Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now(nature.com)
nature.com
Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00560-2
101 comments
It's much easier to maintain lifestyles by being more efficient than by any other means. Most energy is simply wasted. There is basically no downside to things like properly insulating houses (except perhaps the bottom line of the property developers).
There isn't--if you can get materials. And afford them. The windows in my house are starting to go. I've probably got another five years or so before they're a problem, but they were the most obvious future expenditure when I bought the place. The windows that best hit the durability and insulation points that I expect, for living here for the next 10-15 years, are around $1100 apiece. $1800 for the bigger one in the middle of the bay window on the first floor.
Oh, and they also have a 9 month lead time, if you're lucky!
And this is after I've spent five figures opening every wall, heavily insulating the place, and buttoning it back up.
I'm not complaining personally; I can afford this okay, but it's impractical to expect even moderately well-off Americans to be able to. This isn't just about the bottom line of developers, 'cause most housing stock is already owned. We're probably looking at massive subsidies to make it happen, and significant resistance because doing it is a huge imposition (one I did willingly, but I knew I was getting into it) reliant on limited labor and materials.
Oh, and they also have a 9 month lead time, if you're lucky!
And this is after I've spent five figures opening every wall, heavily insulating the place, and buttoning it back up.
I'm not complaining personally; I can afford this okay, but it's impractical to expect even moderately well-off Americans to be able to. This isn't just about the bottom line of developers, 'cause most housing stock is already owned. We're probably looking at massive subsidies to make it happen, and significant resistance because doing it is a huge imposition (one I did willingly, but I knew I was getting into it) reliant on limited labor and materials.
And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round.
In the Nordics the baseline is triple glazed windows and mechanical ventilation with exhaust air heat recovery. I'm sure doing the same elsewhere would be a good start at least
Neither of those things matter for air exchange.
I don't think I then understood your comment about air quality concerns. What's the concern if ventilation works fine and energy efficiently?
Place a well insulated wall in the middle of a field. Add a tripled glazed window and 100% efficient ventilation. Which side of the wall is warmer than the other?
Ideal indoor air quality is equal to outdoor air quality. This can only be achieved through air exchange. The ventilation process may be 100% efficient but the consequences of pumping outside air in and inside air out are the same. The air must be heated and costs some unit of energy to accomplish.
Ideal indoor air quality is equal to outdoor air quality. This can only be achieved through air exchange. The ventilation process may be 100% efficient but the consequences of pumping outside air in and inside air out are the same. The air must be heated and costs some unit of energy to accomplish.
> Ideal indoor air quality is equal to outdoor air quality.
Ideal indoor air quality is (can be) better than outdoor air quality. This is because when the outside air is brought in it passes through filters to get rid of things like dust and pollen.
> The air must be heated and costs some unit of energy to accomplish.
Unless you use passive solar thermal, i.e., let the sun heat the home:
* https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/passive-solar-home-design
Ideal indoor air quality is (can be) better than outdoor air quality. This is because when the outside air is brought in it passes through filters to get rid of things like dust and pollen.
> The air must be heated and costs some unit of energy to accomplish.
Unless you use passive solar thermal, i.e., let the sun heat the home:
* https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/passive-solar-home-design
That's why the heat recovery is done. It of course doesn't get all the heat, but AFAIK can capture some 80%. This is in use and widely deployed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation
Modern mvhr systems are 90-odd% efficient. The losses through proper ventilation are small enough.
> And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round.
Look up HRV/ERVs.
You'll have better air quality by building a tight envelope and using mechanical ventilation because all the air from the outside will flow through filters. It then gets tempered by the exhausted stale air before being circulated.
A leaky house and ventilation through windows was fine in the 1920s, but we've better ways now.
(And operable windows won't go away: they're mandated for fire egress. So you can crack one open if you wish.)
Look up HRV/ERVs.
You'll have better air quality by building a tight envelope and using mechanical ventilation because all the air from the outside will flow through filters. It then gets tempered by the exhausted stale air before being circulated.
A leaky house and ventilation through windows was fine in the 1920s, but we've better ways now.
(And operable windows won't go away: they're mandated for fire egress. So you can crack one open if you wish.)
Ventilation and insulation are orthogonal. The passivhaus standard puts ventilation front and centre and has exceptionally high efficiency targets overall.
Electrification requires energy-efficiency savings. Insulation is specifically an absolute no-brainer - it's cheap and save a lot of energy (and money). Currently it seems that rentals are the issue more than anything.
Insulation is a no brainer until you pump it into an older house with poorly sealed walls and end up with a sodden mess next time it rains. Some of the best advice from "green" building professionals is focus on air sealing, efficient electric heat (heat pumps), and eventually rooftop solar. These have complications as well (slave labor solar panels, high gwp refrigerants) but those are often easier to fix than your 1930s wall assembly. The individual cost of a deep energy retrofit to address the systemic problems with a home can be incredibly high (100k+ for people like me in California), so hopefully market innovation and government regulation will help solve some of the issues I mentioned with electrification + rooftop pv.
Yup, old houses can be insulated, but they do not insulate well. Currently in an 1890s house which has been superficially renovated at least 2x in its life, with all the insulation you could possibly pump into the walls. Winter heating is still grossly expensive, and you can never stop all the drafts. During a kitchen reno we tried pulling everything back to the studs and using spray foam as the insulation and vapor barrier -- better than the rest of the house, but still noticeably draftier than a modern house.
There's no real way to fix that without completely stripping the house down to the frame and rebuilding with modern techniques and materials.
There's no real way to fix that without completely stripping the house down to the frame and rebuilding with modern techniques and materials.
> Electrification requires energy-efficiency savings.
I don't think it does. In principle, you could stay relatively inefficient with low cost to the climate as long as you were drawing power from overprovisioned wind and solar. Of course, that energy may be better spent elsewhere so efficiency is critical, but we can't get carbon emissions down to zero by only increasing efficiency of systems that ultimately draw power from coal and natural gas power plants.
I don't think it does. In principle, you could stay relatively inefficient with low cost to the climate as long as you were drawing power from overprovisioned wind and solar. Of course, that energy may be better spent elsewhere so efficiency is critical, but we can't get carbon emissions down to zero by only increasing efficiency of systems that ultimately draw power from coal and natural gas power plants.
Indeed.
"Fighting Climate Change" is all sunshine and rainbows and photovoltaics until you realise that the messaging has been thoroughly usurped by an anti-civilisation regressive agenda. They don't want people using cleaner energy; they primarily want people using less energy; they sell that goal with promotion of "eco" and "green" etc.
I want us to use more AND cleaner energy; one without the other is a civilisation-level failure.
"Fighting Climate Change" is all sunshine and rainbows and photovoltaics until you realise that the messaging has been thoroughly usurped by an anti-civilisation regressive agenda. They don't want people using cleaner energy; they primarily want people using less energy; they sell that goal with promotion of "eco" and "green" etc.
I want us to use more AND cleaner energy; one without the other is a civilisation-level failure.
Why is using more energy important to you? Wouldn’t more efficient energy use equate to getting more production out of less fuel? That seems like a clear win to me.
Depends on who you are talking about. Having no climate control to climate control will cost energy no matter how efficient the heat pump. No car to an electric car will cost energy.
For those who have all the that, the de-growth camp asks that people give up meat, down-size their houses and give up one of their cars. Maybe they should, but that will never win any popular support. The answer is always both though, we need to make things more efficient and produce more energy than ever using renewables.
For those who have all the that, the de-growth camp asks that people give up meat, down-size their houses and give up one of their cars. Maybe they should, but that will never win any popular support. The answer is always both though, we need to make things more efficient and produce more energy than ever using renewables.
Practical experience.
Products advertised as "energy saving" are almost invariably worse.
E.g. modern dishwashers use much less energy, but also take much longer (4 hours instead of 1 hour).
If there are products that are equivalent in functionality but use less energy (housing insulation? heat pumps?), I'm all for it.
Products advertised as "energy saving" are almost invariably worse.
E.g. modern dishwashers use much less energy, but also take much longer (4 hours instead of 1 hour).
If there are products that are equivalent in functionality but use less energy (housing insulation? heat pumps?), I'm all for it.
Almost certainly the computer anyone reading this thread on is an example of increased functionality with lower energy use than previous models. The same holds for automobiles (higher mpg) many drive to work, and several other things in daily life.
To paraphrase: Sure, I'm for a habitable planet, just so long as my dishwasher doesn't take any longer to finish.
No, my point is, that is a false dichotomy.
IMVHO that's a bit of a wrong evolution, personally having a small p.v. domestic system I do prefer things that eat much and constant energy for a short time so I can schedule it when the Sun shine and the produced energy is MUCH more than my needs.
More expensive systems to consume less are logical in cities or for things that can't be scheduled, when p.v. and other renewable with similar output characteristics can't be used.
Much of the rest is just not for efficiency but for sell cheaper crap for the OEM at a bigger price for the customers.
More expensive systems to consume less are logical in cities or for things that can't be scheduled, when p.v. and other renewable with similar output characteristics can't be used.
Much of the rest is just not for efficiency but for sell cheaper crap for the OEM at a bigger price for the customers.
Pointing to a vague they makes for a very uninformative comment. I believe most people see a future where civilization progresses. There is just somewhat of a consensus, among left leaning people and groups of scientists, that we need to dial back energy usage short term, until the sources of that energy are moved away from fossil fuels.
I don't think a willingness to accept less energy for a decade or two, constitutes an anti-civilization agenda. I don't even think the small fraction of extremists who want everyone living on an organic commune are anti-civilization.
I don't think a willingness to accept less energy for a decade or two, constitutes an anti-civilization agenda. I don't even think the small fraction of extremists who want everyone living on an organic commune are anti-civilization.
From a cost perspective, would dialing back on energy usage cost us more than moving to more expensive ways to generate energy? The primary reason why fossil fuel is the energy source of choice is the cost savings compared to more expensive alternatives. A lot can be built within a very short time frame if either A) money where no issue, or B) people were pressured enough to prioritize the climate over other more economical prioritizes.
> I don't think a willingness to accept less energy for a decade or two, constitutes an anti-civilization agenda.
Sounds like "two weeks to flatten the curve". Very slippery slope. Expect a lot of people to oppose it (me included). Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites (same as with the pandemic).
Sounds like "two weeks to flatten the curve". Very slippery slope. Expect a lot of people to oppose it (me included). Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites (same as with the pandemic).
The imperative is reducing carbon output. Reducing usage is the simplest, most reliable way of doing that so I find it hard to blame people who push that approach.
On the other hand, if anyone wants to use more energy the onus is on them to explain how we can do that within our carbon budget, when we're not even living within our budget currently.
On the other hand, if anyone wants to use more energy the onus is on them to explain how we can do that within our carbon budget, when we're not even living within our budget currently.
> Sounds like "two weeks to flatten the curve".
Another necessary short term sacrifice to lessen the risk to society?
> Very slippery slope
I don't know where you're scared "increase effeciency" or "waste less" will go. It's perfectly fine to have gripes with how that gets accomplished. "Fuel taxes are bad because X", "cap and trade would be terrible" or "Windmills suck", I get, "using less energy is bad", I do not get.
> Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites
I mean, the most common proposal is taxes on consumption to fund clean energy and/or cleanup. Not really a "different rules" situation in my mind.
Another necessary short term sacrifice to lessen the risk to society?
> Very slippery slope
I don't know where you're scared "increase effeciency" or "waste less" will go. It's perfectly fine to have gripes with how that gets accomplished. "Fuel taxes are bad because X", "cap and trade would be terrible" or "Windmills suck", I get, "using less energy is bad", I do not get.
> Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites
I mean, the most common proposal is taxes on consumption to fund clean energy and/or cleanup. Not really a "different rules" situation in my mind.
"anti-civilization agenda": well, no, but I see what you mean (I think). Most ecologists do promote another civilization, since they believe - rightly or not - that our current civilization will lead to an environmental collapse.
Deep ecologists have decided once and for all that technology and science won't provide the solution, hence what you call their " anti-civilization agenda".
Let's take a step back and look at things calmly. You want not to be restrained in your way of life. But a better efficiency enable to do the same with less energy. So you'd be not restrained in any way. Therefore there is no reason to want to use "more energy" as a goal by itself.
Better efficiency implies batter technologies and better Science. This is where too many ecologists get it wrong.
However, we can also say that technologies don't mechanically provide a better world.
Biotechnology has resulted in a massive use of pesticides that kills biodiversity while the agro-tech business make people fat through over-processed food and ingredients bad for health.
Technology also enable us to do industrial wonders but they also pollute (rare metal extraction for example).
Eating food bad for your health and living within high level of pollution don't look to me as great civilizational achievements, do they?
Last point: we need "clean energy", not "cleaner". Science has demonstrated how fast climate changes and biodiversity plummets. In the short term, the cleaner, the better - but that can last only during a rather short transition time to really clean energy.
Many countries have at last got out of endemic poverty. Many African countries before the Covid were growing their GDP by 3 to 5% per year. It's great but that means their use of energy is rising fast.
So to stop the climate change, we really need to transition much faster. Many ecologists don't see that transition even starting ; neither do they see science and technology provide the solution on the coming years. Hence their agenda of rationing.
I can't see that agenda being politically feasible. I personally conclude that we will hit a wall collectively. When climate will be so bad and the collapse of biodiversity will directly hit our way or life, then we will take the hard decisions.
I don't believe in a civilization collapse. Books by true historians have debunked every claim of a civilization collapse due to overuse of the natural resources. And even so, we are super resilient animals, super efficient as organizing and adapting when necessary.
But, as you rightly pointed out, we are not equal in this world. The huge costs when hitting the wall will not be fairly splitted. The wealthier you are in a wealthier country you are, the less you are likely to suffer from it.
Since you don't want any change in your way of life, you should aim to belong to the 1%. Because 99% of us will have to change.
And even so, being part of the 1% doesn't protect you totally, far from it. Driving a Bugatti won't matter much if a tree fall onto you because of a big storm. And you won't escape a pandemic either.
Some people prefer to be super rich and live in fear all the time of being attacked. I prefer a system where every job provides a decent way of life so streets are safe.
That is the same for climate. Some will prefer living in huge mansions with underground self-sufficient bunkers. I prefer that everyone gets to live in a super energy efficient place so that we don't need bunkers against tornadoes. Because when the tornado arrives, you'll making an errand 30 miles away and your children will be 10 miles from that bunker as well.
The solution is collective. Hence my pessimism: we will change our way of life only when it will have become unbearable. Nature will be deep into the already current 6th extinction, meaning that it will restart despite us. But that takes thousands of years. So we will have to change our way of life starting from a low point rather than starting now.
So the ecologists' agenda is not irrational. That may hurt your wanting to keep your way of life. Maybe you will be able to. But your children and your grandchildren will have quite different conditions.
Except if Science and technology provides a way out. Many bet on it. That's not irrational either but the time is the issue. We need to capture huge amounts of CO2 and methane in the next 20 years to maintain our way of life. Is this a reasonable bet?
Well, if we collectively invested trillions of dollars to reach that goal, I may take the bet. For now, we prefer bail-out the wealthier of us ; and some lunatics leaders around the world will force us to spend that money on the military.
"Good night and good luck".
Deep ecologists have decided once and for all that technology and science won't provide the solution, hence what you call their " anti-civilization agenda".
Let's take a step back and look at things calmly. You want not to be restrained in your way of life. But a better efficiency enable to do the same with less energy. So you'd be not restrained in any way. Therefore there is no reason to want to use "more energy" as a goal by itself.
Better efficiency implies batter technologies and better Science. This is where too many ecologists get it wrong.
However, we can also say that technologies don't mechanically provide a better world.
Biotechnology has resulted in a massive use of pesticides that kills biodiversity while the agro-tech business make people fat through over-processed food and ingredients bad for health.
Technology also enable us to do industrial wonders but they also pollute (rare metal extraction for example).
Eating food bad for your health and living within high level of pollution don't look to me as great civilizational achievements, do they?
Last point: we need "clean energy", not "cleaner". Science has demonstrated how fast climate changes and biodiversity plummets. In the short term, the cleaner, the better - but that can last only during a rather short transition time to really clean energy.
Many countries have at last got out of endemic poverty. Many African countries before the Covid were growing their GDP by 3 to 5% per year. It's great but that means their use of energy is rising fast.
So to stop the climate change, we really need to transition much faster. Many ecologists don't see that transition even starting ; neither do they see science and technology provide the solution on the coming years. Hence their agenda of rationing.
I can't see that agenda being politically feasible. I personally conclude that we will hit a wall collectively. When climate will be so bad and the collapse of biodiversity will directly hit our way or life, then we will take the hard decisions.
I don't believe in a civilization collapse. Books by true historians have debunked every claim of a civilization collapse due to overuse of the natural resources. And even so, we are super resilient animals, super efficient as organizing and adapting when necessary.
But, as you rightly pointed out, we are not equal in this world. The huge costs when hitting the wall will not be fairly splitted. The wealthier you are in a wealthier country you are, the less you are likely to suffer from it.
Since you don't want any change in your way of life, you should aim to belong to the 1%. Because 99% of us will have to change.
And even so, being part of the 1% doesn't protect you totally, far from it. Driving a Bugatti won't matter much if a tree fall onto you because of a big storm. And you won't escape a pandemic either.
Some people prefer to be super rich and live in fear all the time of being attacked. I prefer a system where every job provides a decent way of life so streets are safe.
That is the same for climate. Some will prefer living in huge mansions with underground self-sufficient bunkers. I prefer that everyone gets to live in a super energy efficient place so that we don't need bunkers against tornadoes. Because when the tornado arrives, you'll making an errand 30 miles away and your children will be 10 miles from that bunker as well.
The solution is collective. Hence my pessimism: we will change our way of life only when it will have become unbearable. Nature will be deep into the already current 6th extinction, meaning that it will restart despite us. But that takes thousands of years. So we will have to change our way of life starting from a low point rather than starting now.
So the ecologists' agenda is not irrational. That may hurt your wanting to keep your way of life. Maybe you will be able to. But your children and your grandchildren will have quite different conditions.
Except if Science and technology provides a way out. Many bet on it. That's not irrational either but the time is the issue. We need to capture huge amounts of CO2 and methane in the next 20 years to maintain our way of life. Is this a reasonable bet?
Well, if we collectively invested trillions of dollars to reach that goal, I may take the bet. For now, we prefer bail-out the wealthier of us ; and some lunatics leaders around the world will force us to spend that money on the military.
"Good night and good luck".
> "simply" electrify all energy usage and let people maintain their current lifestyles exactly
You lost me at "simply"
[Edit] Sorry if this comes across as snarky, but c'mon, this is an existentially hard problem and there are few if any significant quick wins that are doable in the face of public inertia, obstruction from the petro-rich, technical complexity, etc. Giving the opponents an easily shot-down 'simply' isn't going to cut it.
You lost me at "simply"
[Edit] Sorry if this comes across as snarky, but c'mon, this is an existentially hard problem and there are few if any significant quick wins that are doable in the face of public inertia, obstruction from the petro-rich, technical complexity, etc. Giving the opponents an easily shot-down 'simply' isn't going to cut it.
Works in Norway but I believe the US still depends in large part on fossil fuels to generate electricity, no?
Yeah, very important to electrify the supply side in the US as well. Pretty dirty at the moment. There are still gains to be realized just on the demand side though, like how EVs still emit less per mile than ICE cars even when the electricity comes from coal plants[0]. In that case, the efficiency comes form the improved thermal efficiency of an industrial-scale power plant versus little gasoline car engines.
[0] - would have liked a better source but https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-...
[0] - would have liked a better source but https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-...
Replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation is a lot easier than replacing fossil fuels for heating, transportation, and industry.
Absolutely, and of course Norway also depends in great part on fossil fuels to generate wealth.
> b) no longer needing energy to run fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and refining processes.
It looks like current geo-politics will undo years of disinvestment in the fossil fuel production while never having met the emission cut-off goals.
It looks like current geo-politics will undo years of disinvestment in the fossil fuel production while never having met the emission cut-off goals.
Well, in my new house I'm all electric, but it's a new one, in the old one there is a 30kW heating system, it's a bit expensive to run it on electricity, just a little bit...
And that's essentially the same for the point: build new houses. It's surely positive and needed in the long run, but to do so you need many resources, wood itself is renewable at a certain level of demand, not renewable above that level. Long story short: not counting some mass-genocidal ideas, at a level even the original nazi probably never though of IMVHO the quicker changes possible is start to re-localize anything that can be re-localized, starting from a massive agricultural plan with very strong incentives to try to maximize local, even inefficient, food production to cut transportation as much as possible.
For many area of the planet that's still not possible tough, too many people in such areas respect of the nature local production capacity... Local and inefficient agriculture might run at a slow peace, for instance instead of powerful diesel tractors fields can be handled by less powerful on-rails electrical agrivoltaic tools, something unsustainable without government incentives, but ultimately probably doable with. That's can reduce general pollution to more manageable levels and still provide enough food in most cases. Pushing rails with similar criteria (only goods trains, running when there is enough energy, slow, inefficient, but enough for non-perishable goods).
Quicker than that I know only mass genocide and unpleasant things like that.
And that's essentially the same for the point: build new houses. It's surely positive and needed in the long run, but to do so you need many resources, wood itself is renewable at a certain level of demand, not renewable above that level. Long story short: not counting some mass-genocidal ideas, at a level even the original nazi probably never though of IMVHO the quicker changes possible is start to re-localize anything that can be re-localized, starting from a massive agricultural plan with very strong incentives to try to maximize local, even inefficient, food production to cut transportation as much as possible.
For many area of the planet that's still not possible tough, too many people in such areas respect of the nature local production capacity... Local and inefficient agriculture might run at a slow peace, for instance instead of powerful diesel tractors fields can be handled by less powerful on-rails electrical agrivoltaic tools, something unsustainable without government incentives, but ultimately probably doable with. That's can reduce general pollution to more manageable levels and still provide enough food in most cases. Pushing rails with similar criteria (only goods trains, running when there is enough energy, slow, inefficient, but enough for non-perishable goods).
Quicker than that I know only mass genocide and unpleasant things like that.
I cannot upvote this enough. We have a strict budget left for carbon emissions. It's not an exam in the future that we are currently studying for to pass. But thinking in budget terms also means talking about budgeting/rationing but I guess it needs to become really bad before we even dare to touch that...
What happens when the budget runs out?
Shit goes south with no way to recover?
As far as I understand it, it not a binary "we are fucked" / "we are unfucked" if you are talking globally, or even large nations like the US, EU, Russia, China, etc.
It's a gradient. The more CO2, the warmer earth gets.
It's a gradient. The more CO2, the warmer earth gets.
It's not just that. There are critical mass effects where, after a certain level, positive feedback loops will cascade to all systems. There's definitely a point where we're fucked and won't be able to unfuck ourselves.
I'm far from an expert on climate. But my understanding when I looked into these issues ~8 years ago for a class, was that massive positive feedback loop stuff was not really accepted by the mainstream of scientists.
Of course there are positive feedback components, but there are negative ones too. And stuff like clathrate gun, etc., can't be found in the IPCC reports.
The 2 degree goal is more or less arbitrary. edit: by that I mean 1.9 isn't much better than 2.1--not that 2.1 is no big deal
Of course there are positive feedback components, but there are negative ones too. And stuff like clathrate gun, etc., can't be found in the IPCC reports.
The 2 degree goal is more or less arbitrary. edit: by that I mean 1.9 isn't much better than 2.1--not that 2.1 is no big deal
the point is that these effects are difficult to predict. The challenge is that a changing climate may upset ecological balances in ways that are difficult to predict and difficult to counter.
Take the indian subcontinent as a great example. That is a region of a billion people dependent entirely on the monsoon for water. The region is surrounded by deserts to the west and north. If the monsoon is disrupted due to climate change, what will happen to those billion people? It's worse still if you consider that glacial meltwater from the himalayas also feeds China's largest rivers.
On the flip side, too much rain and there is also a disaster.
This is the point - we don't know what will happen but can be certain it will be bad.
Take the indian subcontinent as a great example. That is a region of a billion people dependent entirely on the monsoon for water. The region is surrounded by deserts to the west and north. If the monsoon is disrupted due to climate change, what will happen to those billion people? It's worse still if you consider that glacial meltwater from the himalayas also feeds China's largest rivers.
On the flip side, too much rain and there is also a disaster.
This is the point - we don't know what will happen but can be certain it will be bad.
Yes and no, it's not a linear gradient, there are points on the gradient where things get exponentially worse, and everything rapidly accelerates, like a runaway diesel engine.
We can go from "Livable with adaptation" to "millions displaced from unlivable catastrophes and conditions" by hitting some of those milestones.
We can go from "Livable with adaptation" to "millions displaced from unlivable catastrophes and conditions" by hitting some of those milestones.
- No way back from spiraling climate change
- Positive feedback loops of melting ice -> lower albedo -> more energy absorbed from the sun -> more ice melts
- Unstoppable acidification of oceans and death of vasts amounts of sea life
- Disruption of thermohaline ocean currents, disrupting weather everywhere with little time for nature to adapt, leading to mass extinctions
- Areas where we currently grow most food will quickly become impossible to farm
Basically the point is that the "budget" is how much we can pump and still go back and fix.
- Positive feedback loops of melting ice -> lower albedo -> more energy absorbed from the sun -> more ice melts
- Unstoppable acidification of oceans and death of vasts amounts of sea life
- Disruption of thermohaline ocean currents, disrupting weather everywhere with little time for nature to adapt, leading to mass extinctions
- Areas where we currently grow most food will quickly become impossible to farm
Basically the point is that the "budget" is how much we can pump and still go back and fix.
Don't forget the feedback loops that adds even more carbon, like permafrost thawing and more frequent/extended forest fires. Even if we stop extracting and burning fossil carbon, still new carbon will be keep being added to the carbon cycle, more each year, due to global warming that seem to have the biggest temperature anomalies around the Arctic. And there are others that slow down the cycle of carbon, like carbon sinks becoming less effective or even turn into net emitters.
It is not possible to just push the brakes and expect an immediate result, the extra carbon that is in the atmosphere will continue warming the planet and the actual warming will fuel positive feedback loops that will make things even worse (and they are not limited to just melting ice).
And, of course, things will keep getting far worse as much as we delay doing something significant in this area.
It is not possible to just push the brakes and expect an immediate result, the extra carbon that is in the atmosphere will continue warming the planet and the actual warming will fuel positive feedback loops that will make things even worse (and they are not limited to just melting ice).
And, of course, things will keep getting far worse as much as we delay doing something significant in this area.
Global warming is likely avoidable using geoengineering technology. But, for some reason, many don’t think a technological solution is morally appropriate. For instance, here is a concerted effort trying to permanently ban all scientific research on geoengineering [1].
Sure, no one wants to loft sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, but it won’t cost much [2] and we have plenty of natural experiments demonstrating safety (volcanoes). The critical thing is that it would buy time to transition. It’s not like there isn’t a massive interest in transitioning from fossil fuels. But, will we transition fast enough to prevent irreversible runaway positive feedback loops?
[1] interestingly, the rationale for banning solar geoengineering is not the potential danger of the technology, but the (claimed) inability to govern the process. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
Alternatively, here is a view from the Editor of Science, calling for “Symmetric Precaution.” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm8462
[2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/...
Sure, no one wants to loft sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, but it won’t cost much [2] and we have plenty of natural experiments demonstrating safety (volcanoes). The critical thing is that it would buy time to transition. It’s not like there isn’t a massive interest in transitioning from fossil fuels. But, will we transition fast enough to prevent irreversible runaway positive feedback loops?
[1] interestingly, the rationale for banning solar geoengineering is not the potential danger of the technology, but the (claimed) inability to govern the process. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
Alternatively, here is a view from the Editor of Science, calling for “Symmetric Precaution.” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm8462
[2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/...
I agree. I think we should be discussing geoengineering. Outside of technical feasibility, I believe there are two arguments against doing geoengineering:
- It'll reduce the motivation to transition. You can imagine the current politicians and lobbies against climate change trotting out an argument along the lines of we don't need to transition because we have geoengineering. - The second argument which holds more weight I think is that it creates a time bomb. You need to continue increasing the amount of geoengineering that's happening. I believe the name for this is "termination shock": all the pent up warming happens in a much smaller time scale which could have massive unintended consequences.
"The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar Geoengineering" https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...
- It'll reduce the motivation to transition. You can imagine the current politicians and lobbies against climate change trotting out an argument along the lines of we don't need to transition because we have geoengineering. - The second argument which holds more weight I think is that it creates a time bomb. You need to continue increasing the amount of geoengineering that's happening. I believe the name for this is "termination shock": all the pent up warming happens in a much smaller time scale which could have massive unintended consequences.
"The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar Geoengineering" https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...
Yes there are a lot of ways to reduced emissions. We should also do now the ones that are already available right now (like home insulation).
On the same line though decommissioning nuclear plants in Europe was always a bad move. Italy abandoned nuclear with a referendum 1987 just after Chernobyll and again voted against nuclear in 2011. Italy then buys nuclear energy from France and gas from Russia. This is just putting the head in sand and moving the problems out of sight. Germany is/was about to make the same mistake. Nuclear is a far from perfect solution available now which is beeing replaced for the hope of a much better solution much later on. We are not sure we'll get the much better solutions down the line. We should make all the green(ish) bets we can.
On the same line though decommissioning nuclear plants in Europe was always a bad move. Italy abandoned nuclear with a referendum 1987 just after Chernobyll and again voted against nuclear in 2011. Italy then buys nuclear energy from France and gas from Russia. This is just putting the head in sand and moving the problems out of sight. Germany is/was about to make the same mistake. Nuclear is a far from perfect solution available now which is beeing replaced for the hope of a much better solution much later on. We are not sure we'll get the much better solutions down the line. We should make all the green(ish) bets we can.
too many don't understand this.
The #1 problem with renewable energy is that the transition to a mostly low-carbon grid is supposed to happen at an indeterminate point in the future. That future currently exists only on paper. Even Ireland and the UK - two countries frequently brought up in this context - still supply only around a third of electrical energy via renewables.
Electrifying everything sounds nice until you realise that nowhere on earth has load growth been supplied by renewable energy.
It is truly a crying shame that nuclear has been abandoned in pursuit of unclear future benefits all the while accelerating the climate emergency.
The #1 problem with renewable energy is that the transition to a mostly low-carbon grid is supposed to happen at an indeterminate point in the future. That future currently exists only on paper. Even Ireland and the UK - two countries frequently brought up in this context - still supply only around a third of electrical energy via renewables.
Electrifying everything sounds nice until you realise that nowhere on earth has load growth been supplied by renewable energy.
It is truly a crying shame that nuclear has been abandoned in pursuit of unclear future benefits all the while accelerating the climate emergency.
Is Nuclear available now? In the UK it seems to take decades to build a nuclear power plant
Even if isn't available now, you can start building now. This isn't the gotcha many think it is.
A nuclear plant will provide decades of energy without emitting carbon into the atmosphere. In all that time, build towards a future where the nuclear plant isn't needed. The promise of a wind and solar future is still several decades in the future. Why wait for that when we have a problem right now?
A nuclear plant will provide decades of energy without emitting carbon into the atmosphere. In all that time, build towards a future where the nuclear plant isn't needed. The promise of a wind and solar future is still several decades in the future. Why wait for that when we have a problem right now?
Because building a sufficient number on nuclear reactors will take a comparable amount of time to building a sufficient number of wind turbines, PV panels, and storage, while also posing problems with public acceptance and nuclear proliferation. It's also unclear whether that would be cheaper or more expensive.
When Italians voted against nuclear in the 1987 referendum there were 2 active nuclear plants in Italy. We switched them off and de-commission them.
Switched off reactors and consumed nuclear piles are still a radiation hazard and don't produce anymore energy.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
> Of the hundreds of strategy plans I’ve analysed over the five years I’ve been studying energy, almost every single one ensures three things. First, that global citizens will still buy a lot of energy. Second, that control of energy resources will remain concentrated among a few industry players. Third, that energy-intensive companies and their shareholders will still make huge profits.
And there it is: the big boys are addicted to oil profits and "the spice must flow". Last time I looked (a few years ago) the ten most profitable companies in the world were nine oil companies and Apple.
(As I type this there's a guy outside driving a gas-powered noisy golf-cart thing with a tank and a gas-powered pump spraying plant poison on the lawn. It's a microcosm of what's wrong with us. Poisoning the air, land, and water, polluting sound itself, to maintain a wasteland of useless grass! What's more, you could make a lawn that maintained itself and fed some livestock, and not waste this guy on this stupid destructive job.)
Anyhow... Here's a link to an old "brain dump" comment of mine in re: systems of agriculture. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24827329
There's also a great case to be made for integrated alcohol fuel production on a local ecologically harmonious scale to power ICE vehicles (or hybrids) In many cases it makes way more sense that going directly for full electrification of cars, trucks, and busses, etc. (I know of http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277 but there are others.)
As pointed out in TFA we have all the solutions and technology we really need already. What seems to be missing is the knowledge and will to employ them.
And there it is: the big boys are addicted to oil profits and "the spice must flow". Last time I looked (a few years ago) the ten most profitable companies in the world were nine oil companies and Apple.
(As I type this there's a guy outside driving a gas-powered noisy golf-cart thing with a tank and a gas-powered pump spraying plant poison on the lawn. It's a microcosm of what's wrong with us. Poisoning the air, land, and water, polluting sound itself, to maintain a wasteland of useless grass! What's more, you could make a lawn that maintained itself and fed some livestock, and not waste this guy on this stupid destructive job.)
Anyhow... Here's a link to an old "brain dump" comment of mine in re: systems of agriculture. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24827329
There's also a great case to be made for integrated alcohol fuel production on a local ecologically harmonious scale to power ICE vehicles (or hybrids) In many cases it makes way more sense that going directly for full electrification of cars, trucks, and busses, etc. (I know of http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277 but there are others.)
As pointed out in TFA we have all the solutions and technology we really need already. What seems to be missing is the knowledge and will to employ them.
One avenue which doesn't require a lot of people/companies to participate, is carbon capture. Not only can it reduce the net emission, but it can even reverse the trend. One example is SpaceX which has plans to produce some of its methane fuel for starship by carbon capture using solar.
[deleted]
I think there is a contradiction: on one hand, consumption should be reduced for sustainable production. But I have not heard anything on reducing the work time. I do not think that there can be a consensus that asks to work more for less.
It is not possible for some type of workers, who already work 12 h/day and have no savings.
Something should change in what work is, how production is organized and profit is produced or I do not see how else this contradiction can be resolved.
The work can be organized by reducing work time (workday) to produce all there is necessary for biological living. Say 4 h workday (see productivity growth on why this is possible), no wage cut, at production factors, construction, food, etc. This 4 hour workday will be enough for some good level of living. And everything else can be produced somehow else, not as work. Then it will not be necessary to keep production of some object only for the sake of paying for a house, thus consumption will slightly lower but work day will lower, too.
Something should change in what work is, how production is organized and profit is produced or I do not see how else this contradiction can be resolved.
The work can be organized by reducing work time (workday) to produce all there is necessary for biological living. Say 4 h workday (see productivity growth on why this is possible), no wage cut, at production factors, construction, food, etc. This 4 hour workday will be enough for some good level of living. And everything else can be produced somehow else, not as work. Then it will not be necessary to keep production of some object only for the sake of paying for a house, thus consumption will slightly lower but work day will lower, too.
For a very long time now the basic premise has been to go to the largest connected market that exist and buy from whoever sell energy at the cheapest price. When nations want to encourage more renewables they add subsidies in hope that this will enable some companies to deliver a product onto the market that has a lower sticker price. In some cases they offer to pay the subsidies as a bonus on top of the market price, thus enabling companies to lower the sticker price below that of competitors.
This system works great if you want to optimize for price. Even if a nation want to sell cheap in order to fund an invasion force, the buyer can continue as before and just buy based on the price. Similar for carbon emissions, as the buyer doesn't feel responsible for the subsidies. If there is an offer on the connected market then the buyer can buy it.
This system works great if you want to optimize for price. Even if a nation want to sell cheap in order to fund an invasion force, the buyer can continue as before and just buy based on the price. Similar for carbon emissions, as the buyer doesn't feel responsible for the subsidies. If there is an offer on the connected market then the buyer can buy it.
Whatever people say, the solution is less buying power for everyone. For now, that's the only solution. It's hard to hear, but any economic crisis is beneficial for the environment.
There is no way we can make enough changes in 10 years, so things must go the other way. Jean Marc Jancovici says emissions must be shrink 5% per day. You can't have a thriving economy anymore.
Of course nobody wants to make any effort, because it means selling your car, turning off heating/AC, forgetting that vacation, forgetting that steak, even quitting your job, etc etc.
On one hand, we think people who live in the forest, far from everything, are crazy people. But the reality is that a life of sobriety, economic degrowth, austerity, those are the things that are needed to *save the world*.
We need to accept to eat pasta, rice and vitamins for a long time unless civilization moves away entirely from fossil fuels so that it can properly adapt.
If you refuse to accept that you must reduce your living standard, you are part of the problem, plain and simple. Politicians and companies will do exactly NOTHING if it angers consumers or if consumers keep giving those companies money.
I'm often quite pessimistic about the ability of politicians to change course about co2 emissions. Consumers have too much powers.
There is no way we can make enough changes in 10 years, so things must go the other way. Jean Marc Jancovici says emissions must be shrink 5% per day. You can't have a thriving economy anymore.
Of course nobody wants to make any effort, because it means selling your car, turning off heating/AC, forgetting that vacation, forgetting that steak, even quitting your job, etc etc.
On one hand, we think people who live in the forest, far from everything, are crazy people. But the reality is that a life of sobriety, economic degrowth, austerity, those are the things that are needed to *save the world*.
We need to accept to eat pasta, rice and vitamins for a long time unless civilization moves away entirely from fossil fuels so that it can properly adapt.
If you refuse to accept that you must reduce your living standard, you are part of the problem, plain and simple. Politicians and companies will do exactly NOTHING if it angers consumers or if consumers keep giving those companies money.
I'm often quite pessimistic about the ability of politicians to change course about co2 emissions. Consumers have too much powers.
Yes, I too think that GDP growth goal is not very compatible with sustainable production. But not to the point where you have less kinds of food.
But the main problem I think is: there is no option to work less. Lets say you want to consume less, what will you do with your money, throw away? So I think that the workday should be reduced.
But the main problem I think is: there is no option to work less. Lets say you want to consume less, what will you do with your money, throw away? So I think that the workday should be reduced.
there is also a cool side effect: maybe the world domination game shifts from oil to innovation
Innovation is tricky. In practice it often boils down to the ability to generate hype around bad ideas, as there is no process for reliably exchanging money for (useful) new ideas.
That's all well and good if you want to make money, the market operates on hype, but it's less good if you need to make some particular change quickly.
That's all well and good if you want to make money, the market operates on hype, but it's less good if you need to make some particular change quickly.
Bill McKibben has an idea for fighting climate change and Putin at the same time. Basically, he has a plan to get Europe decarbonized enough by next winter that it doesn't need Russian gas or oil.
Article -- This is how we defeat Putin and other petrostate autocrats https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-i...
Video Interview -- https://youtu.be/rJ9XfdbCddk Bill McKibben: How To Defeat Putin and Climate Change | Amanpour and Company
Article -- This is how we defeat Putin and other petrostate autocrats https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-i...
Video Interview -- https://youtu.be/rJ9XfdbCddk Bill McKibben: How To Defeat Putin and Climate Change | Amanpour and Company
The UK Government is not serious about climate catastrophe as evident by the laws around personal electric micro-mobility, amongst other things.
There are many examples of the UK not being serious in dealing with it, laws around e-scooters on public loand is fairly low down that list though
[deleted]
I'm hoping we get some new green movement soon that is much more pragmatic about how we can actually reduce reliance on hydrocarbons. Nuclear, and more natural gas are the answer, at least transitionally.
Oh, and also I'd like to see green movements taking less Russian money...
"People think Europe depends on Russia for energy because it lacks its own, but 15 years ago Europe exported more natural gas than Russia does today. Now, Russia exports 3x more gas than Europe produces. Why? Because climate activists, partly funded by Russia, blocked fracking." https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993866370667274...
"In 2014, NATO's secretary general revealed Russia was funding climate activists, saying, “Russia... engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations working against shale gas to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas" https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993872777215508...
Oh, and also I'd like to see green movements taking less Russian money...
"People think Europe depends on Russia for energy because it lacks its own, but 15 years ago Europe exported more natural gas than Russia does today. Now, Russia exports 3x more gas than Europe produces. Why? Because climate activists, partly funded by Russia, blocked fracking." https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993866370667274...
"In 2014, NATO's secretary general revealed Russia was funding climate activists, saying, “Russia... engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations working against shale gas to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas" https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993872777215508...
Agree on nuclear, but natural gas isn't necessarily better than coal after accounting for methane leaks. The industry has lobbied hard against any requirements to monitor or mitigate those leaks.
Why does more natural gas have to be part of the answer?
I assume because it’s cheap standby power that can make the whole renewable setup more affordable. Gas turbines don’t need expensive boilers and can ramp up and down quickly.
natural gas is in fact a terrible alternative. It tends to work in places that already have natural gas or ones that can afford it.
A better solution would be to interconnect larger grids and to build new transmission infrastructure. Africa is a good example of this going wrong. Instead of interconnecting the continent, the west is focused on off-grid solutions, things that don't scale well.
A better solution would be to interconnect larger grids and to build new transmission infrastructure. Africa is a good example of this going wrong. Instead of interconnecting the continent, the west is focused on off-grid solutions, things that don't scale well.
If you switch all the wood burning in third world countries, and all the coal fired stations to natural gas, you reduce emissions considerably. You need to do this because third world countries can't afford renewables, or there simply isn't enough supply to roll it out quickly (within 10-20 years). But they burn a lot of wood, which is unnecessary, and can be switched to gas cheaply and easily.
Considering it will still take decades for renewables to be rolled out and cheap enough to replace wood and coal, it makes sense to use gas transitionally.
The fact that this isn't discussed in green movements is insane. It literally would reduce carbon emissions faster. It shows how the green movement is more ideological than pragmatic.
Considering it will still take decades for renewables to be rolled out and cheap enough to replace wood and coal, it makes sense to use gas transitionally.
The fact that this isn't discussed in green movements is insane. It literally would reduce carbon emissions faster. It shows how the green movement is more ideological than pragmatic.
> If you switch all the wood burning in third world countries, and all the coal fired stations to natural gas, you reduce emissions considerably.
Bottom line: the amount of CO₂ emitted by "third world" countries is miniscule and it is only a distraction to point to it.
In 2020 the US alone emitted about as much CO₂ as all of Africa, India, and South America together:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...
(India: 2.44 billion tonnes, Africa: 1.33 billion tonnes, South America: 994.16 million tonnes, total: 4.76 billion tonnes; US: 4.71 billion tonnes).
That's just the US, not counting the rest of North America, Europe, the rest of Asia and China, some of which may count more as "third world" than others, it's up to debate.
Bottom line: the amount of CO₂ emitted by "third world" countries is miniscule and it is only a distraction to point to it.
In 2020 the US alone emitted about as much CO₂ as all of Africa, India, and South America together:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...
(India: 2.44 billion tonnes, Africa: 1.33 billion tonnes, South America: 994.16 million tonnes, total: 4.76 billion tonnes; US: 4.71 billion tonnes).
That's just the US, not counting the rest of North America, Europe, the rest of Asia and China, some of which may count more as "third world" than others, it's up to debate.
Have a read:
https://woodsmokepollution.org/climate.html
I can't find the words "third world" in the link. Can you explain?
I am not sure I agree on the natural gas idea. Methane is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. It can be very efficient at point of combustion vs coal or oil. The problem is the drilling, extraction, and pipeline leaks.
Many developing countries are near the equator and can take advantage of solar. The distributed nature of solar is also a benefit for countries that lack infrastructure. Why not start with a cleaner solution? Countries in Africa and South America can increase their use of hydroelectric power as well.
Many developing countries are near the equator and can take advantage of solar. The distributed nature of solar is also a benefit for countries that lack infrastructure. Why not start with a cleaner solution? Countries in Africa and South America can increase their use of hydroelectric power as well.
> third world countries
I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations.
> can be switched to gas cheaply and easily
I highly doubt that. Gas distribution requires a fine grained pipeline infrastructure which needs constant maintenance. That's a massive upfront cost in developing countries and new economies like India where the domestic market lacks such infrastructure in many places. Not to mention challenges regarding security and geography.
Given the respective individual income level in those countries, it's far cheaper to source energy locally from wood, manure and - above all - coal.
Moreover, the big issue isn't what new economies like India aren't emitting today. But what they are very much willing to emit in the near future in order to raise overall living standards to a level comparable with the West.
At this point, wagging fingers what they should or shouldn't do is a non-sequitur since Western nations carry a historical responsibility for their own industrial pasts.
In the documentary "Before the Flood", this dillemma is being made abundantly clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE
I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations.
> can be switched to gas cheaply and easily
I highly doubt that. Gas distribution requires a fine grained pipeline infrastructure which needs constant maintenance. That's a massive upfront cost in developing countries and new economies like India where the domestic market lacks such infrastructure in many places. Not to mention challenges regarding security and geography.
Given the respective individual income level in those countries, it's far cheaper to source energy locally from wood, manure and - above all - coal.
Moreover, the big issue isn't what new economies like India aren't emitting today. But what they are very much willing to emit in the near future in order to raise overall living standards to a level comparable with the West.
At this point, wagging fingers what they should or shouldn't do is a non-sequitur since Western nations carry a historical responsibility for their own industrial pasts.
In the documentary "Before the Flood", this dillemma is being made abundantly clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE
>I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle emissions in third world countries.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle emissions in third world countries.
I'm pointing out that reality is far more complex and fraught, and that it's naive and, yes, even presumptuous to assume that so-called "third world countries" are simply going to go along with an amorphous "we" group trying to "tackle emissions" just because "we say so".
There's a stark difference between having the facts right, and having enough credibility to be believed by everyone else that you're right.
There's a stark difference between having the facts right, and having enough credibility to be believed by everyone else that you're right.
I mean, fracking shouldn't be allowed.
I live in Arizona, and the electric companies here make it hell for solar owners. I don't understand it.
I live in Arizona, and the electric companies here make it hell for solar owners. I don't understand it.
Barring breakthroughs in the construction and operation of nuclear reactors, nuclear power is not a short term solution. We can't build thousands of nuclear reactors globally and staff them with qualified personnel when constructing a small handful of reactors already takes 15+ years.
I am all in to be a good custodian of the world.
But I am tired of the insipid, agitated state, screaming and pushing fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
When I was a young man, I was told the world will freeze, and within five years we will all die. (Good times for fur trade!)
Then, the ozone layer will be gone, and within five years we will all die. (SPF 5000 anyone?)
Suddenly in the early '80s it flipped to the world is warming, and within five years we will all die.
More recently, it just 'climate change' because the FUD has been so rapidly changed, and within five years we will all die.
No one is denying that the climate changes. What people are tired of and denying is the FUD.
Every single generation thinks all previous generations where idiots; but we, WE know it much better and are smarter then all!
Wait till next generation, and see what they tell about us.
(Edit: Reference to an article with news clippings of the above https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca... ) edit2: let the down voting begin!
But I am tired of the insipid, agitated state, screaming and pushing fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
When I was a young man, I was told the world will freeze, and within five years we will all die. (Good times for fur trade!)
Then, the ozone layer will be gone, and within five years we will all die. (SPF 5000 anyone?)
Suddenly in the early '80s it flipped to the world is warming, and within five years we will all die.
More recently, it just 'climate change' because the FUD has been so rapidly changed, and within five years we will all die.
No one is denying that the climate changes. What people are tired of and denying is the FUD.
Every single generation thinks all previous generations where idiots; but we, WE know it much better and are smarter then all!
Wait till next generation, and see what they tell about us.
(Edit: Reference to an article with news clippings of the above https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca... ) edit2: let the down voting begin!
> When I was a young man, I was told the world will freeze, and within five years we will all die. (Good times for fur trade!)
You should have listened to Tiny Tim then:
https://youtu.be/uAZgTKsdJsc
Because he thought The Ice Caps are Melting
(Oh-ho-ho-ho-ho)
You should have listened to Tiny Tim then:
https://youtu.be/uAZgTKsdJsc
Because he thought The Ice Caps are Melting
(Oh-ho-ho-ho-ho)
Nobody serious said the world was going to freeze. Most papers in the field from the 70s onwards were unambiguous about the risks of warming. There is no FUD except by deniers. Stop with the misinformation, this stuff is too important.
> Nobody serious said the world was going to freeze.
Honestly, if I prove you wrong, will you apologize and retract your libel?
Honestly, if I prove you wrong, will you apologize and retract your libel?
Apologies, my rhetoric got the better of the point, which is unambiguously that the majority of serious people said the world was going to warm. Certainly since the 70s and that was the case and the basic physics was established much earlier.
According to AOC, the earth will end in 6 years (she predicted 10 years remaining 4 years ago). I'm not aware of an update to her estimate.
That number likely came from the 2018 IPCC report which said pretty much this: if something does not happen then by 2030 the there is no realistic pathway to stay belos 2C increase in temperature. World would not end in 2030, but irreversible change would be locked in. Obviously AOC might have been simplifying this or whoever reported on it might have dumbed it down or pushed their own agenda.
It was actually 12 years:
https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-world-going-end-1505170...
The point is, beware making quantified predictions. Climate change is real, but when one makes hyperbolic predictions with a quantified timeframe, and then it doesn't happen, the argument is weakened, and skeptics are reinforced.
Al Gore learned the same lesson.
https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-world-going-end-1505170...
The point is, beware making quantified predictions. Climate change is real, but when one makes hyperbolic predictions with a quantified timeframe, and then it doesn't happen, the argument is weakened, and skeptics are reinforced.
Al Gore learned the same lesson.
[deleted]
Also, there are more bees now than 10 years ago when they were supposed to all be dying and the polar bear population is not decreasing.
Biggest carbon footprint you make is your kids....
> Also, there are more bees now than 10 years ago when they were supposed to all be dying and the polar bear population is not decreasing.
Do you have sources for these 2 claims? Not that I doubt you, necessarily, but I'd love to check the data.
Do you have sources for these 2 claims? Not that I doubt you, necessarily, but I'd love to check the data.
For the bees, this article is pretty (unreadable for my eyes), and the source is also listed
https://www.arenaflowers.com/pages/bees-population-graph/
Their source http://www.fao.org/home/en/
Their source http://www.fao.org/home/en/
And here is a couple for the polar bears.
https://polarbearscience.com/2021/10/31/global-population-si...
https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/
https://polarbearscience.com/2021/10/31/global-population-si...
https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/
Everyone old knows the lies they've been given; the young are still naive and impressionable.
The underlying agenda is a push towards centralised control and ownership of everything. You can't control the world's emissions if you can't control everything everyone does.
The underlying agenda is a push towards centralised control and ownership of everything. You can't control the world's emissions if you can't control everything everyone does.
Griffith is also careful to note that climate solutions are "yes ands", so we should increase efficiencies as much as we can in addition to electrifying as much as we can (and also pursuing ambitious strategies like fusion and CCS). Definitely make a great case of rolling out existing solutions like solar and wind in a big way to bring down carbon emissions really quickly.
[0] - the book focuses only on the US, but results could be similar in countries with similar economies.