CF to stop Ammonia production in uk

[DaveGrohl]

There is a good chance they got it right, but maybe we will not make it to 2040.

the way things are going, food will become key as it did during the war, but this time, many factors will overwhelm supply not just war.
I have children, I am scared for them and their long term futures string a few years like this together and food will start to get shaky far more so than it is now, if I was the government I would be maximising the support of my farming indusrty, that’s not direct support but the key supplies that underpin our production like nitrogen and chemicals, and basic profitability, I have said a number of times they should support the starting of renewable nitrogen, my guess is it will take a few years to even get it up and running but they need to get the ball rolling, so not relying on natural gas to make nitrogen, is the long term solution, so it’s better to start sooner rather than later.
If it takes 10 years to get a fully renewable nitrogen production factory running then now is the time to start.

The old phrase "well I wouldn’t start from here" is as appropriate as ever.

 

[Wisconsonian]

It doesn’t matter how unlikely they were accurate with there predictions made in 1972 if some or all of the results can be seen today, then maybe the outcomes they predicted will also follow, that’s the point. If we can see similarities with todays world in there predicted world, then the outcomes they predicted become relevant.

Nowhere in watching the video and re skimming it, or in any of the articles, or in the study itself did they explain which of their five measures matched better between the BAU2 model and the observed data, vs the SW model. The analysis and methodology are complicated enough and poorly explained enough that I'm not interested in going into that part. The simple explanation of which measures matched better and which measures matched worse is not at all complicated. That explanation was nowhere to be found, instead the headline is that 1972 MIT worst case model for world collapse is found most accurate.

It seemed to me, that the biggest difference between the model predictions was a slower growth for the "stale world" model, which they obviously thought was the best plan. So, no, I am not concerned that growth of food and industrial output has continued faster than they had thought best.

 

[Dave645]

It seemed to me, that the biggest difference between the model predictions was a slower growth for the "stale world" model, which they obviously thought was the best plan. So, no, I am not concerned that growth of food and industrial output has continued faster than they had thought best.

which means, your ignoring a lot of warning signs that we are not on a sustainable path but you don't care I assume?

which I would assume is why earth overshoot day has no importance in your reply or logic, so you think my conclusion that I should fear for my children's future is un warranted, because you think we can just continue to increase production of food, and industrial output, indefinably, which lets be honest is clearly untrue. disrupt food and the whole system collapses, disrupt power the same result, disrupt water again the same result. the more complex our society the more sensitive it becomes to disruption.

the video is to make people consider the big picture any forecasted conclusion made 50 years ago is never going to be accurate, the point is that conclusion's and effects were considered while timelines and statistic's are only a guide to the end result, an end result we all hope to avoid. the point of the video is to make people consider those problems which is the same for earth overshoot day, its to help people to consider a sustainable change in any way they can. like a personal push to more self sufficiency, or reducing food waste, buying with sustainable in mind, so not disposable but reusable, or recyclable.
In the end the video is a wakeup call to possibilities, and possible consequences, you believe them or you don't. at best its still a guess by the people that made it 50 years ago. if so far, it looks to be playing out as predicted and the prediction was not good then maybe we should look to improve the outcome by making changes, which was the whole point of why I expect the person made that video.

 

[Wisconsonian]

I'm trying to focus very narrowly on the very little bit of facts available in the studies and video. I'm not ignoring any warning signs, and I agree with you, and the original study, to a degree regarding the unsustainability of ever increasing and complex production systems.

That's not the point. They made four models, that were very similar in their graphs up to the current day, but diverge dramatically by 2040. The claim was made that the "best case scenario" IE "stable world", was the least accurate compared to what has happened so far, THEREFORE we are on the worse path of "business as usual" which predicts the worse results by 2040. I wondered what the differences in these four models made one a better fit and one a worse fit. It seems that we haven't reduced production as they would have liked, and they see that as a bad thing. I fail to believe that gives any additional credibility to the original models, or is a bad sign vs if the data had more closely matched the stable world model.

 

[Billboy1]

there going back to the moon for a reason !

 

[Dave645]

I'm trying to focus very narrowly on the very little bit of facts available in the studies and video. I'm not ignoring any warning signs, and I agree with you, and the original study, to a degree regarding the unsustainability of ever increasing and complex production systems.

That's not the point. They made four models, that were very similar in their graphs up to the current day, but diverge dramatically by 2040. The claim was made that the "best case scenario" IE "stable world", was the least accurate compared to what has happened so far, THEREFORE we are on the worse path of "business as usual" which predicts the worse results by 2040. I wondered what the differences in these four models made one a better fit and one a worse fit. It seems that we haven't reduced production as they would have liked, and they see that as a bad thing. I fail to believe that gives any additional credibility to the original models, or is a bad sign vs if the data had more closely matched the stable world model.

comprehensive was their best guess, stabilised was their best case, and the one below is the closest to what we are on right now.
the narrator excepts that even if we are on one of the worst case scenarios, it’s not impossible for innovation to pull us out of a nose dive, that we will find ways to control things like plastic polution of our planet and oceans, air pollution etc. a modern factor of pollution would be the change in the weather the world is experiencing and that was not included in the MIT results. They just called it pollution that effects food output but weather extremes do than so I would dump that in the pollution graph line.

 

[Still Farming]

Share price dropped ready for more Government assistance allegedly is it????

 

[Stuart J]

View attachment 1060298

Share price dropped ready for more Government assistance allegedly is it????

Not sure how much the CF shareholders can influence its share price....

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Thanks. Good little summary that. Particularly liked the 400 million years bit at the end. Detail and nuance are everything as always. One general takeaway from it was that stupid humans are responsible for more and more of these fires that occur, whether through discarding a match or simply building their houses next to flammable material. Or enacting daft policies that actually make a normal thing worse.

just copied and pasted below from the article above, I am having vague recollections of reading an article in Newsweek (over 30 years ago), that talked about the build up of fuel in the US in government lands, and I think it said basically that policies to stop fires had allowed a build up of fuel to such an extent that there could no longer be regular fires and the danger was then that when, not if there would be fires they would be catastrophic and they could see no answer.

In addition, very aggressive fire suppression policies over much of the 20th century have removed fire from ecosystems where it has been a fundamental part of the landscape rejuvenation cycle. That has, in some regions, led to an excessive build-up of fuels (i.e. vegetation susceptible to burn), and then, when the “right” conditions for fire happen (dry vegetation, hot temperatures, strong winds) those fires are larger, more severe and often unstoppable, as they surpass any suppression capability.
When we talk about fire risk it is important to keep in mind that we are focusing on reducing the potential impacts of fire on humans. We cannot completely remove fire from the landscape - that is the misconception that led to the ‘100% fire suppression’ policies in the US and elsewhere that have made things worse in many cases. Not letting a fire burn often makes the next fire worse, as by then even more fuel will have accumulated. Society needs to understand that we live on a flammable planet where fire has been shaping ecosystems for over 400 millions years. It will be still here in the future, no matter what we do, so we need to acknowledge this and learn to co-exist. It is logistically not feasible, nor ecologically appropriate, to reduce the flammability of all areas of forests or other wildland vegetation that is susceptible to fire.

 

[teslacoils]

Govt will be desperate to give them some cash...I mean, think of those non-exec positions for the future.