h a l f b a k e r y
Neural Knotwork
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
The Louisiana coastline is eroding, and a longterm solution is required. I consider the loss of US land a matter national security in it of itself even if said land wasn't a hurricane buffer for the city of New Orleans, and as such, drastic measures should be taken to rebuild the coast.
Currently,
any such solution would cost a gargantuan sum of money: the technology just isn't there. Meanwhile, market theory is pretty much mature: supply and demand.
There is a heavy demand for currency-- a "relatively" universal medium of exchange. There's just too large a variety of goods and services that need to be sold for effective barter.
I don't think the US could return to a gold standard. The economy simply would need too much gold, and I for one prefer the fiat system we use now for controlling inflation and deflation.
But that should not preclude the possibility of the US slowly building up gold demand. The US should target a gold price increase of 3% above inflation a year, buying gold on the open market. On those years when the gold price is rising just fine on it's own, the US should buy less or none, etc. If the gold price rushes up ridiculously fast. The US can sell some of the gold to return it to a gradual rise.
I believe that as gold prices rise, consumers will buy more and more gold, seeing it as a good investment.
To increase the funding of this operation, the US can partner with famous sculptors, and jewelers, to make value-added gold products-- jewelry and artwork, such that they can be sold at a profit. This would get the gold into the hands of the public but out of currency-style circulation. A solid gold piece of art, for instance, may contain $5000 worth of gold, but be worth $20,000 due to the value-add of the artist.
Now, on a year like the one we are experiencing now, we probably couldn't engineer a rise in gold prices that would outpace the rise in energy prices, but in subsequent, normal years, oil prices should remain in-line with inflation, whereas the engineered price-rise in gold will proceed at a rate above that of inflation.
And how, you ask, would this restore the Louisiana coastline? Simple. With higher gold prices, it becomes economical to mine deep-sea gold deposits, such as ones found near thermal vents, much sooner. And once the undersea gold rush begins, we will have plenty of (inert) rock from the sea bottom to nourish the Louisiana coastline with.
I know their will be some environmentalists that will argue that mining in the ocean is bad, but they can be sued for obstructing a matter of national security, and the money we make from suing greenpeace et al can be used to buy even more gold.
If we can manipulate the laws in such a way, we can save the coastline at a profit, rather than a cost.
Mines are not bad
http://www.co.jacks.../forestry/scuba.htm
[Madai, Aug 31 2005]
15500 species on the brink of extinction
http://news.bbc.co....ci/tech/4013719.stm
[jonthegeologist, Sep 01 2005]
For normzone
http://www.google.c...an+Puppy+Guillotine
Though I'm really not sure why... [DrCurry, Sep 02 2005]
I'm sure why...
http://www.google.c...search=&safe=images
...the phrase, not the collected words... [normzone, Sep 02 2005]
Coast 2050
http://www.nytimes....on/02fischetti.html
NYTimes Op-Ed by Mark Fischetti on actual plan that could have worked [JakePatterson, Sep 03 2005]
An example of Dutch water engineering
http://www.deltawerken.com/
only costed about a couple of millions [Susan, Sep 09 2005]
Annotation:
|
| |
Bone for yet another hare-brained scheme to perform profit-generating environmental destruction in the name of "national security". |
|
| |
Gold is going up of its own accord, due to Asian (read Chinese) demand. Why should we spend a thing to help it? Furthermore, involving governments in the prices of commodities is a hazardous and uncertain venture: just look at the price of oil. |
|
| |
But what is really hurting Louisiana geologically is the damming of the Mississippi upriver. Remove the damns and the coastline will be restored. May take a few centuries, of course. |
|
| |
And why exactly are thermal vents so precious that they should never be mined? And why do you equate mining with distruction? Nature renews itself, dude. Check out lake Wazee. It's a mine that filled with water, now fish thrive in it. |
|
| |
The damming of the Mississippi is only part of the problem. There's also the Nutria rodents which overeat the vegetation, hurricanes, development, etc. |
|
| |
And if you think the people near the Mississippi are going to risk the increased chances of natural disasters by removing all the engineering that alters sedimentation upriver, you are nuts. So instead of pining over something that will NEVER happen, how about suggesting a solution that might actually occur? |
|
| |
[Nature renews itself, dude] |
|
| |
I appreciate a madcap scheme as well as the next baker, but bone for ignorance... |
|
| |
Are you actually trying to tell me nature *doesn't* renew itself? I mean, sure, we can cause an extinction here and there if we're *really* careless, but nature is extremely resilient. A mined site can be restored to previous natural beauty. Or improved beyond the previous natural beauty. |
|
| |
To me the word renew implies restoration to original condition. The redwoods aren't going to come back, and kudzu is never going to leave the south. |
|
| |
While mined sites can be cleaned up and put to good uses, it hardly qualifiys as nature renewing itself. |
|
| |
It's the American attitute to the environment as espoused in this 'idea' that is the most concerning thing. It's clear that the writer believes in economy, money, cash, profit above all. |
|
| |
Sadly, it's this pathetic (in the real sense of the word) attitude which will see natural resources wasted and the subsequent extinction of us as a life form. |
|
| |
// know there will be some environmentalists that will argue that mining in the ocean is bad, but they can be sued for obstructing a matter of national security // |
|
| |
See what I mean? "yea, environmentalists! Mentalists more like. Mad the lot of 'em. What do they know about the planet! Let's make more damage and more money ...wooohooo!". Poor science. |
|
| |
// And once the undersea gold rush begins, we will have plenty of (inert) rock from the sea bottom to nourish the Louisiana coastline with. // |
|
| |
Ever seen what's left to the host rock after it's been mined for gold? Mmm.... silt, dust. Try restoring a coast line with that. Poor science. |
|
| |
// it becomes economical to mine deep-sea gold deposits, such as ones found near thermal vents, much sooner // |
|
| |
I'm not an expert on Louisiana coastal and off shore geology, but I believe most of the off shore geology is surface sedimentary on top of KT boundary metamorphics. In summary, no thermal vents, very little chance of gold. Poor science. |
|
| |
// Nature renews itself, dude // |
|
| |
Patronising twaddle [Madai] and poor science to boot. Ripping millions of tons of rock out of a mine and then seeing it fill with water and fish doesn't restore the rock to the mine does it? |
|
| |
// I mean, sure, we can cause an extinction here and there if we're *really* careless // |
|
| |
Thousands of species have already become extinct due to our carelessness. Millions more due to massive environmental change in the geological record. If we carry on, our carelessness and thoughtlessness will lead to considerable environmental change, which, in turn, will lead to extinctions. Would you be so blasé if one of those species was you [Madai]? Would nature renew itself then? Bollocks. Poor science. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] Poor science. |
|
| |
//Thousands of species have already become extinct due to our carelessness.// |
|
| |
I call BS. You can't name one thousand species that have gone extinct since the beginning of recorded history. Bad science, dude. Many of your thousands of species are just sitting in a computer, the theoretical species that go extinct for every hundred square miles of rainforest lost. |
|
| |
//It's clear that the writer believes in economy, money, cash, profit above all.// |
|
| |
Or maybe the writer just has no illusions about how the world works, and rather than dismiss greed as evil, would rather channel greed to do good? |
|
| |
//Mentalists more like. Mad the lot of 'em. What do they know about the planet!// |
|
| |
Environmentalists have made disastrous mistakes before. The banning of DDT has causes countless excess deaths to malaria in 3rd world countries. The blocking of new US refineries has deepened our oil problems. The blocking of new nuclear power plants has deepened our fossil fuel dependancy as well. |
|
| |
//Ever seen what's left to the host rock after it's been mined for gold? Mmm.... silt, dust. Try restoring a coast line with that.// |
|
| |
And what exactly was the Mississippi river delivering to the coastline before we dammed it up? Silt and dust. |
|
| |
//I'm not an expert on Louisiana coastal // |
|
| |
Who said the gold mining would be limited to the Louisiana coastline? Shipping is the cheapest form of transportation by a longshot. Why would we want to take nearby stuff away from Louisiana, when we can bring in stuff from further away that has less chance of exacerbating the erosion problem? |
|
| |
And Normzone, redwoods aren't *gone*. Redwoods are commericially grown, even. As for "original condition" there is no such thing. Even without human intervention, the landscape would change over time. Kudzu is regrettable, but nothing a couple goats can't handle. Meanwhile, they are doing promising research involving soybean loopers infected with parasitic stingless wasps. And, finally, the kudzu problem is, like others, overexaggerated. Kudzu, for example, has never caused an extinction. And since it hasn't yet, it's doubtful it ever will, now that humans have learned how to fight it. |
|
| |
//I call BS. You can't name one thousand species that have gone extinct since the beginning of recorded history.//
Maybe he can't, but that doesn't mean it's not the case. Try doing a web search for extinct species lists and you'll find plenty.
//Maybe the writer just has no illusions about how the world works, and rather than dismiss greed as evil, would rather channel greed to do good?//
The writer admits implicitly that greed is evil by stating that it would have to be channelled in order to do good. Funny how things like anger, greed and jealousy have to be channelled before they're worth shit eh? Plus understanding how the world works and becoming resigned to that functionality are two different things. The former a sign of maturity the latter an indication of a tired, beaten person.
//Environmentalists have made disastrous mistakes before.//
*Everyone* has made disastrous mistakes before. I once passed out and fell into a urinal during a "hold your breath" contest but I don't try to use that to justify undersea drilling as a clumsy knee jerk solution to a problem that is better accepted and dealt with than Canuted.
[-] for monstrous idiocy, selfishness and wastefulness. |
|
| |
Don't put words in my mouth. Commercial planting doesn't replace thousand year old trees. |
|
| |
Your glib arguments mirror the naivte of your despised environmentalists who would ban all technology, while you would advocate unrestrained environmental modifications. Both sides have some growing up to do. |
|
| |
NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) applies to offshore drilling, fishing, salvage, dumping, exploration, shipping, and surfing. So why won't just excavating miles of rock seem like a perfect fix? Because you'll hear NIMBY from governments that speak for areas that encompass recoverable assets. |
|
| |
Do other coastlines besides Louisiana's receed? |
|
| |
I could check, but I'll pose a guess that Louisiana's shoreline is one of the few in the US that does _not_ recede. |
|
| |
//Maybe he can't, but that doesn't mean it's not the case. Try doing a web search for extinct species lists and you'll find plenty. // |
|
| |
Plenty, but not 1000. Not unless you count the thearetical never-discovered species in computer models. |
|
| |
//The writer admits implicitly that greed is evil by stating that it would have to be channelled in order to do good. // |
|
| |
The responder to the writer implies that rivers are evil, since they have to be channelled to do good as well. The writer, meanwhile, sees greed and rivers for what they are: neutral, natural forces. |
|
| |
//*Everyone* has made disastrous mistakes before. I once passed out and fell into a urinal during a "hold your breath" contest// |
|
| |
Did millions of people die? Or are you being glib? |
|
| |
//Commercial planting doesn't replace thousand year old trees. // |
|
| |
No, but they do prove redwoods are not some endangered species. Meanwhile, there's plenty of old growth redwoods left, including 37 miles of coastline redwoods. |
|
| |
And Giblet, yes, other coastlines receed. Louisiana is a particularly bad one however. |
|
| |
Coastline Periodontristry seems like a possible new profession. |
|
| |
// Plenty, but not 1000. Not unless
you count the thearetical never-
discovered species in computer models
// |
|
| |
Quite right [madai], I can't name
everyone of the species that have
become extinct due to man, but that
doesn't mean it hasn't happened. See
link. 800+ known extinctions since
1500, but that's just the known ones
and obviously excludes any that
became extinct prior to that. |
|
| |
Of course, with 15000 on the brink,
that number will rise dramatically. |
|
| |
It was you that suggested that rocks
from the mining would be used for the
Louisiana coastline. I'm suggesting that
you won't get rocks. |
|
| |
You *implied* that the thermal vents
were near that coast, which we've both
established is not the case. If you're
suggesting that you mine vents
elsewhere and then transport the rocks
(or whatever) to Louisiana, then I say
[marked-for-deletion] poor economic
science. |
|
| |
// The blocking of new nuclear power
plants has deepened our fossil fuel
dependancy as well. // |
|
| |
And on this point we agree - the only
way to relieve our dependencies on
fossil fuels is to look at renewable
alternatives, nuclear included. |
|
| |
Anyway, I've reacted and I shouldn't
have. 'Bakers, please don't feed the
troll. |
|
| |
I'm not the kind of person to call another poster a troll, but since you want to get into that immature game, I'll point out your own trollishness. |
|
| |
//It was you that suggested that rocks from the mining would be used for the Louisiana coastline. I'm suggesting that you won't get rocks.// |
|
| |
I looked at the definition of rock, and didn't see a minimum size. Meanwhile, sediment turns into rock, so even it if doesn't fit your narrow, troll-like definition of rock, it will eventually. Meanwhile, if it is siltlike, that's ok, because silt is what the mississippi would deliver. But, since you're being a troll, you can't be bothered to concede your rock point was moot. |
|
| |
Posting an idea you don't like, does not mean someone is a troll. |
|
| |
I will admit 844 recorded extinctions is higher than I thought it would be. However, 1500 AD-on saw a huge explosion in human population, so, the extinction rate preceeding 1500 would surely be less. You would have been justified saying "hundreds" of species. You could have gotten away with "over a thousand", but not "thousands". |
|
| |
//You *implied* that the thermal vents were near that coast, which we've both established is not the case. // |
|
| |
I most certainly did not. |
|
| |
//If you're suggesting that you mine vents elsewhere and then transport the rocks (or whatever) to Louisiana, then I say [marked-for-deletion] poor economic science.// |
|
| |
First off, your continued MFD's are trollish behavior. Also, it's not "bad economic science" at all. While the US is mostly self-sufficient in crushed stone, it is still traded by countries. The US imports over ten million tons of crushed stone. And, if the coastlines beg for more stone, you can bet the price, and economic feasibility, will increase accordingly. |
|
| |
I side with [Madai]. It's clear to me that his idea isn't just off-the-cuff twaddle or inciteful thinking but a truly halfbaked scheme worthy of a place here. |
|
| |
I do ask folks to lay off of troll accusations. This isn't a troll post. |
|
| |
Simply not liking some implications of an invention idea or scheme is certainly not grounds for an MFD but rather a negative vote. |
|
| |
I started out thinking very badly of this idea, but essentially that's just because it's completely loopy. It's essentially a ludicrously expensive, time-consuming, over-elaborate form of erosion control with just a tiny kernel of plausibility. In other words I think it's classic HB stuff. |
|
| |
The environmental opinions expressed were also ludicrous in a much less fun way, but I don't think they're a central issue in this particular case. In fact, if [Madai] could have restrained himself from a few off-the-cuff remarks about environmentalists then we wouldn't be talking about this two pages later. Honestly [Mad], I'm surprised you didn't guess that if there's one subject guaranteed to cause a sense of humour failure round here it's that one. You couldn't do better if you'd proposed a Lesbian Puppy Guillotine. |
|
| |
And Moomintroll, any method to save the coastline will be expensive. I feel what we need is a longterm fundamental shift in resource allocation, otherwise, the coastline problem will continue for centuries. |
|
| |
Gold market manipulations, IMO, will mostly pay for themselves, meanwhile lowering the real coast of coastal repair, by driving mineral exploration seaward. |
|
| |
jtg: I'd side with bristolz on this - this is a truly half-baked scheme, and entirely fitting for the site. Bad science, not Bad Science, as it were. |
|
| |
Odd, [Lesbian Puppy Guillotine] gets no hits on Google. |
|
| |
I retract the [m-f-d], but it remains poor
science in my view. Also, what's with the
category? |
|
| |
//The responder to the writer implies that rivers are evil, since they have to be channelled to do good as well. The writer, meanwhile, sees greed and rivers for what they are: neutral, natural forces.//
C'mon [Mad] now you're just being silly. A river isn't sentient, therefore any perceived good/bad done on its part is not the result of conscious choice and so it follows that rivers aren't evil. Greed is a commonly occurring characteristic which is nonetheless not found in all humans and is most certainly not neutral in its effect.
As to the bit about making mistakes, my point was that you cannot use the fact that environmentalists have made mistakes in the past to validate an unwise course of action that runs contra to principles you suppose them to espouse. Doing the opposite of what you suppose someone you think is dumb would do doesn't guarantee you'll get things right because:
1)Everyone makes mistakes. They were wrong once or multiple times but it doesn't mean they'll be wrong indefinitely.
2)Your idea may be even dumber than theirs.
In this case, I think 1 and 2 apply. |
|
| |
normzone: not so - 786 when I looked (see link). |
|
| |
Greed may be an attribute of sentient beings, but greed itself is NOT sentient. Also, greed is not always a product of rational thought. Hence the term "impulse buy". Perhaps your standard of evil is different, but I think to be evil requires a *deliberate* desire to cause a *net* loss to the world. Greedy people, in my mind, are not evil-- they don't know any better. When greed is properly channelled, the economy runs smoothly, allowing hard-working, non-greedy to share wealth with the needy. |
|
| |
As for the mistakes, I think it's important to re-iterate that the mistakes environmentalists made COST LIVES, without saving any. Lack of DDT increases the number of malaria deaths by 400%. So, since roughly 50 million people have died of malaria since 1972, 40 million people were killed due to the DDT ban. |
|
| |
1.) Everyone does make mistakes, but once the bodies start piling up, you damn well better believe I'm going to admit I'm wrong and try to undo the damage. Rachel Carson never lived to see the 40 million people die due to the bad science in her book, but I'd like to think she would be screaming bloody murder over it. |
|
| |
2.) There is a huge difference. My idea does not *deprive* anyone of anything. Enviromentalists have banned DDT, they've blocked nuclear power, they've blocked new refineries, and the stupid yahoos are even trying to ban chlorine. Do you know how many people will die if they lack the basic sanitation provided by chlorine? I don't, and I don't wanna know. |
|
| |
In America, banning such things only means higher prices, as people are forced to switch to more expensive alternatives. But in Africa, they can't afford the alternatives. It's DDT, or death. |
|
| |
My idea doesn't deprive anyone. Some people might die in industrial accidents, I admit that, but they will die having made the choice to accept the risks. There are plenty of jobs in the US economy-- no one will HAVE to mined the oceans that doesn't want to. I imagine people will want to mine the oceans. It should be exciting work. Not entirely unlike being an astronaut. Meanwhile, my idea has the flipside of saving lives, by reducing storm damage, buffering the coastline against hurricanes. All in all, I believe the technology of deep-sea mining will advance, and while the pioneering days will see a few deaths, the lives saved will dwarf the lives lost. |
|
| |
Banning DDT didn't save any lives. In fact, it even killed birds! Avian malaria cases rose when DDT was banned. It was just a bad deal all around. |
|
| |
I don't know how you measure stupidity, but if you think my idea is dumber than an idea that killed 40 million people, at this point, it is time for us to agree to disagree. |
|
| |
Hmm. Time for active neutrality. |
|
| |
I've deleted my earlier post and changed my vote to neutral as I didn't realise how serious this debate would become, and both my post, and the reason I voted yes were jokey. |
|
| |
//Lack of DDT increases the number of malaria deaths by 400%. So, since roughly 50 million people have died of malaria since 1972, 40 million people were killed due to the DDT ban.// |
|
| |
This is a very difficult figure to justify, a case of inappropriate extrapolation of a small dataset to a much longer period of time (analogous to how DDT got itself banned in the first place). Firstly, use of DDT is not prohibited in most developing countries provided it is used for health reasons. Many third world countries still use indoor spraying of DDT to inhibit mosquitoes. As for outdoor use, there are now more effective (and cost-effective) larvicides. There are also some mosquito populations which are now largely immune to the effects of DDT due to its previous widespread use, an effect which would have been exacerbated if crop spraying had continued in the 1970's. |
|
| |
This is not to say that the reduciton in use of DDT (much of it due to initial success in reducing malaria cases rather than environmental concerns) has not caused a very large number of additional deaths. Many of the additional deaths could however be more appropriately put down to the developed world holding African countries in particular in states of penury and conflict. |
|
| |
I added a link to an Op-Ed in the NYTimes by Mark Fischetti on Coast 2050, which was a plan that he claims might have made a difference had it been funded. Unlike what [Madai] proposes, it has an actual scientific basis. |
|
| |
Thank you [suctionpad] for a balanced view of the DDT debate that [Madai] seems to have shrunken to in lieu of any attempt to defend this idea.
I find it enlightening that after [jon]'s criticisms (unfeasible economics, bad science) and mine (doing the reverse of what you think people you consider stupid would do won't necessarily render a positive result), the best argument that you can advance in favour of this idea is that environmentalists wouldn't like it and since they banned DDT and caused lots of deaths it must be a cracking scheme. I feel stupid just writing that last part but it *is* in fact your central point.
While we're at it let's consider a few more of the gaping holes in your bleating:
//the mistakes environmentalists made COST LIVES, without saving any//
Skipping the obvious point that "the environmentalists" aren't the only ones culpable for any fallout from the ban of DDT - the various subscribing governments and their scientific advisors had a little to do with it too, we move swiftly on to the largest hole in your argument - that banning DDT saved no lives. Need we remind you that DDT is persistent in soil and water and accumulates in plants and fatty animal tissues if exposure is prolonged? Do you enjoy eating any of the following - arable crops, chicken, beef, mutton, fish? Would you prefer these foods to be poisoned or unpoisoned?
Clearly protection against malaria is critically important, particularly in Africa and many deaths have resulted as a lack of mosquito control measures but another mistake of yours is failing to realise that these measures need not necessarily be carpet bombing with DDT. It's an accumulative toxin, and as [suctionpad] notes many mosquito populations are now immune to its effects. As you note yourself, many other measures are expensive in comparison, which leads neatly onto your favourite human characteristic, greed.
If the developed world weren't so damnably greedy and removed the multiple layers of import tariffs, subsidies, quotas and other trade restrictions that cripple many developing countries perhaps they'd be able to afford things like protection against mosquitos that doesn't simultaneously posion their soil, water and animals. But hey, greed is good when it's channelled right?
In conclusion, I'm not quite ready to passively agree to disagree with you. I think the best I can do is to agree with everyone else that has voted that this is a terrible idea. |
|
| |
When was that? In the 1930s? |
|
| |
//When was that? In the 1930s?//
//German WWII officer's uniform// [IT] Couldn't be - WWII didn't start until 1941. <grins, ducks, runs> |
|
| |
Ah, but the famous chain of youth clubs was operational a short while prior to that. |
|
| |
But then they wouldn't have been //German WWII officer's uniform// prior to WWII, would they? They'd just be "German officer's uniform". |
|
| |
DocBrown, the recent argument indeed, has gotten away from the science/economics. I let the insults get the better of me. When people accuse me of greed when I am trying to prevent loss of life, that's annoying. However, if you would look back through the thread, you will see I have answer questions/challenges when they came up (silt vs rock, shipping costs, etc) Since you want to get back to the science, let's do so. |
|
| |
The first part of this plan is to increase demand for gold. The only complaint lodged against this is that gold demand should rise on it own without US government interference. Well, that is pretty much a non argument-- it is, in fact, saying the idea will be easier to implement than I previously thought. |
|
| |
I think the US will have little difficulty in convincing people to consume gold, especially if that gold is expected to appreciate in value. The US government can easily do value-adds to the gold(art, limited-edition coins), and sell them to the public at a profit. The public spends a large amount of money on entertainment/hobbies/fashion. Marketing more gold to them should be simplistically easy. The key will be communications from the US government that the price will rise slow but steadily, Greenspan style. These will ensure longterm investor confidence. |
|
| |
It is important to note that the gold for public consumption should rarely be kept in "raw" form. The government should value-add when possible, to lock away the gold into art/collectibles, et cetera. |
|
| |
In short, manipulating gold markets, while "costly", will be profitable. It will take a longterm-view and large upfront capital commitments, but well within the abilities of the US government. |
|
| |
Now, back to the coastline. Currently, the louisiana coastline is sinking, due to erosion, lack of silt coming from the missippi, the nutria rodents destroying vegetation, etc, many factors. Nourishing the coastline with soil taken from land is, in the end, counterproductive. The sea level is expected to rise, and throwing extra dirt into the sea at this point strikes me as unwise. |
|
| |
But, getting dirt/rock/silt/whatever from the bottom of the deep sea, and piling it on land, does not contribute to sea-level rise. Sure, it doesn't do much, just a drop in the bucket, but it's better than shoveling dirt that WAS on land into the sea. |
|
| |
Digging up shoreline dirt would be just as bad as using inland dirt. Erosion would fill it in soon. We need to use some sort of rock, silt, dirt, whatever, from the deep sea, far from any coastline, to have a lasting effect. |
|
| |
But digging up the sea floor is phohibitively expensive. And herein lies the dilemna I hope to solve. |
|
| |
We know the location of some undersea gold deposits. We can probably get the gold there for some ridiculously high cost, like $600/ounce. But it makes no sense to spend $6000/ounce to recover gold when it is selling for $400/ounce. |
|
| |
But, if we can drive the price of gold up to $650/ounce, then mining it from the sea will be profitable. And as mining gold from the sea becomes routine, and technology advances, costs will decrease. |
|
| |
This will steer help steer technological development seaward. It's already going seaward thanks to oil prices, but can use more of a push. The better we get at doing things in the ocean, the cheaper it will get to repair the coastline. We can of course, take short-term measures, but I don't think anything cheap enough to actually be considered will last in the long run. |
|
| |
Oil is of course an essential commodity, whereas gold is not. It would be unethical to drive up the price of oil because it would increase poverty-- once you use oil, it is "gone". But gold can be recovered- if the gold coins and artwork can be converted to a higher and better use, like put into some livesaving medical miracle machine, we will always have that option. Melting down gold is much easier compared to reconstituting a barrel of oil, in comparision to price. |
|
| |
As for DDT being poisonous? Prof Kenneth Mellanby ate DDT for forty years it to prove how safe it is. I would eat DDT myself, to prove the point, only I can't buy it legally. |
|
| |
Just ask us Dutch [Madai]. If you have a water problem, we'll solve it for you. Far cheaper, more environmentally friendly and most of all...more cost-effective <wink> |
|
| |
Leaving aside the whole DDT thing (I think you must be nuts to be prepared to eat DDT, but feel free to imagine me wearing trousers made of hemp and living on smoothies made of moss if you like), it's good to return to a discussion of the idea.
The main problem with it is that it's so convoluted. I don't know whether you're familiar with the nursery rhyme that starts "I know an old lady" but that's what it reminds me of: manipulate the market to increase the demand to get the silt to ship it to Lousiana to save the coastline I don't know why she swallowed the fly!
Even if you are able to successfully manipulate the gold market to stimulate demand, what happens when the undersea mining increases supply to the market? The increased supply might well bring about a drop in price that would render the mining uuneconomical again. It strikes me that there are other industries (terrestrial mining, construction) that will produce the sort of waste products you're after. Why go through all the bother with the gold?
Other criticisms are that transport of the materials is going to cost a great deal, even if you are able to transport it by boat, and the ineffectiveness of coastal defence schemes in general - if it's going to erode a better defence mechanism might be preparation in the form of a managed retreat, aid in relocation for people, agricultural concerns etc. |
|
| |
Simpler just to drop the gold into the breaches in the levees. |
|
| |
//The increased supply might well bring about a drop in price that would render the mining uuneconomical again. // |
|
| |
This is a concern, but not a big one. First, by time sea gold enters the market in amounts enough to drop the gold price, technology used to recover sea gold will have advanced much further. |
|
| |
//It strikes me that there are other industries (terrestrial mining, construction) that will produce the sort of waste products you're after.// |
|
| |
Because putting more material into the ocean will exacerbate the sea level rise. A longterm strategy to save Louisiana should leverage not surface materials, but materials collected from the ocean floor. I realize that it takes quite a bit of material to raise the sea level, there's 140 million square miles, of seawater afterall. But sea level is expected to rise anyway, so, why increase the problem by displacing more seawater with land-based materials? |
|
| |
The reason we use the gold is to push technological innovation. Right now, there may not be enough technology to do this right, but if we increase the amount of sea-based mining, the technology will advance accordingly. |
|
| |
//Other criticisms are that transport of the materials is going to cost a great deal, even if you are able to transport it by boat// |
|
| |
Shipping costs are less than 1 cent per ton mile. Plus, in this case, there would be no time spent on the docks, in customs, etc, so, the costs would be drastically reduced. |
|
| |
I agree that retreat would be wise. But as for erosion, it can only do so much in one year. The 1900 square miles already lost aren't very deep underwater. It won't take that much to reclaim them. |
|
| |
Build one barrier island at a time, and put strong native vegetation on it. Let each island be a lesson, until an optimal design is achieved, etc. |
|
| |
linky
And also //First, by time sea gold enters the market in amounts enough to drop the gold price, technology used to recover sea gold will have advanced much further. //
Does not work because gold unlike say papermoney, does not deteriorate that easilly. So [DrCurry]'s point still holds. The more gold you bring in to the market, the lesser its value. Bringing in even more gold will only increase the problem. |
|
| |
//The more gold you bring in to the market, the lesser its value.// |
|
| |
True, however, Gold can exit the market as well as enter it. You see, the US has a lot of people, like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc, that have a lot of money. A LOT LOT of money. So much money they aren't worried about their grandkid's retirement. |
|
| |
This amount of money is sometimes called "F*** you money". While millionares care about taxes on this rich, billionaires are beyond such concerns. They can build gold statues of themselves, and their pets, so heavy that no one can steal them. This will effectively remove the gold from the market, for years to come. |
|
| |
I believe commisioning artists to make unique works of art out of solid gold can remove gold from the market at a faster pace than which gold can be added to the market by any mining method. |
|
| |
Currently, 2500 tons of gold are produced per year. About 32 billion dollars worth. Just think about it. If every American spent just $100 on (raw)gold per year, that would take care of the entire market. And if people came to see it as a good investment, they'd spend that much or more in a heartbeat, and not even dare to think of giving up that gold, ever-- why bother? Just pass it on to the kids, let them add to the pile. Even if the gold doesn't deteriorate, it will sill not be on the market. |
|
| |
The US economy is very very powerful. Causing a continual, slow rise in the price of gold would prove to be very easy. |
|
| |
For some, it would be just a matter of dining in instead of going out to eat a few times, and buying a gold coin instead with the money saved. |
|
| |
There´s a saying in english about the way you solve problems. Its something along the lines of: Making the foot fit the shoe. |
|
| |
//The US economy is very very powerful// I heard some very, very different stories. |
|
| |
This is all I will say, and nothing more. |
|
| |
// //The US economy is very very powerful// I heard some very, very different stories. |
|
| |
This is all I will say, and nothing more. // |
|
| |
Obviously, the US economy has some weaknesses. And relative to other countries, the US economy is quite strong. Granted, in the near future, the Chinese GDP will surpass the US GDP, and, eventually, India will surpass us too, and *maybe* if the EU absorbs more countries it can surpass us on a technicality. I could say more, but since you said so little, let's leave it at that. |
|
| |
I have another suggestion - everyone in Louisiana changes
their name to Canute and walks out into the incoming
tide which will retreat out of shock and awe. |
|
| |