What 3°C of global warming looks like(economist.com)
economist.com
What 3°C of global warming looks like
https://www.economist.com/films/2021/10/30/this-is-what-3degc-of-global-warming-looks-like
258 comments
Politicians "committing" to things that will happen after they are out of office, are mostly just saying pretty words.
Even worse, most of these "commitments" are for after the politician's death. Xi Jingping isn't particularly old for a politician with his 68 years, but by the time 2060 rolls around he would be 107 years old.
I really wish the Queen (who is 95) would say to the world leaders: "it really is your problem: you might live to my age!"
It's definitely tough to have confidence in these sorts of statements - but I just wish we'd get beyond the people who actively fight against even the probably empty promises.
I do too, but I think that “empty promises” empower them. I also agree with Andrew Sullivan (https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/how-to-turn-the-gop-gr...) that conservatives could be persuaded to support climate initiatives if we on the left allow ourselves to prioritize climate above our own tribalism tendencies (those who would reply, “But conservatives aren’t prioritizing climate over tribalism” are missing the point entirely).
The article doesn't support your characterization of it.
Nuclear isn't rejected by the left because of tribalism, as you seem to imply. It is rejected for other reasons, completely unrelated to tribalism, as the article points out. And many on the right reject nuclear for the exact same reasons.
Nuclear isn't rejected by the left because of tribalism, as you seem to imply. It is rejected for other reasons, completely unrelated to tribalism, as the article points out. And many on the right reject nuclear for the exact same reasons.
My comment doesn't support your characterization of it. :)
My original remark was about rising above tribalism for sake of the environment. I was specifically thinking about the line in the article:
> Climate is simply too important to be sacrificed to cultural prejudices.
My original remark was about rising above tribalism for sake of the environment. I was specifically thinking about the line in the article:
> Climate is simply too important to be sacrificed to cultural prejudices.
I would say, that in America at least, flip-flopping is only viewed as an insult by conservatives though. People criticized Biden over his busing policies during the election, but nobody critized the fact that he changed his mind on the topic, people discussed how he "grew". I know there are extremist pockets on both sides of the aisle - but I don't think the majority of liberals would really prefer a gotcha "I told you so" moment over actually getting meaningful policies done.
I've always viewed it more as an unfortunate coincidence[1] that social conservatism was so closely tied to climate change denial. In theory those folks wanting to make sure their children can hunt and hike like they did growing up should be strongly set in favour of preserving an environment where that remains a possibility. Instead we have the media pushing this shallow form of conservatism where we specifically want to preserve the unsustainable post-war boom years where every river had a paper mill on it, every driveway had two cars (except they didn't and they weren't SUVs) and nobody realized what the consequences of that were.
How do you overcome conservative media when it's pushing such a strong agenda? Inviting them over for tea isn't going to cause a sea-change.
1. Sorta - I think some folks worked hard to make sure this happened.
I've always viewed it more as an unfortunate coincidence[1] that social conservatism was so closely tied to climate change denial. In theory those folks wanting to make sure their children can hunt and hike like they did growing up should be strongly set in favour of preserving an environment where that remains a possibility. Instead we have the media pushing this shallow form of conservatism where we specifically want to preserve the unsustainable post-war boom years where every river had a paper mill on it, every driveway had two cars (except they didn't and they weren't SUVs) and nobody realized what the consequences of that were.
How do you overcome conservative media when it's pushing such a strong agenda? Inviting them over for tea isn't going to cause a sea-change.
1. Sorta - I think some folks worked hard to make sure this happened.
Hard to feel guilty about energy usage when the politicians arriving for the summit all arrive by private jet.
Even the loudest politicians usually maintain 3 or 4 homes, often with heated swimming pools.
I'm a bit tired of the extreme hypocrisy. If someone like Jimmy Carter or Ralph Nader (they both live humble lives) were to be the leading voice, I'd feel better about things.
Even the loudest politicians usually maintain 3 or 4 homes, often with heated swimming pools.
I'm a bit tired of the extreme hypocrisy. If someone like Jimmy Carter or Ralph Nader (they both live humble lives) were to be the leading voice, I'd feel better about things.
This isn’t hypocrisy. The message from the leaders isn’t “we all need to do our part to emit less carbon”—that kind of personal responsibility approach isn’t going to work. We need to stop subsidizing carbon so that people’s economic interests are aligned with the interests of our planet. We need to solve this systemically.
> in America at least, flip-flopping is only viewed as an insult by conservatives though. People criticized Biden over his busing policies during the election, but nobody critized the fact that he changed his mind on the topic, people discussed how he "grew"
Both parties are tolerant of drift. Donald Trump wasn't always a Republican.
Both parties are tolerant of drift. Donald Trump wasn't always a Republican.
What then? A real estate developer like described in:
[DaDa] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_South,_Manhattan#Tel... ?
[DaDa] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_South,_Manhattan#Tel... ?
Trump is really weird for a number of reasons. He broke the mold in a significant way from the more traditional conservative politician so I'm not certain if he's that good of an example. I'm trying to avoid "no true scotsman"ing but Trump really was a pretty big contrast to most other republicans.
I really don't want to deflect to "which party is worse"--to do so would be to completely miss my point. Let's tackle the existential threat first and then we can resume politics-as-sport.
> Politicians "committing" to things that will happen after they are out of office, are mostly just saying pretty words.
And these same politicians are taking private jets and massive motorcades to summits when there's a much more carbon footprint-friendly alternative available (hint: we've all been doing it for the last 18 months).
They tell us we're "past the point of no return" w.r.t. sea levels rising to the point that some large percentage of our coastal cities will be underwater, yet haven't started building sea walls to at least attempt to prevent the flooding.
And these same politicians are hellbent on importing unlimited numbers of third world immigrants into first world countries, instantly elevating the carbon footprint of those people. All while telling Joe Blow in the first world that he should stop having children, think of the carbon footprint they're producing! How could you be so selfish!
This is why I don't take this stuff seriously. We get lectured about carbon footprint this and "past the point of no return" that by people doing the complete opposite of what should be done to reduce carbon footprint or try to mitigate the disaster that we're too late to prevent.
And these same politicians are taking private jets and massive motorcades to summits when there's a much more carbon footprint-friendly alternative available (hint: we've all been doing it for the last 18 months).
They tell us we're "past the point of no return" w.r.t. sea levels rising to the point that some large percentage of our coastal cities will be underwater, yet haven't started building sea walls to at least attempt to prevent the flooding.
And these same politicians are hellbent on importing unlimited numbers of third world immigrants into first world countries, instantly elevating the carbon footprint of those people. All while telling Joe Blow in the first world that he should stop having children, think of the carbon footprint they're producing! How could you be so selfish!
This is why I don't take this stuff seriously. We get lectured about carbon footprint this and "past the point of no return" that by people doing the complete opposite of what should be done to reduce carbon footprint or try to mitigate the disaster that we're too late to prevent.
If your are counting on politicians to save us you will probably be disappointed. The solution will almost certainly be market based.
Climate change is a market failure. Market-based solutions exists, but they require directly affecting market dynamics through policy.
I the book "Collapse", it gives a survey of dozens of civilizations tackling problems like this and how they did, or didn't, solve them. There are many cases each of market or grassroots based solutions and top down government based solutions.
My conclusion from this empirical evidence is that there are many ways to arrive at solutions, what is important is that someone makes it happen. Anyone claiming that only government, or only free markets can do it, is probably wrong.
My conclusion from this empirical evidence is that there are many ways to arrive at solutions, what is important is that someone makes it happen. Anyone claiming that only government, or only free markets can do it, is probably wrong.
My comment should be read as an observation on the current state of things not an absolute statement of universal truth.
Well, that's what "market leaders" have been paying the politicians to say for decades. It would be nice if a market-based solution could save the day, but the market can only go so far while politicians ignore externalities.
They could start by eliminating all subsidies for oil and gas exploration until that happens government is part of the problem.
We really are doomed, then. As long as we allow companies to externalize climate costs (which requires political decisions in order to change), there will be no reason for the market to care... at least not until it's too late to care.
The collapse of our civilization will be because we are no longer able to accomplish anything except via "the invisible hand".
At this point it looks to me like China is humanity's only hope since they don't have our society's extremist market ideology.
At this point it looks to me like China is humanity's only hope since they don't have our society's extremist market ideology.
"The collapse of our civilization will be because we are no longer able to accomplish anything except via "the invisible hand"."
then you say ...
"China is humanity's only hope"
what on earth? am i missing a joke?
then you say ...
"China is humanity's only hope"
what on earth? am i missing a joke?
Well the capitalist extremist countries aren't going to do anything about it. The chip-on-their-shoulder countries like India and Brazil aren't going to do anything about it. I think it's up to China and maybe Europe to pull something off while USA prays for some Elon Musk billionaire to save us.
To the contrary I would suggest that the market will end up being the purest form of direct democracy ever to exist. This is only possible because modern technology lets everyone participate from anywhere.
That's right. In a democracy, a rich person can always vote more often than a poor one. Perfect democracy.
Sorry, that was a bit sarcastic. Obviously, the market is not a form of direct democracy. It's a form of resource allocation. And a pretty stupid one, where everything is allocated by short-sighted impulse decisions and without any consideration of emergent phenomena.
There are tons of scenarios where the free market simply does not have any solution at all. See the tragedy of the commons or of externalizing cost. Nothing in the free market will ever be able to address these issues. Even the often quoted and constantly misunderstood 'invisible hand' of the market is not some kind of mythical or emergent phenomena of the free market itself; it's the moral and social considerations of the actors themselves that make up the 'invisible hand'.
Pretty stoopid.
Sorry, that was a bit sarcastic. Obviously, the market is not a form of direct democracy. It's a form of resource allocation. And a pretty stupid one, where everything is allocated by short-sighted impulse decisions and without any consideration of emergent phenomena.
There are tons of scenarios where the free market simply does not have any solution at all. See the tragedy of the commons or of externalizing cost. Nothing in the free market will ever be able to address these issues. Even the often quoted and constantly misunderstood 'invisible hand' of the market is not some kind of mythical or emergent phenomena of the free market itself; it's the moral and social considerations of the actors themselves that make up the 'invisible hand'.
Pretty stoopid.
Money has always been an element of political influence. It’s just more obvious and honest in a free market.
Not every historical system has privatized profits with socialized costs. With regards to climate change, it is a vitally important blind spot.
A fatal blind spot?
When you look at who's polluting and who's emissions are on an upward trajectory, there's one obvious country that's actively working against the environment. China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has:
- Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%)
- A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%)
Meanwhile for the same period China has had
- a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%)
- 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007
So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation.
Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
- Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%)
- A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%)
Meanwhile for the same period China has had
- a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%)
- 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007
So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation.
Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
China's emissions per capita are still almost half the US
Developed country is developed
Developing country is developing
I would say your viewpoint there is overly simplistic.
Developing country is developing
I would say your viewpoint there is overly simplistic.
I think your comment is a bit too glib; your point though I think is entirely correct. You can't compare the average living standard in China to the US and claim bad faith on their part.
It's hard to blame this on China. After all, they make a lot of the stuff we want in the west. And they make is precisely because we don't want to make it here, and because we don't want to face choices like which of our own rivers to pollute, or which of our own factories needs relaxed safety standards.
I think "don't want" isn't the right way to look at this. We "want" China to build all our stuff because it's cheaper, and it's cheaper in part because China doesn't care about pollution, so energy costs are lower. (Cost of labor and other factors of course also tie into that.)
If China were to put strict, California-style controls on pollution, energy generation would get more expensive there, and goods made in China would also get more expensive. That would be an incentive for other countries to manufacture more of their own goods (or find a new, cheaper country to build things in), and certainly China does not want that, so they continue to pollute.
If China were to put strict, California-style controls on pollution, energy generation would get more expensive there, and goods made in China would also get more expensive. That would be an incentive for other countries to manufacture more of their own goods (or find a new, cheaper country to build things in), and certainly China does not want that, so they continue to pollute.
We want cheap stuff above non-polluting stuff, so we make them do the polluting. If we really cared about pollution we would put a stipulation that the stuff is made a certain way, and we would send someone to actually check this. The way it's done now there's a wink and a nudge, and the Chinese know perfectly well what the deal is.
Note that labor would still be cheaper there, so we could still have cheaper stuff, we just want it even cheaper, to hell with the consequences that we don't see anyway.
It's not just energy either, there's various chemicals and safety concerns that people discovered in the west a long time ago. It's just that the allure of cheap stuff is so great, it was fine to just stop making it in the west and pretend that standards overseas were acceptable.
Note that labor would still be cheaper there, so we could still have cheaper stuff, we just want it even cheaper, to hell with the consequences that we don't see anyway.
It's not just energy either, there's various chemicals and safety concerns that people discovered in the west a long time ago. It's just that the allure of cheap stuff is so great, it was fine to just stop making it in the west and pretend that standards overseas were acceptable.
" Coal is incredibly cheap " not that cheap that the CCP had to force coal producers to limit the price because it increased more then 3x in a year.
what is going on in China? that they are having such energy production problems? to the point where they are rationing electricity for months now. Where is all this extra demand coming from? and at what point will it peak ?
the excuse is always well the rest of the world got to pollute so we have our turn now.. seems crazy and childish when this will impact us all.
what is going on in China? that they are having such energy production problems? to the point where they are rationing electricity for months now. Where is all this extra demand coming from? and at what point will it peak ?
the excuse is always well the rest of the world got to pollute so we have our turn now.. seems crazy and childish when this will impact us all.
As the world economy picks up again, demand has grown at Chinese factories. The government has fixed electricity prices but worldwide coal prices have also increased, so some coal fired power plants have shut down instead of operating at a loss. The Chinese government also temporarily stopped importing coal from Australia for political reasons.
> Where is all this extra demand coming from?
Blockchains?
(More seriously, I guess an awful lot of it is used to keep producing the cheap goods that Western consumers demand. We need to adjust our lifestyles to "consume" much less, in every way.)
Blockchains?
(More seriously, I guess an awful lot of it is used to keep producing the cheap goods that Western consumers demand. We need to adjust our lifestyles to "consume" much less, in every way.)
I don't understand countries like India. Do they think the west is going to bail them out when Delhi is baking at 55 C every summer?
The US i can understand. It's arguably set to be relatively impacted least.
The US i can understand. It's arguably set to be relatively impacted least.
No, the politicians expect to be out of office or dead by the time their commitments either come to pass or (more likely) it becomes clear those commitments will never work.
It's a shell game to them, and they have exit plans.
It's a shell game to them, and they have exit plans.
Do the politicians not plan on having grandchildren?
They probably don't plan on having poor grandchildren.
They expect to have grandchildren that are sufficiently powerful enough to choose their own geography.
When the glaciers in the Himalayas have melted they're going to be hurting for water.
The leaders' kids should be able to make it out to somewhere least impacted.
It's simple - the majority of the population lives in awful circumstances and to allow them to live in better conditions, you have to generate a lot of emissions.
A government committing to emissions reduction is like your deadbeat sibling committing to pay you back next Tuesday.
65% of China's energy production is from coal. They're probably even less likely to have the political ability to meet these goals, given how much of the country's infrastructure relies on coal for basic functioning (like even home heating).
Yet in 2020 their renewable energy capacity expansion accounted for nearly 80% of global additions in 2019-2020
See page 6 of this report from the international energy agency: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/18a6041d-bf13-4667-...
And they appear to be one of the few nations currently pursuing expansion in next generation nuclear reactors that cannot be weaponized: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
See page 6 of this report from the international energy agency: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/18a6041d-bf13-4667-...
And they appear to be one of the few nations currently pursuing expansion in next generation nuclear reactors that cannot be weaponized: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
This was my understanding of China. They do use a lot of coal, but it is because they are having to ramp up energy usage with coal-fire plants to keep the factories going. They do have long term plans to phase out coal, but when energy needed to keep up production or add new production (perhaps offshoring of jobs and factories to China), they have the build the coal-fire plants. Last I looked, they had about 30 nuclear reactors planned/in-construction/still at the drawing board.
Isn't it much easier in China? Obviously they can't change things overnight, but Xi just has to decree that getting on renewables is the top priority, and it'd get done.
Or is there something particularly thorny about this that could cause massive civil unrest if he were to take that step?
Or is there something particularly thorny about this that could cause massive civil unrest if he were to take that step?
I wonder how much of the Bitcoin ban was electric production related and how much was economic control related.
As China continues to modernize and become more energy-intensive, that power has to come from somewhere. If he bans coal too early or restricts it too much, progress that the people saw happening and intensely want could slow dramatically.
People will follow a strong dictator as long as they don’t see a much better path. If they see a much better path, support will wane quickly and possibly in an ugly fashion.
As China continues to modernize and become more energy-intensive, that power has to come from somewhere. If he bans coal too early or restricts it too much, progress that the people saw happening and intensely want could slow dramatically.
People will follow a strong dictator as long as they don’t see a much better path. If they see a much better path, support will wane quickly and possibly in an ugly fashion.
yea with China's energy crisis problem its increasing coal production and consumption.. plus a massive increase in LNG
Whether your primary source of electricity is coal, or natural gas, you face very nearly the same problem, and China has a much more powerful central government that can dictate radical change than the USA, if they choose to do so.
yea their change is to force coal producers to limit price and to increase production, unban Australian coal and buy more.... plus buy a massive amount of LNG from the USA... China is increasing its carbon output while still having to massively ration electricity... not so sure if they are taking this so seriously nor the world.
One of my current concerns is that the demonization of climate scientists over the last 30 years has resulted in models that underestimate the timelines of how bad things get. Not an intentional conspiracy or anything, just a systemic natural response to the pressure of not wanting to be raked across the coals in the media as the "crazy".
As an example, the heat wave in the northwest of the USA and Canada this year was something I remember reading about as a problem to expect ~2050. Ditto for Siberia this year. Ditto for the snow in Sao Paolo.
I hope my concerns are misguided. I general though, short of a deus ex machina, I have no hope for the world doing anything about the climate emergency, even after it's obviously too late and even after the worlds seen a major city burned/wet bulbed/typhooned off the map.
As an example, the heat wave in the northwest of the USA and Canada this year was something I remember reading about as a problem to expect ~2050. Ditto for Siberia this year. Ditto for the snow in Sao Paolo.
I hope my concerns are misguided. I general though, short of a deus ex machina, I have no hope for the world doing anything about the climate emergency, even after it's obviously too late and even after the worlds seen a major city burned/wet bulbed/typhooned off the map.
> Not an intentional conspiracy or anything, just a systemic natural response to the pressure of not wanting to be raked across the coals in the media as the "crazy".
Well, I'm pretty sure the monies spent by certain global corporations also do their part explaining why climate change and global warming has not been taken serious for the last fifty years - when it was first recognized. By scientists of the aforementioned global corporations.
It is well documented how 'big oil' (for the lack of a better name) has lobbied hard and heavy to kill any effort that took climate change serious.
> I general though, short of a deus ex machina, I have no hope for the world doing anything about the climate emergency, even after it's obviously too late and even after the worlds seen a major city burned/wet bulbed/typhooned off the map.
Oh boy, I agree. It pains me so hard and so much but I absolutely agree. Our monkey brains and monkey societies are just not able to deal with the kind of dangers that we've been able to put ourselves in.
Well, I'm pretty sure the monies spent by certain global corporations also do their part explaining why climate change and global warming has not been taken serious for the last fifty years - when it was first recognized. By scientists of the aforementioned global corporations.
It is well documented how 'big oil' (for the lack of a better name) has lobbied hard and heavy to kill any effort that took climate change serious.
> I general though, short of a deus ex machina, I have no hope for the world doing anything about the climate emergency, even after it's obviously too late and even after the worlds seen a major city burned/wet bulbed/typhooned off the map.
Oh boy, I agree. It pains me so hard and so much but I absolutely agree. Our monkey brains and monkey societies are just not able to deal with the kind of dangers that we've been able to put ourselves in.
There was no snow in São Paulo AFAIK; and snow in the south of Brazil, which did happen, happens more or less yearly.
(just a minor correction, not arguing against your general point)
(just a minor correction, not arguing against your general point)
I can't cite that example, I just have a friend whose parents are there tell me a story about how they were saying how pretty the snow flurries were and how he had to inform them about how ominous it was for there to be snow there. It's possible that they were referring to the frost that Sao Paolo got (which is still pretty crazy), and the videos of snow from further south.
TIL the term "wet-bulb temperature": https://www.iflscience.com/environment/why-is-everybody-talk...
tl;dr: It's essentially just a humidity-adjusted temperature, like wind chill factor for hot weather. The important figure to know is that a wet-bulb temperature of 35°C / 95°F (equivalent to that temperature at 100% humidity, or higher temperatures with lower humidities) will kill everyone.
This makes me wonder if it is (or will become) economical for cities to use renewable energy to dehumidify the outdoors, and if so whether the yield of water would actually be useful.
tl;dr: It's essentially just a humidity-adjusted temperature, like wind chill factor for hot weather. The important figure to know is that a wet-bulb temperature of 35°C / 95°F (equivalent to that temperature at 100% humidity, or higher temperatures with lower humidities) will kill everyone.
This makes me wonder if it is (or will become) economical for cities to use renewable energy to dehumidify the outdoors, and if so whether the yield of water would actually be useful.
> This makes me wonder if it is (or will become) economical for cities to use renewable energy to dehumidify the outdoors, and if so whether the yield of water would actually be useful.
Well people will likely first start cooling and lowering the humidity indoors with their ACs. The condensate might be used to feed the household hydroponic systems.
Well people will likely first start cooling and lowering the humidity indoors with their ACs. The condensate might be used to feed the household hydroponic systems.
For places where people have AC, which isn't everywhere, and which will make the situation even worse (as of now, and in the foreseeable future, ACs will use not fully carbon free electricity in most places, and will contribute to the warming everyone is trying to avoid directly with hot air and indirectly with CO2).
What that really means is that people will try geoengineering to reduce the temperature, absorb CO2, or block sunlight. No sure why this is always assumed to not happen.
This will come with its own risks, but at the time in future when this is done, the risk-reward characteristics might not be so bad.
This will come with its own risks, but at the time in future when this is done, the risk-reward characteristics might not be so bad.
Yeah, that's what I'm really afraid off. By the time the shit hits the fan, everyone will be so desperate, they will try everything.
I'm pretty sure that kind of techo-utopian fantasy is part of the reason why people are so reluctant to face the problem we have. To think that there will be some Deus Ex Machina that saves us all, without us having to actually do the hards things is just too tempting.
I'm pretty sure that kind of techo-utopian fantasy is part of the reason why people are so reluctant to face the problem we have. To think that there will be some Deus Ex Machina that saves us all, without us having to actually do the hards things is just too tempting.
I think that we will just mentally adjust and adapt to the suffering.
If people in Bangladesh are losing their farms to flooding because of global warming, then voters in Kansas will simply... not care.
If people in Bangladesh are losing their farms to flooding because of global warming, then voters in Kansas will simply... not care.
It is absolutely taken as a given, especially in discussions involving people who might make money from such projects.
There was no net zero commitment from the US, yet it has reduced it's per capita emissions to 1960s levels. https://datacommons.org/tools/timeline#place=country%2FUSA&s...
There is enough public pressure to make even more changes, and the CO2 intensity will keep going down regardless if it's Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden in office.
There is enough public pressure to make even more changes, and the CO2 intensity will keep going down regardless if it's Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden in office.
Some of that reduction in per capita emissions came from outsourcing low-end manufacturing to foreign countries. Our per capita numbers don't look as good once you net out the impact of imports and exports.
And it's still number one per capita.
There's a long way to go and no laurels to rest on.
There's a long way to go and no laurels to rest on.
We've already had 1.5C of that 3C increase, which mostly happened over 80 of the last 140 years. I'm not sure that saying "we're about to have the same amount of warming we just had for the last few generations" is a real rallying cry to action.
Maybe stop playing shell games with numbers and dates and just stick with what the IPCC says are the 2100 predictions. They're serious enough and don't make you look manipulative and untrustworthy.
Maybe stop playing shell games with numbers and dates and just stick with what the IPCC says are the 2100 predictions. They're serious enough and don't make you look manipulative and untrustworthy.
People won't even wear masks during a pandemic caused by an airborne pathogen for political reasons. I feel pretty hopeless about any meaningful action on climate change, so I suppose the best route is to try and live in a place that will adapt well, but that's tough to figure out. Here in Oregon a lot of people thought ... well, maybe our climate might be a bit warmer or even 'nicer'? But the reality is that every summer, massive forest fires are making the air unbreathable.
Those forests will thin out, a new normal will be found.
A new normal will always be found. Whether it's compatible with humanity though ...
I kind of like the current normal that includes humans.
This is in contrast to the tone that I've heard from various experts. In particular, there seems to be a lot of concern about the collapse of our ability to reliably produce food and other essentials.
A lot of wood has to burn for forests to "thin out". That's decades of unbreathable air during the summer months.
Not everywhere. On the western slopes of places like the santa cruz mountains, we mostly get a thermal sea breeze that keeps things cool during summer (our so called "natural air conditioner"). This also does a very good job of keeping the air clean, as we ocean air from the NW. You just have to be sufficiently hot inland to generate such a breeze, and things are generally stable. We do of course get some smokey days when the prevailing wind is offshore, and had more smoke during the CZU fires, which were right here - but otherwise pretty good.
I've come across many news articles and videos reminding viewers that unless action is taken, the whole world will be affected, however, none touch on the places that will weather the crisis best. Personally, I don't want to plant roots in a location that is at risk of becoming unhabitable within the next ~30-50 years.
Every location on earth is at risk of becoming uninhabitable within the next 50 years.
Predicting which will be most at risk is relatively easy. Predicting which will be least at risk is much harder, as some of the effects are complex. e.g. Things getting warmer seems like it should be good for cold places, but it turns out to have negative consequences as well.
Predicting which will be most at risk is relatively easy. Predicting which will be least at risk is much harder, as some of the effects are complex. e.g. Things getting warmer seems like it should be good for cold places, but it turns out to have negative consequences as well.
> Every location on earth is at risk of becoming uninhabitable within the next 50 years.
This is way, way beyond what any kind of scientific data suggests, even under the most extreme assumptions for projecting things into the future (and models based on those extreme assumptions are already falsified by actual data anyway).
This is way, way beyond what any kind of scientific data suggests, even under the most extreme assumptions for projecting things into the future (and models based on those extreme assumptions are already falsified by actual data anyway).
Please, suggest specific locations which are at zero risk of becoming uninhabitable based on scientific data. No runaway fires, no tornados, hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, no fear of rising sea levels or runaway rivers, no risk of resource depletion. Free from any sort of natural disaster, this place must be pretty special!
Or maybe you misunderstood the words I used.
Or maybe you misunderstood the words I used.
Oh, please. Most of the currently inhabited land surface of Earth does not experience any of the things you mention. But the media don't want us to be bored, so they don't run stories about how nicely habitable most of the Earth is. They only run stories about the small portion of Earth's land surface that experiences disasters. To extrapolate that to the entire planet, as you are doing, is ridiculous.
I don't really want to relocate globally, so my criteria is: stay away from known flood zones and coastal areas (both due to sea level rise and more frequent/destructive tropical storms). Be prepared with to live off grid in weather more severe than expected in the area for a week or more when weather knocks out the power. Oh, and stay away from urban areas for the same reason - a week long power outage in a city is not going to go well no matter how prepared you are yourself.
Everyone is likely to be screwed in unpredictable ways, but New Zealand keeps coming up as a place where things won't be so bad. Siberia as well...
Siberia recently suffered some of the worst wildfires on the entire planet haha. I think probably the safest would be East Canada as they're cold enough but not as tree-like.
Eastern Canada already gets pretty strong storms during hurricane season. Those will surely keep getting worse.
Sure on the coast but the Great Lakes-adjacent region should fare pretty well, or at least better than everywhere else.
Great lakes region is considered "central", not eastern, Canada. When we refer to the east in Canada, we are referring to the Atlantic provinces.
> Siberia as well...
Siberia may get warmer weather, but the grounds will be awful. Melting permafrost and methane explosions don’t make for a very stable situation.
Siberia may get warmer weather, but the grounds will be awful. Melting permafrost and methane explosions don’t make for a very stable situation.
Southern Siberia might become farmable and quite nice. Northern Siberia not so much, no matter how much we heat things up
Siberia will be continuous forest fires. Much like Canada's north.
I'm partial to the northern half of the great lakes.
I'm partial to the northern half of the great lakes.
Mass migration to New Zealand or Siberia would entail would mean more construction work causing more carbon to be released.
Rather adapt existing buildings to the changing climate.
Rather adapt existing buildings to the changing climate.
Right, but that's a global cost for a localized benefit... which is kind of the whole deal here. In any case, basically every mitigation is still going to involve massive amounts of concrete- and diesel-related emissions, whether it's new housing, flood control measures, new energy sources, carbon capture, etc etc.
Mass migration to New Zealand would pretty quickly overflow the islands.
Well, I doubt Siberia will be ok. Northern passage will become commercially viable but the Taiga forest itself will most likely be burning for the next couple decades until it's all gone. So unless people walk 24h in oxygen masks it will not be a nice place to live.
The places that can weather climate change well will be overrun by refugees from poorer countries that can't.
For most first world countries the first order effects are mostly a drag on infrastructure costs and costs of living. Even absurd things like damming in the entire North Sea to protect against sea level rise are viable with enough political will [1]. But places that can't afford that will lose population centers to sea level rise, will be unable to produce enough water for drinking and agriculture, or just become too hot in the summer months to be livable without AC everywhere. And all those people won't just keel over and die, they will have the same thought you just expressed.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/giant-da...
For most first world countries the first order effects are mostly a drag on infrastructure costs and costs of living. Even absurd things like damming in the entire North Sea to protect against sea level rise are viable with enough political will [1]. But places that can't afford that will lose population centers to sea level rise, will be unable to produce enough water for drinking and agriculture, or just become too hot in the summer months to be livable without AC everywhere. And all those people won't just keel over and die, they will have the same thought you just expressed.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/giant-da...
> The places that can weather climate change well will be overrun by refugees from poorer countries that can't.
That feels like an argument to convince people to do something rather than what will actually happen. A bit like "there is no escape, FIGHT NOW!".
That feels like an argument to convince people to do something rather than what will actually happen. A bit like "there is no escape, FIGHT NOW!".
Depends on what one means by "overrun" - people talk about the European migrant crisis of 2015, with 1.3 million refugees in a year. With climate change, even 100 million is not out of question - it will put a severe strain on every affected country, to put it mildly.
That's not really a counter argument.
But yes, the conclusion would be to either do something before it's too late or to go to a self-sufficient colony on Mars. There's plenty of other angles that support this, whether that's melting permafrost or the studies that calculate that limiting climate change now is far cheaper than mitigating the consequences later.
But yes, the conclusion would be to either do something before it's too late or to go to a self-sufficient colony on Mars. There's plenty of other angles that support this, whether that's melting permafrost or the studies that calculate that limiting climate change now is far cheaper than mitigating the consequences later.
It's not a counter argument, but more of a questioning of your argument. I think it's an argument of the same type as Pascal's Wager, though more based on reality. I don't think that there will be no places with a good climate and no refugees, at least that depends on what you consider a "place". Maybe no countries, I could agree with that, and even for that, you could argue that island countries could easily block refugees.
All of that to say, it feels like you're saying to people "either you fight climate change, or you will get refugees", while in real life that's not really what will happen, I think. I don't think you're completely wrong, but for example the average person can't really run away from refugees, but also can't make a difference in fighting climate change, so many of them will probably fight climate change and get refugees; while a very rich person can change more things but also run away more easily.
All of that to say, it feels like you're saying to people "either you fight climate change, or you will get refugees", while in real life that's not really what will happen, I think. I don't think you're completely wrong, but for example the average person can't really run away from refugees, but also can't make a difference in fighting climate change, so many of them will probably fight climate change and get refugees; while a very rich person can change more things but also run away more easily.
What I hear in your words is essentially an argument that it would be prudent to invest in arms manufacturers, as their products are obviously going to have an increased demand in the world-after-warming.
Investing in arms manufacturers could also hasten the end of civilization and possibly cause human extinction.
Although the climate crisis is dire, I do not think that climate change alone is likely to kill us all. Resource wars that result from the climate crisis, however, I think could finish off humanity. Arms manufacturers do what they can to increase the likelihood of war.
Not to mention that militaries produce disproportionate amounts of greenhouse gases.
I mean, arms manufacturing is blood money even in "ordinary" times, but it takes another level of self-destructive evil to attempt to profit off the apocalypse.
Although the climate crisis is dire, I do not think that climate change alone is likely to kill us all. Resource wars that result from the climate crisis, however, I think could finish off humanity. Arms manufacturers do what they can to increase the likelihood of war.
Not to mention that militaries produce disproportionate amounts of greenhouse gases.
I mean, arms manufacturing is blood money even in "ordinary" times, but it takes another level of self-destructive evil to attempt to profit off the apocalypse.
Profiting off the apocalypse is exactly what’s happening in the fossil fuel-based industries isn’t it? It may not look like the apocalypse until the last minute.
It's not about profiting, it's about what your community needs.
If you are one of "all those people won't just keel over and die" (as the grandparent post states), then your community will need arms to, well, not just keel over and die. The same applies for any community that might get overrun by their neighbours - if global warming is going to bring on resource conflicts, if you refuse to be prepared and armed as a deterrant, then you will be inviting violence to your home as you will be an attractive victim. Sic pace, para bellum is an ancient principle that's relevant whenever a contest for resources becomes meaningful; so the point in investing in arms companies is not about profit, but about ensuring that your community suffers less in the coming turndown; you and your community will not get a "fair share" of dwindling resources just by existing (that's hard enough even in times of plenty with less motivation to compete for basic resources), it will get only as much as its strength allows.
If you are one of "all those people won't just keel over and die" (as the grandparent post states), then your community will need arms to, well, not just keel over and die. The same applies for any community that might get overrun by their neighbours - if global warming is going to bring on resource conflicts, if you refuse to be prepared and armed as a deterrant, then you will be inviting violence to your home as you will be an attractive victim. Sic pace, para bellum is an ancient principle that's relevant whenever a contest for resources becomes meaningful; so the point in investing in arms companies is not about profit, but about ensuring that your community suffers less in the coming turndown; you and your community will not get a "fair share" of dwindling resources just by existing (that's hard enough even in times of plenty with less motivation to compete for basic resources), it will get only as much as its strength allows.
I think the climate crisis will cause new companies to emerge and make technologies and ideas to harvest these minerals that are now unavailable with current technologies. Coincidentally, it's going to be deep-water oil drilling that has the most capability of helping technology-wise in this future.
The last 1.5 years has shown humans are just too tribal to come to a consensus on something as obvious as COVID. There is zero chance we are going to all agree on climate change. Most companies and politicians think in short term intervals because of the systems we have devised.
It seems to be that the most obvious solutions will be make amazing technology and make it as cheap or cheaper than the dirty competitors -- eventually, even the people that dont believe in climate change will be driving EVs, have solar panels on their roofs, and eating fake meat.
Also, we should all be hoping there are some breakthroughs in nuclear (cheaper + safer reactors that leads to less regulation and allow nuclear to be more ubiquitous )
It seems to be that the most obvious solutions will be make amazing technology and make it as cheap or cheaper than the dirty competitors -- eventually, even the people that dont believe in climate change will be driving EVs, have solar panels on their roofs, and eating fake meat.
Also, we should all be hoping there are some breakthroughs in nuclear (cheaper + safer reactors that leads to less regulation and allow nuclear to be more ubiquitous )
Except that it's really only the US and various dysfunctional democracies like Brazil that have this problem. In large parts of Northern Europe this is/has been a reasonable consensus about what should be done and the impact of Covid has been well managed.
The US needs to get it's act together, but it is possible to have functional civil society and make decisions in the common good.
The US needs to get it's act together, but it is possible to have functional civil society and make decisions in the common good.
Nope, its everywhere. Even the best managed countries have their share of idiots and rule-breakers. If the leaders are sensible they can mitigate a lot of this but obeying the law and common sense are not a given.
My assumption was that if the US (or anyone else) can build the technology, it will be imported and/or copied by everyone else.
Even Canada was pretty good about unity on the vaccine rollout - the Conservatives raised strong objections about the costs and approach but, outside some really fringe elements, have been pretty consistent in not directly contradicting health advice. Ditto for the NDP & Greens (well, the Greens are a bit weird and sorta anti-vax but they managed to keep their mouths mostly shut at least).
This and getting people out of poverty. People out of poverty have a greater ability to deal with extreme climate events.
> … getting people out of poverty.
We have only ever managed to get people out of poverty by increasing their per-capita energy usage.
Any once we do, their families demand to maintain said standard of living that can only be met with enormous amounts of concentrated energy.
We have - and continue - to do this using fossil fuels.
Do you have another, secret, method?
We have only ever managed to get people out of poverty by increasing their per-capita energy usage.
Any once we do, their families demand to maintain said standard of living that can only be met with enormous amounts of concentrated energy.
We have - and continue - to do this using fossil fuels.
Do you have another, secret, method?
> using fossil fuels
They can skip the fossil fuels and go straight to green energy can they not? This will require advances in technology, and therefore should be our focus.
They can skip the fossil fuels and go straight to green energy can they not? This will require advances in technology, and therefore should be our focus.
> go straight to green energy can they not?
No they cannot.
We cannot even get Switzerland - small, rich, smart, friendly, good infrastructure, top class law, surrounded by mountains and water, etc. etc. to renewables in a decade.
No they cannot.
We cannot even get Switzerland - small, rich, smart, friendly, good infrastructure, top class law, surrounded by mountains and water, etc. etc. to renewables in a decade.
Well with an attitude like that we won't...
Yes.... but the development that lifts people out of poverty may at the same time exacerbate the climate problems. I'm not sure we've yet reached the point of lifting people out of poverty in a climate-friendly way.
Therefore putting people into poverty may alleviate the risks of climate change. Have you ever thought of taking that option? Has anyone?
People out of poverty also consume much more energy, so getting billions out of poverty without having a clean energy answer deployed might make things worse not better.
(I’m not making a claim that we should slow either branch down nor keep people poor so only the rich can keep burning fossils.)
(I’m not making a claim that we should slow either branch down nor keep people poor so only the rich can keep burning fossils.)
You will note that people in poverty pour their used oil into the street sewer, burn wood and coal for heat and cooking, and simply don't have time for worries beyond their immediate needs. If you want people to care about the environment, they must have their basic needs met.
> There is zero chance we are going to all agree on climate change
I think if enough climate events happen to enough people around the country, a majority could develop that wants to take action. Unfortunately, I think getting people to make the necessary changes to have a meaningful impact is politically impossible.
I think if enough climate events happen to enough people around the country, a majority could develop that wants to take action. Unfortunately, I think getting people to make the necessary changes to have a meaningful impact is politically impossible.
Very pessimistic, but very true... I'd love to see a detailed analysis about - given continuing climate change - where the best places to live would be. This would be both geographically, in terms of climate, but perhaps also politically, about being able to scramble and, I dunno, keep everyone after me out, heh.
I'm actually sort of mildly positive about living outside Chicago right now since 1) my vague sense is that winters will get less severe (those crazy polar vortexes we've had a couple times now notwithstanding), 2) there's a fair bit of agriculture in the region that's not on the cusp of failing, 3) the elevation is high-ish and we're not on the coast, and 3) we're next to most of the world's fresh water. That said, I'm sure since this isn't a super well considered position, I'm probably missing a ton.
I'm actually sort of mildly positive about living outside Chicago right now since 1) my vague sense is that winters will get less severe (those crazy polar vortexes we've had a couple times now notwithstanding), 2) there's a fair bit of agriculture in the region that's not on the cusp of failing, 3) the elevation is high-ish and we're not on the coast, and 3) we're next to most of the world's fresh water. That said, I'm sure since this isn't a super well considered position, I'm probably missing a ton.
You are kind of right and wrong at the same time.
You should definitely assume that a late-winter polar vortex is an annual occurrence. Summers will get warmer, rain storms will get more intense. So you definitely are going to need to adapt. And flooding is an issue, so you better make sure to be in a FEMA X zone.
On the other hand, Illinois and Chicago are really, really low on the climate migration desirability index. Yet there is excellent soil for agriculture and the state is doing a decent job of incentivizing farmers to protect it. There is a huge amount of good water. Etc. You probably don't have to worry too much about being priced out of a house.
You should definitely assume that a late-winter polar vortex is an annual occurrence. Summers will get warmer, rain storms will get more intense. So you definitely are going to need to adapt. And flooding is an issue, so you better make sure to be in a FEMA X zone.
On the other hand, Illinois and Chicago are really, really low on the climate migration desirability index. Yet there is excellent soil for agriculture and the state is doing a decent job of incentivizing farmers to protect it. There is a huge amount of good water. Etc. You probably don't have to worry too much about being priced out of a house.
I forget where I saw it but I remember someone on the right criticizing those on the left by saying "I will start treating climate change like an emergency when they start acting like it's and emergency". A lot of the "solutions" to climate change that are suggested align with what the left already wants. If it's really an emergency let's act like one. The navy runs A1B reactors that are somewhere in the range of 500MW the US uses somewhere around 450000MW at any given time. That's 900 A1B reactors. They cost somewhere around $200m to put on a carrier. That puts it at around $180b to take us to 0 carbon power generation. If people believed the world was going to be uninhabitable soon you think they would be willing take some kind of path like this but instead they suggest lots of things they already want.
Devils Advocate, a lot of "what the left already wants" they only already want because they have been worried about climate change for 20 years. For example protecting national parks.
But I 100% agree, that a true path forward would involve the left taking actions to fix climate change that would be more popular with the conservative crowd.
If all the coal plants we were closing, were being replaced with nuclear power in the same cities and states, there would be a lot of job protection. And that might help move things forward.
Or a call for Solar Panels on homes, with panels made in the U.S. might be a good compromise as well.
But I 100% agree, that a true path forward would involve the left taking actions to fix climate change that would be more popular with the conservative crowd.
If all the coal plants we were closing, were being replaced with nuclear power in the same cities and states, there would be a lot of job protection. And that might help move things forward.
Or a call for Solar Panels on homes, with panels made in the U.S. might be a good compromise as well.
This is what the left has been advocating for for decades.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/
> Ensures clean energy technology – from wind turbine blades to solar panels to electric cars – will be built in the United States with American made steel and other materials, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs here at home.
> The Build Back Better legislation will target incentives to grow domestic supply chains in solar, wind, and other critical industries in communities on the frontlines of the energy transition. In addition, the framework will boost the competitiveness of existing industries, like steel, cement, and aluminum, through grants, loans, tax credits, and procurement to drive capital investment in the decarbonization and revitalization of American manufacturing.
---
> The framework will also fund port electrification; facilitate the deployment of cleaner transit, buses, and trucks; and support critical community capacity building, including grants to environmental justice communities. In addition, the framework will create a new Civilian Climate Corps – with over 300,000 members that look like America. This diverse new workforce will conserve our public lands, bolster community resilience, and address the changing climate, all while putting good-paying union jobs within reach for more Americans.
---
> The consumer rebates and credits included in the Build Back Better framework will save the average American family hundreds of dollars per year in energy costs. These measures include enhancement and expansion of existing home energy and efficiency tax credits, as well as the creation of a new, electrification-focused rebate program. The framework will cut the cost of installing rooftop solar for a home by around 30 percent, shortening the payback period by around 5 years; and the framework’s electric vehicle tax credit will lower the cost of an electric vehicle that is made in America with American materials and union labor by $12,500 for a middle-class family. In addition, the framework will help rural communities tap into the clean energy opportunity through targeted grants and loans through the Department of Agriculture.
---
Clinton's campaign had similar promises around retraining coal miners to provide them good jobs in Wind and Solar.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/
> Ensures clean energy technology – from wind turbine blades to solar panels to electric cars – will be built in the United States with American made steel and other materials, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs here at home.
> The Build Back Better legislation will target incentives to grow domestic supply chains in solar, wind, and other critical industries in communities on the frontlines of the energy transition. In addition, the framework will boost the competitiveness of existing industries, like steel, cement, and aluminum, through grants, loans, tax credits, and procurement to drive capital investment in the decarbonization and revitalization of American manufacturing.
---
> The framework will also fund port electrification; facilitate the deployment of cleaner transit, buses, and trucks; and support critical community capacity building, including grants to environmental justice communities. In addition, the framework will create a new Civilian Climate Corps – with over 300,000 members that look like America. This diverse new workforce will conserve our public lands, bolster community resilience, and address the changing climate, all while putting good-paying union jobs within reach for more Americans.
---
> The consumer rebates and credits included in the Build Back Better framework will save the average American family hundreds of dollars per year in energy costs. These measures include enhancement and expansion of existing home energy and efficiency tax credits, as well as the creation of a new, electrification-focused rebate program. The framework will cut the cost of installing rooftop solar for a home by around 30 percent, shortening the payback period by around 5 years; and the framework’s electric vehicle tax credit will lower the cost of an electric vehicle that is made in America with American materials and union labor by $12,500 for a middle-class family. In addition, the framework will help rural communities tap into the clean energy opportunity through targeted grants and loans through the Department of Agriculture.
---
Clinton's campaign had similar promises around retraining coal miners to provide them good jobs in Wind and Solar.
You think grants to environmental justice communities, and a diverse workforce that "looks like America" sounds like compromise to conservatives?
Clinton's campaign did have promises of getting coal miners jobs in wind and solar, but if those industries can't completely replace what we have now, how can they possibly replace all the jobs?
When a coal mine turns into a nuclear power plant that is something that feels like is going to generate even more jobs than existed previously. Where renewables feel like less jobs. Those assumptions may be incorrect but that is how it is going to sound to the average voter.
Clinton's campaign did have promises of getting coal miners jobs in wind and solar, but if those industries can't completely replace what we have now, how can they possibly replace all the jobs?
When a coal mine turns into a nuclear power plant that is something that feels like is going to generate even more jobs than existed previously. Where renewables feel like less jobs. Those assumptions may be incorrect but that is how it is going to sound to the average voter.
Leftist here (and not `democrat left`, actual left). I would love to build nuclear reactors, lots of them. Problem is, it is a political issue that spans across all political leanings in America. You can find conservatives who would agree with me on building reactors, and conservatives who won't. You can find liberals who would agree with me, and those who won't. Best I have is, crux of the problem is that to get people out of their hysteria means being able to learn a little about nuclear, which most people don't want to do anyway.
Do you think that it might be more complicated than the scenario you've devised, or do you believe it is as simple and foolproof as you say?
Oh it's not fool proof and there are would probably be cost over runs and you would probably need to make power produces whole for their capital out lays. There might be an nuclear incident. I feel like if the world was going to end in 30 years people would be willing to discuss more direct action.
As long as we’ve figured out nuclear waste management, it’s pretty straightforward.
Unfortunately nuclear too is a political issue.
Unfortunately nuclear too is a political issue.
Especially when the most visible actions are ridiculous stuff like banning plastic straws.
I see your point about mask compliance, but I would argue that tackling climate change requires the opposite approach. The best solutions are top-down economic agreements, requiring little to no buy in from individuals.
What's more is that it's a cumulative problem, so every little bit helps. Factoring in carbon capture, good actors can even cancel out bad ones. Very unlike the pandemic, where a few bad actors have outsized power to make things terrible for everybody.
What's more is that it's a cumulative problem, so every little bit helps. Factoring in carbon capture, good actors can even cancel out bad ones. Very unlike the pandemic, where a few bad actors have outsized power to make things terrible for everybody.
The political will must be there, or else the population votes someone in who will overturn agreements etc.
That seems broadly right, though presumably there's still room for a lot of grousing when, say, SUVs are fairly taxed. But in general I'd expect more carrot than stick, credits and rebates for PV and heat pumps, we'll still get a few people complaining I'm sure ("Why can't I buy a 100W incandescent bulb any more! Socialism!")
I think it's important to avoid overly simplistic, binary interpretations about politics or action from dominating the conversation. I think it's a form of bike-shedding, it's very easy, and accessible to vaguely blame "the media" or "politicians" for the cause of problems, which is not only inaccurate in who it blames (both The Guardian and Rebel News/OAN are media, both are not equally to blame), and also doesn't engage in actually finding data and evidence to support the argument.
At any rate, with regards to climate change, it's important to note that actual progress has been made in mitigating climate change, it's not enough to hit the 1.5C target, but we'd be in an even worse place without it. In 2014 the world was on track to hit 4C by 2100, now its at 3C, (primarily due to rapid growth in clean energy). More reduction is possible in the intervening years, and the reduction is important in cutting out the more catastrophic effects of climate change.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/25/climate/world...
At any rate, with regards to climate change, it's important to note that actual progress has been made in mitigating climate change, it's not enough to hit the 1.5C target, but we'd be in an even worse place without it. In 2014 the world was on track to hit 4C by 2100, now its at 3C, (primarily due to rapid growth in clean energy). More reduction is possible in the intervening years, and the reduction is important in cutting out the more catastrophic effects of climate change.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/25/climate/world...
I've come to think that it might actually be best to avoid the places that will be 'nice', because those place will attract the hoards of people that will cause massive instability.
It might actually be better to find place that will have plenty of local resources, especially renewable electricity and water, but will be hard to live without supporting tech like AC, heat/insulation, air filtration, etc and even more exotic tech like indoor grown food and general purpose manufacturing like 3d printing.
Beyond the density problem of 'nice' places, the difficulty of living in 'hard' places will provide a forcing function to only allow a population of smart and industrious people to live there, while those who can't hack it flee to the 'nice' places that don't require as much expensive tech to survive in.
In a world ravaged by climate change, you really want to be in the group that is capable of keeping advanced tech running and improving if you want to leave a lasting legacy. Not only because it's going to get harder to live here on Earth, but because we don't have much of a collective future if we never manage to get off this rock.
It might actually be better to find place that will have plenty of local resources, especially renewable electricity and water, but will be hard to live without supporting tech like AC, heat/insulation, air filtration, etc and even more exotic tech like indoor grown food and general purpose manufacturing like 3d printing.
Beyond the density problem of 'nice' places, the difficulty of living in 'hard' places will provide a forcing function to only allow a population of smart and industrious people to live there, while those who can't hack it flee to the 'nice' places that don't require as much expensive tech to survive in.
In a world ravaged by climate change, you really want to be in the group that is capable of keeping advanced tech running and improving if you want to leave a lasting legacy. Not only because it's going to get harder to live here on Earth, but because we don't have much of a collective future if we never manage to get off this rock.
I have given up on humanity to solve this problem, especially no hope in politics to solve this problem.
I do my part in the way I travel and what I eat, but I can otherwise only hope me and my kids are long dead before the earth becomes uninhabitable for a large part.
I do my part in the way I travel and what I eat, but I can otherwise only hope me and my kids are long dead before the earth becomes uninhabitable for a large part.
> People won't even wear masks during a pandemic caused by an airborne pathogen for political reasons.
The pandemic is unusual in that we physically had no options but to work together.
With something like climate change, yes, everyone can be a bad contributor, but honestly, the solutions if they are to be arrived at involve a lot of invention, creation, trying things. Individuals & entities & governments are free to explore their own ways of making wins, and we don't all have to work together. We can ignore naysayers, & do the good work.
The pandemic is unusual in that we physically had no options but to work together.
With something like climate change, yes, everyone can be a bad contributor, but honestly, the solutions if they are to be arrived at involve a lot of invention, creation, trying things. Individuals & entities & governments are free to explore their own ways of making wins, and we don't all have to work together. We can ignore naysayers, & do the good work.
I've heard a figure citing world GDP growth forecasted at 450% without factoring the costs of climate change, and 415% deducting the costs. If this reflects the consensus, why isn't anyone talking about this? The impression we sometimes get is that the forecast is total collapse.
Care to share that forecast?
because “total collapse” is the scare tactic so it gets views. in reality this apocalyptic foreshadowing just erodes trust in climate science. the news has played chicken little with climate articles for decades. people are desensitized at best and no longer believe it at worst. climate change has a severe messaging problem
If you came across the forecast, someone is obviously talking about it. But if you stay in more liberal bubbles you are going to get more Democratic (liberal? progressive? idk the groupings) information. If one is trying to stop climate change, you are going to fail to persuade a large portion of people with showing how little it will affect GDP.
Maybe mass starvation and wars are not projected to impact GDP, because it's mostly going to affect people living in Africa.
One of the things that is most worrying about global warming to me is what a 3C increase on a planetary scale means for the very nature of the reality we experience. What impact will all that energy / entropy have on the probability distribution of possible events and states of our world? Will reality become less predictable?
Intriguing... can you elaborate or give some context to this?
I think that global warming is generally hard for people to wrap their heads around because it is a planetary scale event, and our consciousness experiences the universe on a much smaller scale.
Imo, the best way to reason about the impact in our daily lives is to think about systems that exist in much smaller spacetime scales than ourselves. So in this case statistical mechanics. What happens to the atoms or molecules of a system when you dump a bunch of heat into it? What might that look like at the scale of individual atoms and molecules?
Imo, the best way to reason about the impact in our daily lives is to think about systems that exist in much smaller spacetime scales than ourselves. So in this case statistical mechanics. What happens to the atoms or molecules of a system when you dump a bunch of heat into it? What might that look like at the scale of individual atoms and molecules?
Isn't that sort of already happening?
This year we've seen floods in Germany, huge wildfires in the US west, snow in Texas (and the Pacific Northwest), storms up the US east coast (wasn't there flooding in New England, too?), and I'm sure other stuff I've either forgotten or not heard about.
I think what's going to compound that is the push for "carbon neutrality", the idea that any emissions will be offset by... offsets (carbon capture, tree-planting, whatever). That tends to only be about the period of time from achieving carbon neutrality forward, but ignores the carbon emitted leading up to that milestone. I'm guessing that reaching carbon neutrality, for many industries, is not going to be a carbon-neutral mission. For example, if we want to move to electric vehicles prior to a carbon-neutral supply chain, then every EV build can have a significant carbon-footprint.
This year we've seen floods in Germany, huge wildfires in the US west, snow in Texas (and the Pacific Northwest), storms up the US east coast (wasn't there flooding in New England, too?), and I'm sure other stuff I've either forgotten or not heard about.
I think what's going to compound that is the push for "carbon neutrality", the idea that any emissions will be offset by... offsets (carbon capture, tree-planting, whatever). That tends to only be about the period of time from achieving carbon neutrality forward, but ignores the carbon emitted leading up to that milestone. I'm guessing that reaching carbon neutrality, for many industries, is not going to be a carbon-neutral mission. For example, if we want to move to electric vehicles prior to a carbon-neutral supply chain, then every EV build can have a significant carbon-footprint.
These one-sided apocalyptical type of content are useless:
- They are porn for people who are already believer in global warming, and show more material to say "look that what I said will happen" without doing changing anything in their daily lives.
- They are maybe right but display a false negative picture of what is going to happen for people who tend to deny global warming.
The reality is we don't know what is going to happen, that's things we can't predict. So stop be sure about things, accept nuance.
EDIT: I'm not saying we are powerless or don't know at all what is going to happen. We have a feeling of what is going to happen (temperature increase, sea level increase and other things) but we cannot accurately predict what, when and how this is going to happen
- They are porn for people who are already believer in global warming, and show more material to say "look that what I said will happen" without doing changing anything in their daily lives.
- They are maybe right but display a false negative picture of what is going to happen for people who tend to deny global warming.
The reality is we don't know what is going to happen, that's things we can't predict. So stop be sure about things, accept nuance.
EDIT: I'm not saying we are powerless or don't know at all what is going to happen. We have a feeling of what is going to happen (temperature increase, sea level increase and other things) but we cannot accurately predict what, when and how this is going to happen
The video is cheesy but to say we are powerless to predict and prepare, and hopefully mitigate, is nihilism and apathy.
Not once does the commenter suggest we cannot prepare or take action.
> already believer
Hrm. So, if one follows the scientific consensus[0] and actually takes into consideration the political and social consequences of the scientific consensus one is a ... believer?
I think at that point, you really have to ask yourself where the burden of proof really is. And if not the ones not-"believing" in the fact of global warming are the ones following some kind of believe system.
> The reality is we don't know what is going to happen, that's things we can't predict. So stop be sure about things, accept nuance.
Dude, that bullshit and you know it. We know what's happening. We've known it for a very long time. The scientists employed by companies like Exxon, BP, Total et all recognized in the seventies that there's a huge problem and that we are wreaking havoc with our dependence on fossil fuels. So don't 'We don't know what's happening" me.
We know what's happening, we can model it and we can use these models to create predictions. And the picture is not nice, you know. Funny thing; the predictions by previously mentioned scientists from world-famous oil producers actually created very accurate models that hold up today.
It's only political meddling that 'softened' these models to to make climate change and global warming not appear as drastic as it is.
> doing changing anything in their daily lives.
That's a fallacy. I can doing changing everything in my life and it will not change a iota. This is not some kind of personal responsibility-issue. This needs a concentrated global effort. Not some backyard hippies doing composting.
[0] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-ag...
Hrm. So, if one follows the scientific consensus[0] and actually takes into consideration the political and social consequences of the scientific consensus one is a ... believer?
I think at that point, you really have to ask yourself where the burden of proof really is. And if not the ones not-"believing" in the fact of global warming are the ones following some kind of believe system.
> The reality is we don't know what is going to happen, that's things we can't predict. So stop be sure about things, accept nuance.
Dude, that bullshit and you know it. We know what's happening. We've known it for a very long time. The scientists employed by companies like Exxon, BP, Total et all recognized in the seventies that there's a huge problem and that we are wreaking havoc with our dependence on fossil fuels. So don't 'We don't know what's happening" me.
We know what's happening, we can model it and we can use these models to create predictions. And the picture is not nice, you know. Funny thing; the predictions by previously mentioned scientists from world-famous oil producers actually created very accurate models that hold up today.
It's only political meddling that 'softened' these models to to make climate change and global warming not appear as drastic as it is.
> doing changing anything in their daily lives.
That's a fallacy. I can doing changing everything in my life and it will not change a iota. This is not some kind of personal responsibility-issue. This needs a concentrated global effort. Not some backyard hippies doing composting.
[0] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-ag...
To be fair, there is an endless list of "things" that could make the climate predictions not come through (e.g., big impact or super volcano). So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate.
We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).
We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).
> So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate.
I'm not really sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, if you're just trolling or if that's a serious argument. I'll try to treat it as a serious argument, just to be sure.
Sure, there are tons and tons of failure modes that are not included in the models. Galactic gamma ray bursts! Rogue black holes throwing the Earth out of orbit! Alien invasion (probably not)!
The question is if they are relevant in the topic of modeling the consequences of continued greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere - and the answer is: no.
So, while philosophically your statement is true that "we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate" - you still get out of bed in the morning and go to work, not wasting any (much?) time thinking about that gamma ray burst coming our way.
> We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).
The IPCC has several modes of mitigation that model possible scenarios. That's covered.
I'm not really sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, if you're just trolling or if that's a serious argument. I'll try to treat it as a serious argument, just to be sure.
Sure, there are tons and tons of failure modes that are not included in the models. Galactic gamma ray bursts! Rogue black holes throwing the Earth out of orbit! Alien invasion (probably not)!
The question is if they are relevant in the topic of modeling the consequences of continued greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere - and the answer is: no.
So, while philosophically your statement is true that "we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate" - you still get out of bed in the morning and go to work, not wasting any (much?) time thinking about that gamma ray burst coming our way.
> We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).
The IPCC has several modes of mitigation that model possible scenarios. That's covered.
Yes, they are totally irrelevant with respect to modelling, but my point was that we shouldn't take the future as given as per our models, because it is not.
The IPCC does speak towards SRM etc. but I think large scale geoengineering isn't really part of the proper menu there. So no, the IPCC isn't all covering and all conclusive. EDIT: in the sense that it treats certain things as high risk and rather theoretical - which is true, but doesn't mean they should be off the menu.
The IPCC does speak towards SRM etc. but I think large scale geoengineering isn't really part of the proper menu there. So no, the IPCC isn't all covering and all conclusive. EDIT: in the sense that it treats certain things as high risk and rather theoretical - which is true, but doesn't mean they should be off the menu.
If it really comes to the point where geoengineering becomes a serious consideration we are - in my opinion - already royally fucked sideways.
If we cannot even agree on simply cutting fossil fuels, how on earth can we ever agree on large scale geoengineering projects that will have massive negative consequences for many countries involved?
If we cannot even agree on simply cutting fossil fuels, how on earth can we ever agree on large scale geoengineering projects that will have massive negative consequences for many countries involved?
Because there is no agreement needed - those who can do might just do.
So, it's war, then?
I don't see why it would be. Just as it is not war now with respect to pollution and might also not be in the future. Before it is being cited: of course, the defense establishment sees risks of war everywhere, including climate - but that is their business.
There are already existing tensions and conflicts about resources like water. Some of these do not need much more pushing to escalate into war[0].
Further climatic disruptions will make the already dire situations in many countries untenable. That situations like that do not tend to improve by unilateral actions of their neighbors if the threaten to make a barely acceptable situation even worse.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-un...
Further climatic disruptions will make the already dire situations in many countries untenable. That situations like that do not tend to improve by unilateral actions of their neighbors if the threaten to make a barely acceptable situation even worse.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-un...
What do you suppose will happen when hundreds of millions of people find that their local geography no longer supports human habitation? They will be welcomed into neighboring regions with open arms?
Unfortunately, killing hundreds of millions of starving people can be done very easily -- much more easily than solving the underlying problem. The areas that become uninhabitable will then not be able to produce more starving people, so such an atrocity need only be carried out once.
The worst part is, once the killing starts, people will rationalise it to themselves, saying "We didn't have a choice".
The worst part is, once the killing starts, people will rationalise it to themselves, saying "We didn't have a choice".
Of course they will be. That's just what happened during the Syrian civil war; the refugees were welcomed with open arms in Europe, Germany didn't experience any political turmoil that reverberates to this day at all.
I guess I'm in a sarcastic mood today. Yes, of course that will cause mayhem. It's one of the reasons I see climate change as such a threat to our all civilization. We're fearsome tribal creatures and the coming waves of desperate peoples will almost certainly play into the hands of nationalist fearmongers and firebrands.
I wonder if we will see some kind of -literally - ecofashism rise from that.
I guess I'm in a sarcastic mood today. Yes, of course that will cause mayhem. It's one of the reasons I see climate change as such a threat to our all civilization. We're fearsome tribal creatures and the coming waves of desperate peoples will almost certainly play into the hands of nationalist fearmongers and firebrands.
I wonder if we will see some kind of -literally - ecofashism rise from that.
Do we know if the cost to the economy of adapting to greener standards would cost more than supporting the adaptation of the poor to the new warmer world? I have often wondered if it just makes more sense to incentivize people to not live right on the places most likely to flood and hurricane? (and earthquake for that matter).
just to stave off likely claims I am not saying we should prioritize the economy over people, but I am saying we should consider if we can positively address the catastrophe both more effectively (remove risk) and less drastically by directly addressing where people live.
just to stave off likely claims I am not saying we should prioritize the economy over people, but I am saying we should consider if we can positively address the catastrophe both more effectively (remove risk) and less drastically by directly addressing where people live.
> I have often wondered if it just makes more sense to incentivize people to not live right on the places most likely to flood and hurricane? (and earthquake for that matter
But that's not all the dangers. The heat dome over the Pacific Northwest this summer isn't something that can accurately be predicted.
But that's not all the dangers. The heat dome over the Pacific Northwest this summer isn't something that can accurately be predicted.
Before making any suggestion, think if you would like it applied to you. If the answer is no, I call bullshit. First, because it is highly unfair and elitist, second because there's no reason to think that the "poors" would accept it any better than you would.
I, and i think especially more poor people, would be willing to relocate to a better region if adequately compensated. I'm not calling for just telling people they cannot in low lying coastal places, but basically incentivizing a lot, very fairly, and telling the others they're now out of scope for emergency response (but retain their freedom of movement).
I've had similar thoughts about how we (as humanity) tend to build big cities on some of the most fertile land just because agricultural success drew people proximally to those lands. But then we pave over fertile fields to put up offices that house people who just work on computers... We get sucked into local maxima and find it uneconomical to move out of it (or often an organizational issue where all have to move to not have massive first mover risks)
I've had similar thoughts about how we (as humanity) tend to build big cities on some of the most fertile land just because agricultural success drew people proximally to those lands. But then we pave over fertile fields to put up offices that house people who just work on computers... We get sucked into local maxima and find it uneconomical to move out of it (or often an organizational issue where all have to move to not have massive first mover risks)
No way we can stop this now - even with a New Zero Carbon breakthrough, like fusion. The people and entities that could fix this just don't have the incentives.
See you all in 2050 in our CO2-filtered bedrooms :) Live your lives, folks, we only have so much of it. Earth is beautiful, take it in while you still can.
See you all in 2050 in our CO2-filtered bedrooms :) Live your lives, folks, we only have so much of it. Earth is beautiful, take it in while you still can.
The article body is just an introduction to this video, freely viewable on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uynhvHZUOOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uynhvHZUOOo
I'm very happy to see that the danger of climate change finally is being takes (somewhat) serious.
We have known for the last fifty years that we are doing serious harm to our ecosystem and will run into disaster if we don't stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Exxon knew it by the 1970ies, so did Shell and Total and BP. How they have managed to hoodwink everyone into climate denialism[0] is beyond me, but I guess it has to do with the millions and millions that have been spent lobbying[1] local, national and global leaders.
And that just illustrates the problem with our precious life support system[2]; it's a commons and as such not protected by anyone. If you can profit by externalizing costs created by damaging the ecosystem, it usually pays off. The damages will only appear years and years later and the perpetrators will all be long gone by the time the real consequences hit. Win-Win, I guess? Just imagine not having to pay the cleanup and reparation in the order of trillions of dollars and you _still_ get to keep the few billions you made? Amazing.
If even economy-focused publications like .. well... The Economist are finally taking climate change serious, it makes me sad, because it just goes to show that the situation is dire indeed. Otherwise it would just be the Hippies that are concerned about 'Mothership Earth'.
In the end I doubt that anything will change - but hey! - there's to hopin'.
[0] Or as we nitpickers like to say; denial of the fact that the recent climatic changes have been caused by humans
[1] bribing
[2] Earth and it's diverse and wonderful ecosystems
We have known for the last fifty years that we are doing serious harm to our ecosystem and will run into disaster if we don't stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Exxon knew it by the 1970ies, so did Shell and Total and BP. How they have managed to hoodwink everyone into climate denialism[0] is beyond me, but I guess it has to do with the millions and millions that have been spent lobbying[1] local, national and global leaders.
And that just illustrates the problem with our precious life support system[2]; it's a commons and as such not protected by anyone. If you can profit by externalizing costs created by damaging the ecosystem, it usually pays off. The damages will only appear years and years later and the perpetrators will all be long gone by the time the real consequences hit. Win-Win, I guess? Just imagine not having to pay the cleanup and reparation in the order of trillions of dollars and you _still_ get to keep the few billions you made? Amazing.
If even economy-focused publications like .. well... The Economist are finally taking climate change serious, it makes me sad, because it just goes to show that the situation is dire indeed. Otherwise it would just be the Hippies that are concerned about 'Mothership Earth'.
In the end I doubt that anything will change - but hey! - there's to hopin'.
[0] Or as we nitpickers like to say; denial of the fact that the recent climatic changes have been caused by humans
[1] bribing
[2] Earth and it's diverse and wonderful ecosystems
It should be a lot of emergent weather events and other affected areas if global warming goes so high.
The predictions of this article is pretty dry in that sense, sea rise, normal heatwaves, droughts, stronger storms, in general the same but stronger, more of it.
It is a safe bet, but the global system is pretty complex and interconnected, and a big change will affect most subsystems in ways that it may not look so obvious now, but that will be in hindsight.
We are already seeing some weird things, like the disruption of the polar vortex, the disproportionate heat near the poles where some of the most dangerous positive feedback loops happens, or the heath dome of some months ago, and still we are pretty low in the change scale.
And all the road to any line set in the sand will be bumpy and with a lot of bad surprises. And it won't be an way back, only forward, no matter at which bad event people decide that it shouldn't happen again.
We keep doing things worse, and faster than ever, there is no hope while no meaningful and disruptive actions are taken. But we will prefer to not cut our leg now, and be left having no way to stop our body dying later.
The predictions of this article is pretty dry in that sense, sea rise, normal heatwaves, droughts, stronger storms, in general the same but stronger, more of it.
It is a safe bet, but the global system is pretty complex and interconnected, and a big change will affect most subsystems in ways that it may not look so obvious now, but that will be in hindsight.
We are already seeing some weird things, like the disruption of the polar vortex, the disproportionate heat near the poles where some of the most dangerous positive feedback loops happens, or the heath dome of some months ago, and still we are pretty low in the change scale.
And all the road to any line set in the sand will be bumpy and with a lot of bad surprises. And it won't be an way back, only forward, no matter at which bad event people decide that it shouldn't happen again.
We keep doing things worse, and faster than ever, there is no hope while no meaningful and disruptive actions are taken. But we will prefer to not cut our leg now, and be left having no way to stop our body dying later.
This is a fun list of all the predictions including current ones, and all the previous ones used to increase taxes that never came true.
https://extinctionclock.org/
https://extinctionclock.org/
This video can't stop showing foreign, poor rural people having problems.
This is ideal content to get a lot of likes of pity but zero actual demand for policy changes. Everybody is going to assume somebody else has got to finally do something!
This is ideal content to get a lot of likes of pity but zero actual demand for policy changes. Everybody is going to assume somebody else has got to finally do something!
Best to ignore them if it upsets you. Foreigners? Poor? Rural? Ugh!
Average person watching this video likely already spends $0 of their monthly income towards supporting poor rural foreigners. How many times do you think that number will increase after watching it?
You won't sell your elephant that way
You won't sell your elephant that way
The biggest problem with global warming is that it's such a stupid term. Global warming is only a small portion of a bunch of different kinds of abuse we put the planet through.
Plastics, destruction of the ocean plankton, topsoil etc. have all conveniently been put into a single term called global warming, which is just one symptom of many things.
As a result we still have these discussions whether global warming exists or not, when it's really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Plastics, destruction of the ocean plankton, topsoil etc. have all conveniently been put into a single term called global warming, which is just one symptom of many things.
As a result we still have these discussions whether global warming exists or not, when it's really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
I disagree: the climate crisis is the single most scariest thing that we have done to our planet. Other forms of mass environmental destruction (next to what you mentioned also mass animal extinction,rainforest destruction,PFAS) are all horrible but are more of a temporal and localized nature. With enough will and effort they can all be addressed like the hole in the ozon layer. The climate crisis is already many decades in the making and cannot realistically be prevented. It is happening and the only question is not if but how much you will be impacted
Well, since 'global warming' is only concerned about the damage resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, that term is not to bad, actually. I like 'global warming' much better than the 'green'washed term 'climate change' we've had to use in the last 15 years because, you know, part of the earth got cooler, sometimes, and who even believes in 'global warming'? Even the term 'global warming' is/was considered political. What the heck...
To collect all the consequences and processes you mentioned, I usually like to use the term "predatory ecosystem exploitation", because that pretty much describes what we're doing to our life support system.
To collect all the consequences and processes you mentioned, I usually like to use the term "predatory ecosystem exploitation", because that pretty much describes what we're doing to our life support system.
Climate Change is a reaction to people going, "There's still snow" or "There's a polar vortex in Texas" and using cold weather (driven by Climate Change) to argue against Global Warning.
It makes sense as when most lay people think of "warming" in connection with the "global climate" they likely think "weather" and the idea that it will be 2-3 degrees "warmer" out doesn't seem like a big deal. 68F feels pretty close to 71F, no biggie.
At a planet wide scale though, this is a huge amount of energy and causes a massive change in the climate.
There's a lot of "greenwashing" in the world, but the term is generally applied to corporations that use "a form of marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization's products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly." The term "Climate Change" is the preferred term from the scientific community and isn't promoted by corporations to make themselves seem more green.
It makes sense as when most lay people think of "warming" in connection with the "global climate" they likely think "weather" and the idea that it will be 2-3 degrees "warmer" out doesn't seem like a big deal. 68F feels pretty close to 71F, no biggie.
At a planet wide scale though, this is a huge amount of energy and causes a massive change in the climate.
There's a lot of "greenwashing" in the world, but the term is generally applied to corporations that use "a form of marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization's products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly." The term "Climate Change" is the preferred term from the scientific community and isn't promoted by corporations to make themselves seem more green.
I worry that part of the reason some Americans don't fear climate change is: 3 degrees Fahrenheit is only 1.67 Celsius, so Americans might be practically understanding the warming as "half" of what other countries/people think.
The counter-argument: surely Americans are informed enough to understand the phrase "1.5 degrees of warming" means Celsius...I'm not confident average Americans know that. I'm not sure the science education is up to snuff in the USA.
The Americans who don't consider climate change a big deal, generally live in the interior of the country without as many severe weather events. Generally speaking, these folks are misinformed voters and it's hurting our climate policy. They think: Why should they care about "3 degrees of [Fahrenheit] warming", especially because there's no fires or storms near them?
The counter-argument: surely Americans are informed enough to understand the phrase "1.5 degrees of warming" means Celsius...I'm not confident average Americans know that. I'm not sure the science education is up to snuff in the USA.
The Americans who don't consider climate change a big deal, generally live in the interior of the country without as many severe weather events. Generally speaking, these folks are misinformed voters and it's hurting our climate policy. They think: Why should they care about "3 degrees of [Fahrenheit] warming", especially because there's no fires or storms near them?
I feel like the numbers sound so low they probably do more harm than good regardless.Even 3°C is well within normal variation from day to day, so unless you're already concerned about the secondary effects, vicious cycles etc, the number alone is reassuring if anything.
I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of what americans think. The majority of Americans don't think the Government is doing enough.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-vi... "About two-thirds of U.S. adults (67%) say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change"
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-h... According to this: 59% of Americans see it as a major threat and 23% see it as a minor threat. This is close to the Australia (60% and 29%) and UK (66% and 23%) numbers.
I think the media discussion in America on many issues (policing, masks/vaccines, climate change) presents a distorted view of what the majority believes, because sensational, clashing talking heads drive more ad dollars. So why don't we see more action on climate change in America? Well, some reasons: 1) Lobbying efforts often push back or at least water down any change. 3) America's two party system plays to the extremes in both camps rather than the majority viewpoint, which gets lost. 1) most people have more pressing near term concerns that dominate their choices.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-vi... "About two-thirds of U.S. adults (67%) say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change"
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-h... According to this: 59% of Americans see it as a major threat and 23% see it as a minor threat. This is close to the Australia (60% and 29%) and UK (66% and 23%) numbers.
I think the media discussion in America on many issues (policing, masks/vaccines, climate change) presents a distorted view of what the majority believes, because sensational, clashing talking heads drive more ad dollars. So why don't we see more action on climate change in America? Well, some reasons: 1) Lobbying efforts often push back or at least water down any change. 3) America's two party system plays to the extremes in both camps rather than the majority viewpoint, which gets lost. 1) most people have more pressing near term concerns that dominate their choices.
Those polls don't really tell us how their view of temperature changes are affecting their view of policy and climate. If 67% think that, that's basically covering the West and the East, which is the areas covered by storms and fires. But that last 33% of voters elects a disproportionate number of senators, places like KS or AR have the same number of Senators as California, even though the number of citizens is a mere fraction. I just worry that there's a disproportionate share of power and votes in the hands of individuals who don't think a jot about climate, and maybe the temperature numbers "feel" small to them.
Regardless of the exact numbers, my point is similar to the original article: people don't understand the ramifications here. Even if they intuitively know 3C is almost 2X as much as 3F, they still may not understand the article's points either.
Regardless of the exact numbers, my point is similar to the original article: people don't understand the ramifications here. Even if they intuitively know 3C is almost 2X as much as 3F, they still may not understand the article's points either.
[deleted]
> these folks are misinformed voters and it's hurting our climate policy
For the electorate it isn't really a matter of information or education. People have things they care about more or are vote based on emotion.
In a way it's like trying to use logic to convince somebody to support The Atlanta Braves rather than the Yankees. They didn't get there through a process of logic and isn't logic that's going to change them.
For the electorate it isn't really a matter of information or education. People have things they care about more or are vote based on emotion.
In a way it's like trying to use logic to convince somebody to support The Atlanta Braves rather than the Yankees. They didn't get there through a process of logic and isn't logic that's going to change them.
Doesn't it matter if they think it's 1.5 degrees or 3 degrees of warming? Doesn't that 1.67X change their perspective substantially?
What on earth are you talking about? You literally made up the 1.5 vs 3 degrees thing above, and now you're basing your argument on that being true, despite you having made it up moments ago.
Do you have a single source that says "Americans think climate change is only half as bad because of F vs C"?
Personally I doubt that a meaningful percent of Americans (or people anywhere) even know this "3" number to begin with, let alone the unit. This isn't something most people are focused on.
Do you have a single source that says "Americans think climate change is only half as bad because of F vs C"?
Personally I doubt that a meaningful percent of Americans (or people anywhere) even know this "3" number to begin with, let alone the unit. This isn't something most people are focused on.
It changes nothing. My whole point was that people aren't deciding on who to vote for based on sound scientific principles. You aren't going to change their position with more facts or new facts.
Discerning Americans think that gulf stream environmentalists flying to conferences in private jets is hypocritical, and that if they actually cared about this issue and it was a serious threat, then they would behave like it (and quit trying to rip up the crust of the earth to mine lithium with child labor as if it was the only solution to this problem).
Instead, this is just GRIFT to pull taxes from public funds into the pockets of plutocrats (hey where is greta this whole scheme sounds like capitalism again) while telling you that YOU need to live with restrictions that the upper class won't be policed on, like the good subject you are.
Instead, this is just GRIFT to pull taxes from public funds into the pockets of plutocrats (hey where is greta this whole scheme sounds like capitalism again) while telling you that YOU need to live with restrictions that the upper class won't be policed on, like the good subject you are.
Devil's Advocate, since I agree they should just meet virtually... arguably there are maybe 10,000 people globally that decide most things regarding climate change. If those 10,000 people flew to one spot and agreed to enact policies that alone did 3X more in a decade than all individual choices of citizens could ever do, wouldn't that be worth it? We know what individual citizens do regarding their lights and food and transportation habit is a small, miniscule piece of what the companies and governments actually can do, so I think it's a little pointless to tell billionaire CEOs and heads of countries with billions of people that they can't take flights to go make climate policy stronger. Those few flights would occur anyway, we can't stop them, and meanwhile they may be enacting changes that could clean up millions of future jet flights.
Sure, and they could fly first class on commercial to get to that meeting. But they have egos and don't think restrictions apply to them - but ohh this is an "emergency," isn't it?? I thought we were having all hands on deck to stop climate change, right? We're all going to starve and die.
All for one and one for - nah, never mind gas up my second leer jet, Jeeves!
All for one and one for - nah, never mind gas up my second leer jet, Jeeves!
> "gulf stream environmentalists flying to conferences in private jets is hypocritical"
Perhaps it is. Or perhaps it's necessary to get things done. Who knows?
It's a kind of an odd argument though. That "discerning Americans" will jump on board when they see some other people doing "some things" such that it indicates to them that it must be real.
Why work through that indirection? It's so arbitrary and can be arbitrarily moved. It's a blame shifting mechanism - I won't worry about this until "gulf stream environmentalists", "china", somewhere/someone else does something that I think is enough. I won't say what that is or what I'll actually do and by when. Or if I do and I make it to that point I can always find some other "issue".
Perhaps that's the point. I mean delay and distract was the big tobacco plan - and many of the same people apparently moved to fossil fuel companies.
A more serious and beneficial approach would be to look at what climate science predicted and what happened. Then look at what their future predictions are like.
If you take the IPCC reports they have generally underpredicted the rate of climate change.
Perhaps it is. Or perhaps it's necessary to get things done. Who knows?
It's a kind of an odd argument though. That "discerning Americans" will jump on board when they see some other people doing "some things" such that it indicates to them that it must be real.
Why work through that indirection? It's so arbitrary and can be arbitrarily moved. It's a blame shifting mechanism - I won't worry about this until "gulf stream environmentalists", "china", somewhere/someone else does something that I think is enough. I won't say what that is or what I'll actually do and by when. Or if I do and I make it to that point I can always find some other "issue".
Perhaps that's the point. I mean delay and distract was the big tobacco plan - and many of the same people apparently moved to fossil fuel companies.
A more serious and beneficial approach would be to look at what climate science predicted and what happened. Then look at what their future predictions are like.
If you take the IPCC reports they have generally underpredicted the rate of climate change.
> Or perhaps it's necessary to get things done.
Since when did commercial flight or rail stop being a way to transport people? Oh, right, it's not an option for the elite class because... reasons. They could do all of this without having several dozen private jets flying to the same places.
> It's a blame shifting mechanism
It's NOT a blame shifting mechanism, or at least that's not how I'm using it. What I'm saying is that your privileges are being revoked for transportation, theirs are not. You are being shamed for taking a commercial flight, but they are not, even when using private jets.
Finally, consider the rhetoric they are pushing. They are saying that this is an "emergency," meanwhile they are observably NOT acting like it's an emergency. This is a classic case of "they've got theirs," and it's clear that they don't plan on making any sacrifices that result in a lower standard of living for themselves.
Since when did commercial flight or rail stop being a way to transport people? Oh, right, it's not an option for the elite class because... reasons. They could do all of this without having several dozen private jets flying to the same places.
> It's a blame shifting mechanism
It's NOT a blame shifting mechanism, or at least that's not how I'm using it. What I'm saying is that your privileges are being revoked for transportation, theirs are not. You are being shamed for taking a commercial flight, but they are not, even when using private jets.
Finally, consider the rhetoric they are pushing. They are saying that this is an "emergency," meanwhile they are observably NOT acting like it's an emergency. This is a classic case of "they've got theirs," and it's clear that they don't plan on making any sacrifices that result in a lower standard of living for themselves.
> Since when did commercial flight or rail stop being a way to transport people?
I'm not sure why you are lumping those two modes of transport together. According to one estimate, "a passenger traveling in a private aircraft emits ... between 75 and 250 times the CO2 of a comparable high-speed rail journey."[0]
You're right, though, that private jets are an easy target for a carbon tax, and I don't know of any climate activists arguing that private jets should be exempt from one.
Perhaps the reason it is not high on people's lists of things to fix, though, is that "the aviation industry only contributes around 2% of global CO2 emissions, with private air travel representing an even smaller fraction." (according to the European Business Aviation Association).[0]
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/should-private-jets-be-banned-to-spare...
I'm not sure why you are lumping those two modes of transport together. According to one estimate, "a passenger traveling in a private aircraft emits ... between 75 and 250 times the CO2 of a comparable high-speed rail journey."[0]
You're right, though, that private jets are an easy target for a carbon tax, and I don't know of any climate activists arguing that private jets should be exempt from one.
Perhaps the reason it is not high on people's lists of things to fix, though, is that "the aviation industry only contributes around 2% of global CO2 emissions, with private air travel representing an even smaller fraction." (according to the European Business Aviation Association).[0]
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/should-private-jets-be-banned-to-spare...
> I'm not sure why you are lumping those two modes of transport together.
I think you misunderstand - "commercial flight" is referring to flying on one of the large carriers instead of privately. Both of those modes of transportation move large groups of people, together. Many people, one trip. Rail is available in Europe, but not in the US.
> Perhaps the reason it is not high on people's lists of things to fix, though, is that "the aviation industry only contributes around 2% of global CO2 emissions, with private air travel representing an even smaller fraction."
They are saying this is an "emergency" though. Is it a good idea to fly any plane during a climate emergency that will purportedly starve all of us? Why aren't these people concerned about starving themselves? This is an emergency and they aren't taking their own precautions seriously.
I think you misunderstand - "commercial flight" is referring to flying on one of the large carriers instead of privately. Both of those modes of transportation move large groups of people, together. Many people, one trip. Rail is available in Europe, but not in the US.
> Perhaps the reason it is not high on people's lists of things to fix, though, is that "the aviation industry only contributes around 2% of global CO2 emissions, with private air travel representing an even smaller fraction."
They are saying this is an "emergency" though. Is it a good idea to fly any plane during a climate emergency that will purportedly starve all of us? Why aren't these people concerned about starving themselves? This is an emergency and they aren't taking their own precautions seriously.
> I don't know of any climate activists arguing that private jets should be exempt from one.
While not activists, the EU, for one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27775620
While not activists, the EU, for one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27775620
No amount of living parsimoniously or adopting neoprimitivism will address the pollution caused by others who are not doing the same. Individual actors do not move this dial. No amount of me eschewing jet travel will reduce carbon emissions from the Pentagon or change the supply chains incentivize coal power in developing economies.
[deleted]
What would everyday life look like for a westener if we target 1.5-2 degrees? Can we eat meat? Drive cars? Heat houses?
There are much less CO2 and methane producing ways to do each of those. Pork produces less than beef, chicken less than pork, fish less than chicken. Smaller, more fuel (whether gasoline or electric) efficient vehicles, public transportation, bicycling (like an Organic Transit ELF or a Better Bikes PEBL) produce less than SUVs. In ground or air-to-air heat pumps produce less than electric baseboards, oil furnances or wood stoves.
imagine how much extra energy that is, 3C increase sounds insane.
Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second.
https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/earth-is-heating-at-a-rate-e...
https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/earth-is-heating-at-a-rate-e...
> It’s relatively easy to visualize five atomic bombs detonating every second
Is it!?
Is it!?
Not uniformly though. The last six months in the Antarctic were the coldest on record (1957)
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather-record-co...
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather-record-co...
Not all energy is heat. I think that's a problem with expressing the change in degrees Celsius. Wind velocity is another factor of increased energy in the climate that contributes to lower temperatures (wind chill). That's why scientists have been trying to make sure people call it "global climate change" rather than "global warming" because not all energy is heat and we need to stop giving the false impression that everything is just going to be hotter: more energy in the system will cause a lot of side effects that aren't just increased heat.
I think the lack of uniformity is a big part of many peoples' climate skepticism. Certainly it is a talking point. It seems like many people have too little imagination to comprehend climate science, much less the appetite to learn something inconvenient.
As I've read it described, we're boiling ourselves to economic prosperity...
wow...that is a lot, i think a lot of people don't understand what a 3c increase is, we need to explain it in term of energy.
The situation looks dire, as people will resist changes to address this at every level.
At the very top, there's nations. Whom are meeting as we speak at the climate summit. China and Russia aren't even there. For other participants, they're all eye balling each other to find the sweet spot where they do the least possible whilst not embarrassing themselves. There's the additional complexity of developing nations still using a lot of fossil fuels and feeling they have the right to continue this for a little longer, for historical reasons and due to wealth inequality. Which is a fair moral point, but the planet doesn't care. It's the tragedy of the commons.
At the national level, we bash political leaders for ignoring the issue for decades but our anger is misplaced. As soon as any of these politicians propose meaningful reform, we vote them out. Because the measures obviously will be unpopular. Democracy is voting for what is popular for the coming 4 years, not for what is needed for the coming 10, 20, 50. We simply don't have the political system for that.
At the people/individual level, group A full on denies the issue in the same way you can deny COVID or the earth being spherical. Group B deep down knows what's up yet still is unwilling to make a change, instead just wants to ride it out. Group C is on board with the issue and tries to live better, but it's still questionable if it's enough.
Not at any level do we seem capable to solve a problem of this nature, as evidenced by decades of doing nothing regarding any ecological issue.
A depressing personal example. One of my friends is the chair of a committee of apartment owners in an apartment complex. In this building live rich senior citizens. The committee votes on shared investments regarding the building.
The building is old, poorly isolated and heating uses a lot of fossil energy. Its energy system clearly has to be redesigned at one point, hence my friend put months of work into a plan. Through government subsidy and very favorable capital lending, it would basically mean that the service fee would increase by a mere 120 euros per month for a fixed number of years (I think it was 5-10 years). This would completely redesign the energy system to not use any fossil energy at all, increase isolation whilst improving ventilation.
The inhabitants massively rejected the proposal. These people are rich and already retired, with 100% economic security (government pension + private pension). It's a financial non-sacrifice. And still they reject it.
They reject it still when explained that due to the rising fossil fuel prices, their monthly fee will soon be upped enough to match this investment fee.
So in light of doing some tiny good for the future, part of which you will even live to see, at no meaningful personal sacrifice...the answer is still NO. We will continue our ways, and whatever problem comes from it, is for somebody else.
This isn't some specific group of evil old people. These are lovely grandparents, people you admire and believe are kind and good hearted. Which means its me and you. It's typical of our species.
The way I see it, we can't wait for any of the above people dynamics. Just print 100T$ in new money and get to work. Today. We'll figure it out along the way. It doesn't matter if its "not conventional". Conventional got us into this situation.
At the very top, there's nations. Whom are meeting as we speak at the climate summit. China and Russia aren't even there. For other participants, they're all eye balling each other to find the sweet spot where they do the least possible whilst not embarrassing themselves. There's the additional complexity of developing nations still using a lot of fossil fuels and feeling they have the right to continue this for a little longer, for historical reasons and due to wealth inequality. Which is a fair moral point, but the planet doesn't care. It's the tragedy of the commons.
At the national level, we bash political leaders for ignoring the issue for decades but our anger is misplaced. As soon as any of these politicians propose meaningful reform, we vote them out. Because the measures obviously will be unpopular. Democracy is voting for what is popular for the coming 4 years, not for what is needed for the coming 10, 20, 50. We simply don't have the political system for that.
At the people/individual level, group A full on denies the issue in the same way you can deny COVID or the earth being spherical. Group B deep down knows what's up yet still is unwilling to make a change, instead just wants to ride it out. Group C is on board with the issue and tries to live better, but it's still questionable if it's enough.
Not at any level do we seem capable to solve a problem of this nature, as evidenced by decades of doing nothing regarding any ecological issue.
A depressing personal example. One of my friends is the chair of a committee of apartment owners in an apartment complex. In this building live rich senior citizens. The committee votes on shared investments regarding the building.
The building is old, poorly isolated and heating uses a lot of fossil energy. Its energy system clearly has to be redesigned at one point, hence my friend put months of work into a plan. Through government subsidy and very favorable capital lending, it would basically mean that the service fee would increase by a mere 120 euros per month for a fixed number of years (I think it was 5-10 years). This would completely redesign the energy system to not use any fossil energy at all, increase isolation whilst improving ventilation.
The inhabitants massively rejected the proposal. These people are rich and already retired, with 100% economic security (government pension + private pension). It's a financial non-sacrifice. And still they reject it.
They reject it still when explained that due to the rising fossil fuel prices, their monthly fee will soon be upped enough to match this investment fee.
So in light of doing some tiny good for the future, part of which you will even live to see, at no meaningful personal sacrifice...the answer is still NO. We will continue our ways, and whatever problem comes from it, is for somebody else.
This isn't some specific group of evil old people. These are lovely grandparents, people you admire and believe are kind and good hearted. Which means its me and you. It's typical of our species.
The way I see it, we can't wait for any of the above people dynamics. Just print 100T$ in new money and get to work. Today. We'll figure it out along the way. It doesn't matter if its "not conventional". Conventional got us into this situation.
WSJ opinion pages has been publishing an alternate view to all of this that has at least been interesting. Specifically they have been articles by Bjørn Lomborg. NYTimes has covered one of his books before too: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lombor...
My take on his view of all of this is that the climate is going to change, and trying to fight/reverse that is a losing battle. Rather, we should take a multi-pronged approach and attempt to move away from carbon based energy (using carbon tax), but also start working to build up our infrastructure to deal with the changes that climate change will bring. I think the point of his WSJ pieces is to point out that even the worst case scenario of the climate predictions aren't that bad, because people adapt to changes in their environment (humans are really good at this).
Here are the 10 pieces he's written leading up to the climate conference going on right now:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-natural-disaster...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/flood-climate-change-ipcc-unite...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hurricane-ida-henri-climate-cha...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-world-doomed-gdp...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-lockdown-climate-fossil-f...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-malnutrition-reg...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-cost-economy-emi...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-adaptation-panic...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-activists-blow-smoke-on...
My take on his view of all of this is that the climate is going to change, and trying to fight/reverse that is a losing battle. Rather, we should take a multi-pronged approach and attempt to move away from carbon based energy (using carbon tax), but also start working to build up our infrastructure to deal with the changes that climate change will bring. I think the point of his WSJ pieces is to point out that even the worst case scenario of the climate predictions aren't that bad, because people adapt to changes in their environment (humans are really good at this).
Here are the 10 pieces he's written leading up to the climate conference going on right now:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-natural-disaster...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/flood-climate-change-ipcc-unite...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hurricane-ida-henri-climate-cha...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-world-doomed-gdp...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-lockdown-climate-fossil-f...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-malnutrition-reg...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-cost-economy-emi...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-adaptation-panic...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-activists-blow-smoke-on...
If humanity can't cooperate to prevent climate change, what makes you think we can cooperate to adapt to climate change?
If one group of people dams a river to adapt to having less water, and another group destroys the dam so they have more water downstream, then pretty soon nobody has water and they're in a shooting war.
If by adapt you mean "grab everything for yourself"... well, I think The Postman was a disturbingly prescient novel. In that story, nuclear war wasn't the real problem, the real problem was "survivalists" trying to grab everything for themselves and preventing society from reassembling. There is no amount of resources you can amass that will protect you from the war of all against all.
We must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately. We must act now to work together to mitigate global heating and avert climate disaster, or when resources get scarce we will not be able to cooperate to divide up pieces of a smaller pie.
And if you think the climate crisis will not destroy more than it creates... well, you don't understand the speed and scale of the catastrophe. The natural world cannot adapt at the speed we are changing it, and humans rely on the natural world.
If one group of people dams a river to adapt to having less water, and another group destroys the dam so they have more water downstream, then pretty soon nobody has water and they're in a shooting war.
If by adapt you mean "grab everything for yourself"... well, I think The Postman was a disturbingly prescient novel. In that story, nuclear war wasn't the real problem, the real problem was "survivalists" trying to grab everything for themselves and preventing society from reassembling. There is no amount of resources you can amass that will protect you from the war of all against all.
We must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately. We must act now to work together to mitigate global heating and avert climate disaster, or when resources get scarce we will not be able to cooperate to divide up pieces of a smaller pie.
And if you think the climate crisis will not destroy more than it creates... well, you don't understand the speed and scale of the catastrophe. The natural world cannot adapt at the speed we are changing it, and humans rely on the natural world.
I recommend reading his articles to understand what I say when I said adapt. It means things like: building more levees and farming different crops or in different parts of the country or world.
Conflict over resources is always going to be a thing. But dealing with the changes to climate change is more than just how we handle limited resources.
Conflict over resources is always going to be a thing. But dealing with the changes to climate change is more than just how we handle limited resources.
It might be better for everyone if we ignore paywalled sources and post content from open news sources.
The side is doing nothing but embedding this YouTube video
https://youtube.com/watch?v=uynhvHZUOOo
https://youtube.com/watch?v=uynhvHZUOOo
I disagree. Quality is hard to measure in journalism and it’s definitely not as simple as free = bad, paid = good (or the reverse). I don’t consider asking for money for writing to be a big negative, folks gotta earn a living somehow.
Proven(1)
We could fix all with nuclear...
Just saying.
Just saying.
This
Nuclear is a good idea, but its hardly a silver bullet.
Electric power generation accounts for only 25% of greenhouse gas emissions.
What did the dinosaurs do when this happened to them?
They started reproducing less.
Most of them died off.
I'm somewhat confused as to why nobody ever seriously discusses geo engineering as a solution for these problems. If we could block some percentage of light from the sun hitting the earth would that not go a very long way in solving the problem?
I've seen some very serious discussions about it. Most of which revolve around the cost: any sort of massive space project is still hugely expensive by mass/weight (even with recent advances in private/commercial space flight bringing LEO costs down surprisingly quickly), especially when some of the best options are to try to get enough mass for a big enough Fresnel lens (or diffusion grate or some other relative proposal) to L1 (the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun). SpaceX and Blue Origin and everyone else are helping us get costs down to at least LEO (low earth orbit), but the rocket/mass costs and construction costs to do a massive engineering project at L1 are outside of all current space corporation's and Nasa's budgets combined at current back-of-the-envelope math.
(Maybe if we saw major surprise breakthroughs in inflatables or low mass self/automated-construction systems?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade
(ETA: And as the sibling comments point out, all of that is after the related serious discussions about the ethics of that sort of project to begin with and if it is a sledgehammer approach to a problem that needs a scalpel and a deft hand.)
(Maybe if we saw major surprise breakthroughs in inflatables or low mass self/automated-construction systems?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade
(ETA: And as the sibling comments point out, all of that is after the related serious discussions about the ethics of that sort of project to begin with and if it is a sledgehammer approach to a problem that needs a scalpel and a deft hand.)
Right, putting many small mirrors or small spacecraft at L1 seems entirely plausible to me. Especially if we're talking seriously about doing things like colonizing Mars, this is in fact much easier to do than colonizing another planet.
From the Wikipedia article: "Creating this sunshade in space was estimated to cost in excess of US$130 billion over 20 years" Honestly that's not very expensive at all when both compared with things like the current infrastructure bill that the US is trying to pass and also considering the impact something like that could have. Yes its expensive, but it seems to me that that this is something that the governments of the world could afford to do.
Engineering and launching a bunch of spacecraft seems considerably easier than changing the behavior of most people on the planet.
From the Wikipedia article: "Creating this sunshade in space was estimated to cost in excess of US$130 billion over 20 years" Honestly that's not very expensive at all when both compared with things like the current infrastructure bill that the US is trying to pass and also considering the impact something like that could have. Yes its expensive, but it seems to me that that this is something that the governments of the world could afford to do.
Engineering and launching a bunch of spacecraft seems considerably easier than changing the behavior of most people on the planet.
We don't need to change the behavior of most people on the planet: we need to change the behavior of the wealthiest people (and corporations) on the planet. It should be a smaller project than directing a lot mass towards L1.
One of the problems is the wealthy misdirecting the blame to "average people" and that we all just need LED bulbs or EV cars or what not. Those are drops in the bucket of industrial carbon waste and always have been. All the finger pointing "it's the consumers' faults, we just need them to buy the right things" is marketing/propaganda at its finest.
(Well and also bitcoin/cryptocurrencies have managed to claw back every individual gain anyway in LED efficiency or hybrid/EV gas mileage, so it may take a few more people to convince to stop investing in those schemes. Though there again it is rarely the "I own a couple Satoshi" masses that need to stop it's the biggest and wealthiest miners. And yeah stopping the wealthiest miners would destabilize the currencies because of the Ponzi scheme effects they are built on top of, but that's why it's a lousy investment and, uh, too bad? I'd rather keep the planet than the silly digital money, don't know about y'all.)
Convincing a couple hundred billionaires and couple hundred massive crpyto mining farms to stop should be a much easier problem to solve than the orbital mechanics of a massive L1 project. The fact that we don't think that it is probably says a lot more sad things about our sociopolitics in this age than we'd like it to.
(ETA: That's assuming of course we aren't already on the wrong side of snowball effects and stopping entirely now would hit a hysteresis effect. Pessimistically, sure, it may be too late. But if we are past that "point of no return" a sunshade can't help us either because the snowball effects likely happen even if we lessen the additional energy pouring in from the sun.)
One of the problems is the wealthy misdirecting the blame to "average people" and that we all just need LED bulbs or EV cars or what not. Those are drops in the bucket of industrial carbon waste and always have been. All the finger pointing "it's the consumers' faults, we just need them to buy the right things" is marketing/propaganda at its finest.
(Well and also bitcoin/cryptocurrencies have managed to claw back every individual gain anyway in LED efficiency or hybrid/EV gas mileage, so it may take a few more people to convince to stop investing in those schemes. Though there again it is rarely the "I own a couple Satoshi" masses that need to stop it's the biggest and wealthiest miners. And yeah stopping the wealthiest miners would destabilize the currencies because of the Ponzi scheme effects they are built on top of, but that's why it's a lousy investment and, uh, too bad? I'd rather keep the planet than the silly digital money, don't know about y'all.)
Convincing a couple hundred billionaires and couple hundred massive crpyto mining farms to stop should be a much easier problem to solve than the orbital mechanics of a massive L1 project. The fact that we don't think that it is probably says a lot more sad things about our sociopolitics in this age than we'd like it to.
(ETA: That's assuming of course we aren't already on the wrong side of snowball effects and stopping entirely now would hit a hysteresis effect. Pessimistically, sure, it may be too late. But if we are past that "point of no return" a sunshade can't help us either because the snowball effects likely happen even if we lessen the additional energy pouring in from the sun.)
> We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky.
Generally, the hope is that we don't have to further destroy the world that we know to keep it from killing us.
Generally, the hope is that we don't have to further destroy the world that we know to keep it from killing us.
No thanks, sounds too much like the matrix. This is the kind of irreversible action that could very easily destroy us. Before doing something like this I'd rather give up our modern lifestyle or reduce the global population by 3/4 with growth control.
> reduce the global population by 3/4 with growth control.
Given that most of the world's population is under 30 years old[0], even if you could get every country in the world to simultaneously ban child birth tomorrow, the world population wouldn't even halve by 2070. (You also need to take into account global life expectancy changes that far into the future[1]).
[0] https://socialnomics.net/2010/04/13/over-50-of-the-worlds-po...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/673420/projected-global-...
Given that most of the world's population is under 30 years old[0], even if you could get every country in the world to simultaneously ban child birth tomorrow, the world population wouldn't even halve by 2070. (You also need to take into account global life expectancy changes that far into the future[1]).
[0] https://socialnomics.net/2010/04/13/over-50-of-the-worlds-po...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/673420/projected-global-...
Better get on with it then. There is not a single solution, we must pursue each and every viable path. But in the meantime our religious leaders are still advocating against anti conception and against abortion. Reducing population growth will not magically solve anything, but ignoring it would be foolish IMHO
You are confused why people do not want to discuss pulling levers attached to arguably the most complex system of which we are aware? Especially if it is going to be the same caliber of person pulling those levers as allowed it to happen in the first place?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/01/climate-...
China is talking 2060 for net zero.
India is talking 2070:
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/live/2021/nov/01/cop...
The United States is claiming by 2050 but there seems to be no actual political ability to meet that.