Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
This discovery could be big green energy news
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 6921651" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>lol I live in CA. Don't try to tell me what we can or can't do here. </p><p></p><p>For one thing, Californians are already wasting huge amounts of water on lawns that don't do anyone any good. Trees are more effective air cleaners (not just carbon sinks, but all manner of other gases), but are also great at reducing energy consumption requirements in hot places like most of inland CA, by the simple expedient of shade. If you don't beleive me, try living in the Central Valley with, and then without, shade trees on your property. It's a difference of hundreds of dollars per year. On some properties, it's well over 100$ a month difference. </p><p>Energy consumption that for at least the next few decades will continue to require fossil fuels, and thus carbon emissions. Home solar is great, and should also be expanded exponentially, but ppl also absolutely need to ditch lawns in favor of trees and, lifestyle allowing, food plants. </p><p></p><p>Also note that as i as I pointed out earlier in the thread, trees make farming many crops more ecologically sound in hot, dry places. Less fertilizer, better yields, often less total water usage compared to what's required to make non desert friendly crops survive the desert sun. This isn't theory, it's history and science, and it's being proven (again) in the southern Sahara right now. </p><p></p><p>And <em>of course</em> we have to plant more trees than "suburbanites" can do in their homes. <em>Obviously</em>. But:</p><p>1)cities need more trees for many reasons. They also need solar covered parking lots, rooftops, and even roadways where feasible. You know cities are significantly hotter than the surrounding land due to the amount of asphalt and concrete sitting in the sun all day, right? And increased parks only does so much. Like...trees are literally the cheapest and easiest part of the solution, and here you are acting like I'm saying that they're the whole solution. </p><p></p><p>2) I don't know where you live, but every city I know has grass lawns everywhere. Not at all just in the suburbs. </p><p></p><p>3) urban afforestation has benefits outside of carbon sinking. Like making urban air more breathable, and helping keep cities cool. Which helps cities use less energy. And of course, we could plant large shade giving desert trees, but the folks lose it over planting foreign species. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /></p><p></p><p><em>Obviously</em> we have to also rethink farming techniques, improve water reclaimation/recycling/other infrastructure, and turn more rural land back into forests. We literally have to do those things. There is no choice in the matter. We have done two things that are going to kill us. </p><p>exponentially increased carbon output, and dramatically decreased the ability of the environment to "eat" atmospheric carbon. Both have to be reversed. </p><p></p><p>And no, there is no appeal to authority in saying, "I have to work all day, so don't expect a dissertation or bibliography". </p><p></p><p>Now, if you want links and stuff, you're still gonna have to wait because I'm seriously eating into my get ready for work time right now as it is, but at least for North America, it's mostly state water authority and national border red tape in the way of cross continental water infrastructure. Of course, it takes massive protests to <em>stop </em>similar infrastructure for moving oil from being built, because that puts tons of money in powerful people's pockets, but when it comes to water it's crickets. More immediately, CA has terrible water reclaimation and recycling infrastructure, in most places.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 6921651, member: 6704184"] lol I live in CA. Don't try to tell me what we can or can't do here. For one thing, Californians are already wasting huge amounts of water on lawns that don't do anyone any good. Trees are more effective air cleaners (not just carbon sinks, but all manner of other gases), but are also great at reducing energy consumption requirements in hot places like most of inland CA, by the simple expedient of shade. If you don't beleive me, try living in the Central Valley with, and then without, shade trees on your property. It's a difference of hundreds of dollars per year. On some properties, it's well over 100$ a month difference. Energy consumption that for at least the next few decades will continue to require fossil fuels, and thus carbon emissions. Home solar is great, and should also be expanded exponentially, but ppl also absolutely need to ditch lawns in favor of trees and, lifestyle allowing, food plants. Also note that as i as I pointed out earlier in the thread, trees make farming many crops more ecologically sound in hot, dry places. Less fertilizer, better yields, often less total water usage compared to what's required to make non desert friendly crops survive the desert sun. This isn't theory, it's history and science, and it's being proven (again) in the southern Sahara right now. And [I]of course[/I] we have to plant more trees than "suburbanites" can do in their homes. [I]Obviously[/I]. But: 1)cities need more trees for many reasons. They also need solar covered parking lots, rooftops, and even roadways where feasible. You know cities are significantly hotter than the surrounding land due to the amount of asphalt and concrete sitting in the sun all day, right? And increased parks only does so much. Like...trees are literally the cheapest and easiest part of the solution, and here you are acting like I'm saying that they're the whole solution. 2) I don't know where you live, but every city I know has grass lawns everywhere. Not at all just in the suburbs. 3) urban afforestation has benefits outside of carbon sinking. Like making urban air more breathable, and helping keep cities cool. Which helps cities use less energy. And of course, we could plant large shade giving desert trees, but the folks lose it over planting foreign species. :hmm: [I]Obviously[/I] we have to also rethink farming techniques, improve water reclaimation/recycling/other infrastructure, and turn more rural land back into forests. We literally have to do those things. There is no choice in the matter. We have done two things that are going to kill us. exponentially increased carbon output, and dramatically decreased the ability of the environment to "eat" atmospheric carbon. Both have to be reversed. And no, there is no appeal to authority in saying, "I have to work all day, so don't expect a dissertation or bibliography". Now, if you want links and stuff, you're still gonna have to wait because I'm seriously eating into my get ready for work time right now as it is, but at least for North America, it's mostly state water authority and national border red tape in the way of cross continental water infrastructure. Of course, it takes massive protests to [I]stop [/I]similar infrastructure for moving oil from being built, because that puts tons of money in powerful people's pockets, but when it comes to water it's crickets. More immediately, CA has terrible water reclaimation and recycling infrastructure, in most places. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
This discovery could be big green energy news
Top