“The future ain’t what it used to be.”
-Yogi Berra
Looks ready for planting. I think you can probably just take that part in your hand and stick it in some fresh fast draining soils and it will prob re-root in a few weeks.
Can’t say for certain but it looks like typical overwatering is what caused the fungus/ dieback issue.
cashew?
Probably one of the best live streams on the matter:
You are validating bad faith criticisms by engaging with them. You give them substance by addressing them. These are the exact kinds of things that the fossil fuel industry has been funding for literally decades to create confusion/ uncertainty around renewables. By engaging with and sharing content like this, you are doing their work for them. By asking and then answering non-issues like this, it validates the idea that there was a problem with renewables to begin with. Content like this is the result of 80 years of fossil fuel company psyops campaigns.
On Thursday, House Democrats will look into what they describe as the oil industry’s decades of disinformation and misrepresentation to delay climate action. They have called executives from Exxon Mobil, BP America, Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil to testify. The meeting, Democrats say, is modeled on a historic hearing more than 25 years ago that held the tobacco industry to account for misleading the public about the harmful effects of smoking.
Two names likely to come up at the hearing are Charles and David Koch, the conservative petrochemical magnates. They have poured millions of dollars into efforts to discredit the science of climate change. The brothers have given over $145 million to climate-change-denying think tanks and advocacy groups between 1997 and 2018. The Kochs were joined in their efforts by Exxon, which has given nearly $37 million over the same time to spread climate misinformation.
A senior Exxon lobbyist in Washington was caught on tape in June describing the company’s campaign to cloud the science. “Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes,” said Keith McCoy in a sting operation by Greenpeace U.K. “Did we hide our science? Absolutely not. Did we join some of these ‘shadow groups’ to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true. But there’s nothing illegal about that. You know, we were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders.”
The primary goal of these campaigns is to create confusion/ uncertainty; to elevate non-issues into concerns: precisely what this content does.
The problem is that it validates the claim to offer a “solution” (it isn’t) to the “problem” (it isn’t). It’s counter productive to validate the claim by offering this retort. It’s also not even the second time I’ve seen this being trotted out. It’s at least the third, maybe fourth.
I’d be more than happy with seeing these things repurposed into something useful. If we’re in a position where windmill blades are littering the landscape because we have a preponderance of cheap/ free/ non polluting energy, that’s a good thing.
improvement is improvement
Yeah I don’t agree with that. It’s a complete distraction and irrelevant, it adds confusion to a ley audience by implying this was something that needed addressing.
We’ve got some real problems; a preponderance of windmill blades sounds like a made up rw talking point: responding to or producing articles like this offers a validation that the counterfactual doesn’t warrant.
It is actually problematic to spend time, effort, and other people’s attention and understanding making weird defensive claims to non issues.
ahh yes because wm blades are just piling up.
non solution to a non problem.
Some people are considering time. Also these fine folks.
Once you put time into the equation, the highlights the absurdity of valuing any form of sequestration while not valuing avoided emissions.
Think about it like this:
The current price for a megagram of forest carbon is about 25 bucks. The contract for that is 25 years. So about a buck per year per megagram.The average megagram of fossil fuels CO2 was laid down in the Carboniferous. So call it 100 mya for dipshit math. Average temperate forest might do 2 megagrams per hectare per year. So to sequester a megagram of forest carbon for the time equivalent of fossil fuels carbon, you would need to set aside apx 50 million hectares for the time equivalent sequestration benefit. Which would mean that to get the time equivalent sequestration benefit from forest carbon, you need to set aside 50 million hectares. Per megagram. Which is just preposterous. It also implied that the stored value of a non-emitted megagram of fossil fuels carbon is about 50 million dollars. Which is to say if we believe that a megagram of forest carbon stored for 25 years is worth 25 bucks, we should by extension believe that keeping a megagram of carbon from being emitted from fossil fuels is worth 50 million bucks. Obviously none of this is really true but it points to the absurdity of sequestration and the importance of not emitting more carbon from fossil fuels, in any manner. Right now solar and bev are the most obvious, straight forward, And demonstrated to be effective ways to get there. We might literally be in a path to a world of practically free electricity in some places at certain times of day.
Also big electric truck go bzzzz.
*(these are all approx numbers and math; I’m in the shitter and not looking up anything for the haters)
The future is very clearly electric.
Avid gardener/small allotment semi-farmer/ moonlight as a soil scientist (partner is soils, I’m spatial). I wouldn’t say I’m a soil scientist but I’ve published in soils journals. More importantly I’ve got a hobby vineyard of vanilla and have worked on farms in a wide range of environments. Probably has done more to inform my perspective than anything.
First thing first, just to be clear, it seems like you are looking for more of an editorial perspective? I can code switch over to the pure science side, but realistically, there are things that work and don’t work when it comes to hobby gardening. I think it best to stick in that framing, because frankly there is a ton of bad info out there.
So first question first, where are you and what are you trying to grow? I ask this because soil conditions and processes vary widely by latitude, and plants do vary substantially in the requirements.
As far as the specific question: the difference between potting mix and in ground soil, and I’m adding bulk soil purchase. You didn’t mention that, but realistically, you can go to the home store and buy soil, take a truck and get a load ( or have it delivered), or grow you own. The differences between soils at a big box store are pretty marginal. You are basically paying a premium for higher nitrogen content soil at the store. I always go for the cheapest, and then also buy some chicken or steer to supplement if I go this way. The next option is to grow your own. Composting waste takes time and you probably don’t generate anything near enough to feed even a modest garden, and it takes a ton of work even for that. Finally, there is buying bulk soil. Usually this is a raw mixture of mineral soil, compost and some carbon source. It’s usually pretty terrible and has rarely had the time to break down and form the tight sorption that will result in nutrient release. Soils take time to develop, and there is no getting around that. When you purchase bulk soil they usually cheap out on the carbon and nitrogen and it’s pretty worthless otherwise.
From a biogeochemistry perspective: it’s the carbon dummy! If you want food soils with high water storage and nutrient exchange capacity, you need it to have lots of carbon (in the form of both mineral associated organic matter, and particulate associated). You can buy in PAOM (particulate associated organics), but MAOM (mineral associated organics) is built primarily through root exudates, and that takes time. Good soil is all about the carbon, but also about what form that carbon takes. It’s the MAOM that is going to help things like phosphorus become available, but it’s the PAOM that’s going to buffer the plant available water and smooth out water availability between irrigations.
Realistically, the best soil is the stuff you grow, but that’s just too slow for most growers. I do extremely deep layers of mulch (30 cm) to prevent weeds, but it’s also a way for me to grow more soil very lazily. I also buy lots and lots of soil (at least 1k US per year). I buy both immature bulk soil ( 2-5 cubic meters at a time) and big box store soil (5-50 bags at a time). The immature stuff is crap, but it’s cheap. It’s basically useless for almost 2 years until it’s become more mature.The bagged soil is fine to work with right away, but you need to supplement it for nutrients if you don’t want to break the bank. Neither are remotely as good as a well developed in ground soil, but that takes decades.
Maybe if you can let us know where you are in your process thT can inform the discussion.
I mean. That’s dirt cheap in the grand scheme of things.
The biggest difference we see between today’s world and that world is the almost instantaneous movement (in evolutionary time) of plant and animal species with very high degrees of invasiveness, almost globally. It’s not clear how this would impact the adaptation phase of these events, but I have a hard time imagining it following the same tract as how global warming would impact integrated, in tact ecosystems.
Hydroponics doesn’t scale in the way that traditional “stick a seed in the ground and leave for months at a time” scales, regardless of if you are doing it organic or not. This is also not the first “robot that will solve” agriculture. There is a mentality in silicon valley that they are smarter than everyone and just no one else has thought of these things. But this idea in principal has been around forever, and I even saw some demos at experimental stations I was working at back in the early Obama years. Pretty sure none of that went anywhere, but then again, robotics have gotten cheaper, etc.
The two best tech’s I’ve seen in this particular space were 1, basically a small hydraulic ram that beat the ever living piss out of small seedlings, and two, a high powered laser that smote small weed seedlings with the power of science. Either way, the places I’ve seen this work, its only on demonstration scale; very contrived circumstances; and always on extremely young weed seedlings. There also almost always seems to be a bit of cheating around the particular weed species. Consider the computer vision aspect: you need to destroy the seedling when its very young; many crops have weeds that are closely related and indistinguishable at that stage. So you’ll see demonstrations where its a dicot weed species in a grass species crop or vise-servus (or like, cheat grass in rapeseed, or some brassica in wheat).
But yeah. Inevitably it ends up being other issues that derail this. Small robots need to be kept track of, powered, etc. They get mud in their tracks. Birds shit on them. Crackheads steal them all and sells them for parts. They fall over sideways. And like, yeah you could build them bigger and heavier, but then you’ve just reinvented the tractor.
Good for them. Its a fucking great thing.
You want reduced global conflict? Make energy cheap to the point of being free.
Bro its probably too late for that. We might be committed to 5 degrees total warming at this point. Thats like, infrastructure failing levels of heat.
Gavin Newsom: Test balloon. Plz ignore.
Thanks kind sir! Edit: Wow this really blew up!
Guaranteed way to speed up climate change