of the IPCC.

This is like saying electricians are too biased to know anything about electricity.

We can extend your conspiracy logic further & conclude that all experts in their field should be distrusted because ...they get paid to be experts in their field?

aren't they in the same situation as many of those whose arguments are against the theses of IPCC? that is, miners, oil companies etc...?

Not even in the same solar system.

One is real science performed on available evidence by experts in the field, the other is nothing more than industry funded propaganda or science fictions aimed at muddying the waters, mostly hired hacks with vested interests writing blogs and fake articles on retainer for oil/mineral/investment/technology interests.

and I sound like a broken record, but we have solid definite science on many more pressing issues, like water pollution, and yet, everybody is busy discussing anything but it.

I don't see why we can't do both or why someone who claims to be worried about water pollution should be so dead against limiting air pollution as well as raft of other negative activities ...you're no different to the straw hippy you were complaining about earlier, you know the kind that worries about global warming but not about water pollution.

 

[RetroGrow]

How about "people pollution"?
Too many people @ the root of all these problems....

 

[dddaver]

I myself am just a closet grower who has become spoiled by pure genetics and quality organic growing. I know exactly what goes into my herb.

I understand pointing out the irony of growing yet complaining about wasting electricity, but I have to disagree with the thinking that growing outdoors will solve any resource crisis at all. There will always be a need for indoor in order to control genetics as well as quality. Rain residue in most places is nasty now. Air quality with all kinds of nasty shit in our air is happening now. Not to mention whatever pollen blows onto your girls that might ruin quality in genetic breeding if everyone did grow outside. You'd never know what your seeds really were.

I plan on being an inside home grower forever no matter what law or environmental thing happens. And I think everyone should too and it is a morally and ethically responsible thing to do. I KNOW what I'm doing and the consequence, which is not much at all.

I drive a small car too.

 

[toketronix]

I understand pointing out the irony of growing yet complaining about wasting electricity, but I have to disagree with the thinking that growing outdoors will solve any resource crisis at all.

I don't think it's straight forward, if indoor percy growing is your only 'energy luxury' & you're generally frugal in other areas, eg not bringing a ton of unnecessary Chinese plastic back from the mall every week. Personally I don't grow indoors, but my supplied electricity is generated using hydro power, not all KWHs are equal.

How about "people pollution"?
Too many people @ the root of all these problems....

Yep, if we could radically reduce the size of the worlds population that would certainly help, but how do we do that without measures like 'child limit' or compulsory sterilisation etc?

We would need to reduce current numbers down to around 1% ...to be sustainable.

 

[bombadil.360]

This is like saying electricians are too biased to know anything about electricity.

We can extend your conspiracy logic further & conclude that all experts in their field should be distrusted because ...they get paid to be experts in their field?

"Former IPCC chairman Robert Watson has said "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened".-Ben Webster; Robin Pagnamenta (15 February 2010). "UN must investigate warming 'bias', says former climate chief – Times Online". London: The Times. Retrieved 19 February 2010.

enough said.

 

[RetroGrow]

Yep, if we could radically reduce the size of the worlds population that would certainly help, but how do we do that without measures like 'child limit' or compulsory sterilisation etc?

We would need to reduce current numbers down to around 1% ...to be sustainable.

No, we would not need to reduce current numbers down to 1%. The planet can support between 3-4 billion people without destroying everything. I'm all for child limits in countries that need it. But I have already explained how third world females could be incentivized by food, clothing, housing, and educational credits by stopping @ two children. Either that, or it comes down to genetic warfare, which technology already exists. Who blinks first? Do we wait for "them" to wipe us out, or do we fire the first shot?

 

[igrowone]

I myself am just a closet grower who has become spoiled by pure genetics and quality organic growing. I know exactly what goes into my herb.

I understand pointing out the irony of growing yet complaining about wasting electricity, but I have to disagree with the thinking that growing outdoors will solve any resource crisis at all. There will always be a need for indoor in order to control genetics as well as quality. Rain residue in most places is nasty now. Air quality with all kinds of nasty shit in our air is happening now. Not to mention whatever pollen blows onto your girls that might ruin quality in genetic breeding if everyone did grow outside. You'd never know what your seeds really were.

I plan on being an inside home grower forever no matter what law or environmental thing happens. And I think everyone should too and it is a morally and ethically responsible thing to do. I KNOW what I'm doing and the consequence, which is not much at all.

I drive a small car too.

i like my indoor growing too, but nothing wrong with running small clones indoors, then transplanting outside for the bulk growing
indoor will never go away, but greenhouse/outdoors will likely be the bulk weed of the future of legal MJ
which is true now i guess, since most of the brick stuff is outdoor, and that does outweigh our connoisseur indoor(i would think)