Breaching a “carbon threshold” could lead to mass extinction(news.mit.edu)
news.mit.edu
Breaching a “carbon threshold” could lead to mass extinction
http://news.mit.edu/2019/carbon-threshold-mass-extinction-0708
158 comments
I wonder how much longer it will take before humanity will make a stand and change habits.
It is already too late. The extinction already started. Right now it is insects, frogs and fishes that has got to go. Our time , together with the rest of vertebrates, will come in 60-70 years.
This is my feeling too. I feel that even the scientists doing these studies are not considering all of the positive feedback loops. If we could somehow account for everything we’d see that we are already past the point of no return and things are going to change for the worse much faster than anticipated.
Only if forced to do so.
So then, tyranny.
Why is it not tyranny if I go dump a load of toxic waste in your backyard, just because I can because I'm more powerful.
That is a particularly apt analogy for climate change, because as richer countries belch CO2 into a shared resource (the atmosphere), smaller, poorer countries pay the price with the literal destruction of their entire country (see Kiribati).
That is a particularly apt analogy for climate change, because as richer countries belch CO2 into a shared resource (the atmosphere), smaller, poorer countries pay the price with the literal destruction of their entire country (see Kiribati).
while rich countries adopt expensive greener tech and blame the poor countries again
seems about right
seems about right
Not forced by government but by force of nature. There will be disruptions and people will have to to adapt in some way if they like it or not.
Reminds me of the quote: "Procrastination only ensures that circumstance makes your decisions for you."
The tyranny of the ecosystem we live in. Nature doesn't care about us and we'll either adapt to live within the confines of sustainability or we'll pay dearly for our excesses.
My prediction is that we will do the latter first and then maybe do the former.
How about not oligarchs putting their fingers on the scales... Russian, European. American, Chinese?
Isn't that considered more democratic, bit less?
Tyranny might happen, but I'm more unnerved by the realization that it's probably easier (and more effective) to shift emissions by killing people than it is to change minds/politics/behavior.
Where murder (on any scale) is an option, it's almost always the mechanically easiest option. The reason we don't do it (collectively) as often as might be practical is because we have collectively agreed that it's not a nice idea to do so. Given those things, I don't see what exactly unnerves you. Is it the realisation that it is indeed easier because you suspected it would be difficult? Is it unnerving because you are not used to thinking of it as a solution?
> because we have collectively agreed that it's not a nice idea to do so
How many war crimes and genocides have been perpetrated in the shadow of these polite collective agreements? In times of relative plenty and peace? How many governments are currently defying this norm? Over the last 100 years, did more humans personally intervene to stop genocide, say "someone should do something", or look the other way?
> I don't see what exactly unnerves you. Is it the realisation that it is indeed easier because you suspected it would be difficult? Is it unnerving because you are not used to thinking of it as a solution?
I'll admit, I'm a little flabbergasted at this. The context of the sub-thread is the concern that it'll take the force of tyranny to move humanity to "make a stand and change habits." I find it more unnerving (than tyranny) that the kinds of organizational units sufficiently motivated by climate-threats to become emissions-tyrants will find it much easier to kill other people than repress their own.
How many war crimes and genocides have been perpetrated in the shadow of these polite collective agreements? In times of relative plenty and peace? How many governments are currently defying this norm? Over the last 100 years, did more humans personally intervene to stop genocide, say "someone should do something", or look the other way?
> I don't see what exactly unnerves you. Is it the realisation that it is indeed easier because you suspected it would be difficult? Is it unnerving because you are not used to thinking of it as a solution?
I'll admit, I'm a little flabbergasted at this. The context of the sub-thread is the concern that it'll take the force of tyranny to move humanity to "make a stand and change habits." I find it more unnerving (than tyranny) that the kinds of organizational units sufficiently motivated by climate-threats to become emissions-tyrants will find it much easier to kill other people than repress their own.
Yes, sadly. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european...
Let alone the fact that around 40% of the current population is sustained by synthetic fertilizers. The Haber-Bosch process represents 1% of the world's energy consumption.
Let alone the fact that around 40% of the current population is sustained by synthetic fertilizers. The Haber-Bosch process represents 1% of the world's energy consumption.
Yes, I can’t help but feel we’ll get the tyranny because countries will just want to start machine gunning people trying to migrate somewhere safe, and not because of any extreme environmental controls.
Governments punishing people, who try to save the lives of those fleeing from climate meltdown, is the current state of things (in Italy and the US at least).
tyranny is other people
You've seen socialist tyranny, you've seen fascist tyranny, but are you ready for environmentalist tyranny? A coalition of hippies, vegans, and environmental engineers will rise up and take control of the state in order to move society forward on its inevitable march towards an environmentalist future!
The constitution is not a suicide pact.
It surely wasn't intended as a suicide pact, but an interpretation that puts personal liberties on a higher pedestal than survival-grade commons could easily make it one.
I share your position, but it is unfortunate that the word personal is prompt to such semantic abuse nowadays. It is not personal liberty that is being preached, it is property liberty. Liberty bestowed not based on the unchanging measure of human personhood, but upon the measure of property ownership. The richer, the "liberior." A cult of the status quo in traditional service of the powerful, hiding its old age by dispensing the righteous aspiration among underdogs of becoming a great owner. And great property depends on a greatly powerful government (as Adam Smith claims when talking about the tasks of government in Wealth of Nations). Hence it is ultimately tyranny what they preach.
If history is any indicator, forcing people to live according to the whims of Others results in death and destruction. The coercive power required to get people to behave and the inevitable blowback that occurs when people are unable to govern themselves will result in a lot of both.
Not everyone is going to like the environmental jihad that is being suggested, and that’s a big problem.
Not everyone is going to like the environmental jihad that is being suggested, and that’s a big problem.
> Not everyone is going to like the environmental jihad that is being suggested, and that’s a big problem.
The thing about democracy is that not everyone has to like everything - just the majority.
I don't like that I'm going to have to change my lifestyle, in order to prevent appalling environmental damage, but I understand that I will have to.
The "big problem" is the kind of people who describe pragmatic evidence-based policies designed to avoid collapse of civilisation as "an environmental jihad"
The thing about democracy is that not everyone has to like everything - just the majority.
I don't like that I'm going to have to change my lifestyle, in order to prevent appalling environmental damage, but I understand that I will have to.
The "big problem" is the kind of people who describe pragmatic evidence-based policies designed to avoid collapse of civilisation as "an environmental jihad"
The alternative is to do nothing and that will result in death and destruction. If the ability to harm the environment and other people is a freedom people are up in arms about losing, it's a shitty freedom to have in the first place. One person's freedom should not impinge on others'.
Given the choice between the state taking away coal or mass extinction, I'm choosing the former.
Given the choice between the state taking away coal or mass extinction, I'm choosing the former.
Will_Parker(1)
I find it funny that people blame other people for climate change. facts are, most of the pollution comes from industries, and only the powerful CEO s and country leaders have the power to stop the incoming disaster, while everyone else is powerless.
Changing the economy is too slow. Need to engineer the planet at this point. It's and end user hack, but what are the other options?
I agree. We've been engineering the atmosphere for hundreds of years by burning fossil fuels. We have to continue engineering it by blocking heat energy or radiating it away from the planet somehow. We'll still have to then sequester the carbon we'll continue to emit in various niche industries, and sequester the massive amount of historical emissions.
I was thinking with the cheapened cost of space flight in the next couple of decades, couldn't we lift a huge solar reflector sail in between our planet's poles and the sun? Just block 1% of the heat energy or so, would that be possible?
I was thinking with the cheapened cost of space flight in the next couple of decades, couldn't we lift a huge solar reflector sail in between our planet's poles and the sun? Just block 1% of the heat energy or so, would that be possible?
Shading 1% of the area of Earth would mean an 'umbrella' of the size of roughly 1.5 million square kilometers.
A mylar foil at 10g/m² would weigh 12 million metric tons. With SpaceX' Starship's proposed >100t to low earth orbit, that would mean over 100,000 launches. That's difficult.
There are small scale tests being performed to spray chemicals into the atmosphere that would reflect heat. I hope it works and they can verify there won't be any negative consequences.
I get laughed at when I say this, but I'd dump billions into DARPA for researching this. Since its DARPA, you can call it defense spending to appease the elephants. I'd charge them with finding a way to "scoop" the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Somehow splitting it into carbon and oxygen. I envision thousands of solar powered flyers destroying CO2 some day.
I get laughed at when I say this, but I'd dump billions into DARPA for researching this. Since its DARPA, you can call it defense spending to appease the elephants. I'd charge them with finding a way to "scoop" the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Somehow splitting it into carbon and oxygen. I envision thousands of solar powered flyers destroying CO2 some day.
All is not lost, yet. It is not said that we have yet passed this "critical threshold". We are seeing rapid adoption of renewable energy now, and new leadership in the United States might bring about an even more rapid shift to renewable energy. I just ask that people VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE (just once, but definitively).
It'll make a big difference if the USA has a Democratic president, but the Senate will still be GOP most likely, and the supreme court is majority conservative AKA GOP, and unlikely to help. Therefore, we need massive pushes on the innovation/cost front, we need blue states to pull us forward (thank you NY, CA, and MA), and we need a lot of individual effort towards greening our transport, homes, diet, etc.
When meritocrats and technocrats fail to seize power, extinction ensues.
We are extinguishing the prospect of the only intelligent life we know of in the universe by not caring for the environment, although one could argue that only a small fraction are sufficiently intelligent.
The oligarchs of the world have more than enough money to fix all the climate issues, but since they derive their wealth from exploiting the climate, there is no hope for a fix from them.
We are extinguishing the prospect of the only intelligent life we know of in the universe by not caring for the environment, although one could argue that only a small fraction are sufficiently intelligent.
The oligarchs of the world have more than enough money to fix all the climate issues, but since they derive their wealth from exploiting the climate, there is no hope for a fix from them.
"...only intelligent life...
Not sure we deserve that.
Got to remember that huge, huge numbers of the population fully expect there to be some sort of Armageddon. That the earth might be on a run-away path to destruction is a good thing to them, as it brings them closer to their rapture.
Not sure we deserve that.
Got to remember that huge, huge numbers of the population fully expect there to be some sort of Armageddon. That the earth might be on a run-away path to destruction is a good thing to them, as it brings them closer to their rapture.
sure, but if their community internalizes a "coming Armageddon" and then also go about the daily efforts of life too, then how does that compare to those that "discover" a coming Armageddon and come unglued, rejecting many daily efforts of life and instead flipping out into dysfunctional behaviors (both on self and others). Maybe internalizing a shared story of "coming Armageddon" is some kind of a pressure release and that community overall adapts better through extreme circumstances over time. possible ?
> When meritocrats and technocrats fail to seize power, extinction ensues.
That's not the problem. The problem is that the meritocrats and the technocrats have failed to grasp the real problem. The real problem is that at the end of the day the dynamics of living systems are determined by Darwinian evolution, and Darwinian evolution has no foresight. It optimizes for solutions that reproduce well (relative to competitors) in the short term. So, for example, genes that build brains that have an instinctive revulsion against things like abortion and birth control will reproduce better than genes that build brains that think it's perfectly OK to choose not to have kids. As a result, the world becomes populated by the former sort of brain, along with all of the ancillary effects that building such brains has, such as having a resistance to certain kinds of objective facts, like the long-term consequences of overpopulation.
The fact of the matter is that there is only one environmental problem here on earth, and that is an overabundance of humans. But saying that is taboo, even here on HN. I try to make this point here on occasion and every single time I do I am downvoted into oblivion, not because I'm wrong, but because the world is full of brains with an instinctive revulsion towards the idea that there are, or even could be, too many of us, because the genes that build that kind of brain reproduce better than the genes that build brains that think it's perfectly OK, even necessary, to have fewer people.
This is a very hard problem to solve. It's not at all clear that it even has a solution. It could even be the answer to Fermi's paradox. I hope not, but it's starting to look like a real possibility.
That's not the problem. The problem is that the meritocrats and the technocrats have failed to grasp the real problem. The real problem is that at the end of the day the dynamics of living systems are determined by Darwinian evolution, and Darwinian evolution has no foresight. It optimizes for solutions that reproduce well (relative to competitors) in the short term. So, for example, genes that build brains that have an instinctive revulsion against things like abortion and birth control will reproduce better than genes that build brains that think it's perfectly OK to choose not to have kids. As a result, the world becomes populated by the former sort of brain, along with all of the ancillary effects that building such brains has, such as having a resistance to certain kinds of objective facts, like the long-term consequences of overpopulation.
The fact of the matter is that there is only one environmental problem here on earth, and that is an overabundance of humans. But saying that is taboo, even here on HN. I try to make this point here on occasion and every single time I do I am downvoted into oblivion, not because I'm wrong, but because the world is full of brains with an instinctive revulsion towards the idea that there are, or even could be, too many of us, because the genes that build that kind of brain reproduce better than the genes that build brains that think it's perfectly OK, even necessary, to have fewer people.
This is a very hard problem to solve. It's not at all clear that it even has a solution. It could even be the answer to Fermi's paradox. I hope not, but it's starting to look like a real possibility.
I agree with you. In re: Fermi's paradox, I have a speculation:
All exponential growth curves in the real world are S-shaped, they always level-off. An intelligent species can choose when and how this leveling-off occurs for themselves, but not whether. I think that since we have not yet made this choice, we are not yet considered intelligent by the citizens of the galaxy, and so the Fermi Paradox: we are in quarantine.
- - - -
Unrelated, there is a school of applied ecology called Permaculture. Toby Hemenway (RIP) has a talk he gave about how we might transition to a steady-state civilization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b7zJ-hx_c I haven't watched this one yet, but it's 'the sequel to Toby's popular talk, "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and The Planet, but not Civilization."', which I have watched and found very inspiring.
All exponential growth curves in the real world are S-shaped, they always level-off. An intelligent species can choose when and how this leveling-off occurs for themselves, but not whether. I think that since we have not yet made this choice, we are not yet considered intelligent by the citizens of the galaxy, and so the Fermi Paradox: we are in quarantine.
- - - -
Unrelated, there is a school of applied ecology called Permaculture. Toby Hemenway (RIP) has a talk he gave about how we might transition to a steady-state civilization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b7zJ-hx_c I haven't watched this one yet, but it's 'the sequel to Toby's popular talk, "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and The Planet, but not Civilization."', which I have watched and found very inspiring.
Upvoted and agree with most of what you wrote.
But nitpicking:
> It optimizes for solutions that reproduce well (relative to competitors) in the short term.
That's only true up to a point. Natural selection works on ecosystems too, and ecosystems that are highly unstable and prone to self-destruct (which we might expect is highly correlated with short-term optimization) will eventually be selected out. So, sustainability is literally the only thing that can win in the end, if it can survive the instability of short-term optimizations.
But nitpicking:
> It optimizes for solutions that reproduce well (relative to competitors) in the short term.
That's only true up to a point. Natural selection works on ecosystems too, and ecosystems that are highly unstable and prone to self-destruct (which we might expect is highly correlated with short-term optimization) will eventually be selected out. So, sustainability is literally the only thing that can win in the end, if it can survive the instability of short-term optimizations.
Appreciate the upvote, but...
> Natural selection works on ecosystems too
No, it doesn't. Ecosystems don't reproduce. Natural selection works on genes (and memes). See Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene."
> Natural selection works on ecosystems too
No, it doesn't. Ecosystems don't reproduce. Natural selection works on genes (and memes). See Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene."
Ecosystems do reproduce, both internally and externally. Internally they are a system which is made of many interlocking webs of reproducing organisms, and externally they naturally grow and spread. They don't reproduce through distinct generations but they are constantly rejuvenating themselves. They spread and "copy" themselves into new niches by their constituent organisms doing so. With that context my comment probably makes more sense.
Nope. But some references might help.
Here's a good start: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692970/
One of the key points:
(iii) ecosystem diversity and productivity increases over macroevolutionary time as a whole, and after each major extinction event.
That implies that major extinction events do in fact affect ecosystems profoundly, and the ones that emerge successfully have more productivity and diversity.
One of the key points:
(iii) ecosystem diversity and productivity increases over macroevolutionary time as a whole, and after each major extinction event.
That implies that major extinction events do in fact affect ecosystems profoundly, and the ones that emerge successfully have more productivity and diversity.
That reference does not support your claim that "ecosystems reproduce" at all. In fact, the paper says the exact opposite: organisms reproduce. Ecosystems do not.
Not even your cherry-picked quote supports your claim. "Ecosystem diversity and productivity increases" is not even remotely the same thing as "ecosystems reproduce."
Not even your cherry-picked quote supports your claim. "Ecosystem diversity and productivity increases" is not even remotely the same thing as "ecosystems reproduce."
The nature and tone of your replies really doesn't make this all that productive. I could go on to explain, but three nopes in a row is my limit.
The solution is probably to have the state or child-raising corporations pay people to have children instead of the current model where 1-2 parents raise a child.
Not having children at all and intentionally extinguishing humans is also a possibly optimal, albeit more radical, solution.
Not having children at all and intentionally extinguishing humans is also a possibly optimal, albeit more radical, solution.
Since the demographic transition started (first in France, after the French revolution) humans have been selected for resistance to anti-natalist ideas. Literally only people with some resistance to them perpetuate their genes!
Empirical proof can be seen in the ever-increasing proportion of large families.
Natural selection is hard at work picking the exact opposite of what anti-natalists want.
Empirical proof can be seen in the ever-increasing proportion of large families.
Natural selection is hard at work picking the exact opposite of what anti-natalists want.
Yes, obviously, hence the idea to make childbirth something that is done because the person is paid by the state or a corporation, so that the genes that are spread are not related to the willingness to raise a child.
[deleted]
Fortunately, mammal populations are cyclical
[deleted]
[deleted]
The premise of your brain evolution argument is flawed because you’re assuming nature absolutely wins over nurture in psychological development, which is what I assume you mean by “brain” here. I doubt there’s a particular physical brain configuration that gives rise to pro-life thoughts, although neither of us have proof.
> you’re assuming nature absolutely wins over nurture in psychological development
No, I'm not. I'm only assuming that in matters of instinctive revulsion, nature puts her thumb heavily on the scales.
No, I'm not. I'm only assuming that in matters of instinctive revulsion, nature puts her thumb heavily on the scales.
It's not as simple as having a "anti-abortion gene" or not, but there are some really interesting studies about this:
> A 2005 twin study examined the attitudes regarding 28 different political issues such as capitalism, unions, X-rated movies, abortion, school prayer, divorce, property taxes, and the draft. [...] Genetic factors accounted for 53% of the variance of an overall score.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientat... - linking to Wikipedia because it has some links)
> A 2005 twin study examined the attitudes regarding 28 different political issues such as capitalism, unions, X-rated movies, abortion, school prayer, divorce, property taxes, and the draft. [...] Genetic factors accounted for 53% of the variance of an overall score.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientat... - linking to Wikipedia because it has some links)
> But saying that is taboo
Still depends in which circles, but I have an impression it's getting better. Might be the bubble effect though, unsure, but before a couple of years I didn't hear it as much and there definitely weren't small local organizations dedicated to saying it and pushing it on the political agenda. On the other hand, it might be a problem which solves itself (higher lifestyle, less children) but I'm not to sure when or if that is really going to happen.
Still depends in which circles, but I have an impression it's getting better. Might be the bubble effect though, unsure, but before a couple of years I didn't hear it as much and there definitely weren't small local organizations dedicated to saying it and pushing it on the political agenda. On the other hand, it might be a problem which solves itself (higher lifestyle, less children) but I'm not to sure when or if that is really going to happen.
> it might be a problem which solves itself
Yes, that's possible. Economic prosperity does reduce birth rates, and that gives me hope. But it's a race between that and the carbon emissions that will happen on our current trajectory towards that prosperity. Right now it looks to me like the carbon is going to win.
Yes, that's possible. Economic prosperity does reduce birth rates, and that gives me hope. But it's a race between that and the carbon emissions that will happen on our current trajectory towards that prosperity. Right now it looks to me like the carbon is going to win.
I don't know if carbon will win or not. Right now, carbon is in a race with renewable energy sources (wind, solar, + storage), and their costs are plummeting while fossil gets more and more expensive. We're already at the tipping point where it's cheaper to build out wind/solar than to build fossil power plants, and it's much cheaper to fuel a car with electricity than gasoline over its lifetime.
The population thing is already on a trajectory toward leveling. The main cause of population growth now isn't birth rate, but rather increased lifespans of those born two or three generations ago. If we convert to a renewable energy base before population levels off, we win.
The population thing is already on a trajectory toward leveling. The main cause of population growth now isn't birth rate, but rather increased lifespans of those born two or three generations ago. If we convert to a renewable energy base before population levels off, we win.
Various governments are still heavily subsidizing fossil fuels, and so it's an unfair game. How can renewables win in this scenario...
They won't keep doing it. The advantages of renewables are too strong.
The thing about politicians that can be bought, is that someone else can buy them, too. If they're not ideologically committed to the cause, if it's just political, then they'll turn on the cause in the name of either ideological goals or simple practicality.
There's a hard limit to how much harm a politician is willing to do to their own country in order to placate special interests with nothing to offer but money.
The thing about politicians that can be bought, is that someone else can buy them, too. If they're not ideologically committed to the cause, if it's just political, then they'll turn on the cause in the name of either ideological goals or simple practicality.
There's a hard limit to how much harm a politician is willing to do to their own country in order to placate special interests with nothing to offer but money.
Lobbying and voting for pro-renewable politicians (or at least those that are neutral).
Humans are not separate from the environment, we are the environment. It doesn't matter if a super volcano erupts and changes climate, or if humans do it through resource consumption. As far as the universe is concerned, it's all just the system reacting with itself over time.
"Problem" is a human concept. Your logic is circular. To solve the problem we must eliminate humans yet with no humans there is no one to define the state of the system as a "problem".
You're attributing human like judgement to an ecosystem that would theoretically exist post-humans.
If you're saying that some humans deserve to exist yet others do not, then yeah I think people will rightfully react negatively against that.
"Problem" is a human concept. Your logic is circular. To solve the problem we must eliminate humans yet with no humans there is no one to define the state of the system as a "problem".
You're attributing human like judgement to an ecosystem that would theoretically exist post-humans.
If you're saying that some humans deserve to exist yet others do not, then yeah I think people will rightfully react negatively against that.
> The fact of the matter is that there is only one environmental problem here on earth, and that is an overabundance of humans.
How does your argument deal with the fact as nations becomes more developed, birthrates plummet? If it were not for immigration, populations would already have started declining in the western world. And even with it included, almost all rich countries are facing an aging population.
Yet despite that, the richest countries produce far more greenhouse gases, not just per capita but often on an absolute scale, than countries with tremendously higher population and fertility. E.g., Canada produces more than 2x more CO2 than Nigeria despite being 5x less populous.
Fewer humans != more pollution. Even in rich countries, a single wealthy businessman with a private plane, or luxury cruise ship, pollutes far more than an average worker with a petrol-powered car.
I can certainly envisage a scenario where with increased automation and lack of environmental consciousness, you could somehow reduce the population of Earth tenfold, yet keep on polluting the same. Why bother with efficient engines when petrol is cheap? Would you rather have a million people each with an automated personal helicopter, a pleasure barge and a gas-guzzling SUV, or ten million people using public transport and bicycles?
That's not going into the details how you would go about reducing the human population. You even made the argument yourself, those who refuse to go along with the anti-nativity plan would eventually outbreed those who do. So unless you want to carry out global campaigns of forced mass sterilization, the best solution is still focusing on making our current technology more environmentally friendly.
How does your argument deal with the fact as nations becomes more developed, birthrates plummet? If it were not for immigration, populations would already have started declining in the western world. And even with it included, almost all rich countries are facing an aging population.
Yet despite that, the richest countries produce far more greenhouse gases, not just per capita but often on an absolute scale, than countries with tremendously higher population and fertility. E.g., Canada produces more than 2x more CO2 than Nigeria despite being 5x less populous.
Fewer humans != more pollution. Even in rich countries, a single wealthy businessman with a private plane, or luxury cruise ship, pollutes far more than an average worker with a petrol-powered car.
I can certainly envisage a scenario where with increased automation and lack of environmental consciousness, you could somehow reduce the population of Earth tenfold, yet keep on polluting the same. Why bother with efficient engines when petrol is cheap? Would you rather have a million people each with an automated personal helicopter, a pleasure barge and a gas-guzzling SUV, or ten million people using public transport and bicycles?
That's not going into the details how you would go about reducing the human population. You even made the argument yourself, those who refuse to go along with the anti-nativity plan would eventually outbreed those who do. So unless you want to carry out global campaigns of forced mass sterilization, the best solution is still focusing on making our current technology more environmentally friendly.
Apologies, but I am not sure about what you're trying to say. Yes, pollution is not evenly distributed across countries and populations, but that does not mean that the original idea is wrong.
The truth is that overpopulation is a huge issue, but it is politically incorrect to bring this up. Given that our economy is really a Ponzi scheme, nobody wants to touch this topic. Everybody talks about declining fertility rates like a huge catastrophe, when in fact, that's some really good news.
The truth is that overpopulation is a huge issue, but it is politically incorrect to bring this up. Given that our economy is really a Ponzi scheme, nobody wants to touch this topic. Everybody talks about declining fertility rates like a huge catastrophe, when in fact, that's some really good news.
And how do you plan on solving overpopulation? Rich countries already have birthrates below replacement threshold. Do you think that reducing them in India, Nigeria and other developing countries is the most effective and feasible way of combating CO2 emissions?
I think not. While the number of humans certainly contributes to the total amount of pollution, it is not, in my opinion, the "only environmental problem".
I think not. While the number of humans certainly contributes to the total amount of pollution, it is not, in my opinion, the "only environmental problem".
Apologies for being blunt, but you are heavily strawmanning. I don't think anyone said that it is "the only environmental problem" anywhere in this thread, and especially not me.
I did not say it is the only environmental problem, but I am saying it is among the big ones. It is completely illogical to say that it is not. If you agree with the fact that consumption leads to pollution, then you agree with my premise whether you like it or not, it's simply a logical conclusion.
> Do you think that reducing them in India, Nigeria and other developing countries is the most effective and feasible way of combating CO2 emissions?
Again, kind of strawmanning here. I never said it is the most efficient way to tackle it, but we need to realise that if our population keeps going up, the problem will become more and more exacerbated.
I did not say it is the only environmental problem, but I am saying it is among the big ones. It is completely illogical to say that it is not. If you agree with the fact that consumption leads to pollution, then you agree with my premise whether you like it or not, it's simply a logical conclusion.
> Do you think that reducing them in India, Nigeria and other developing countries is the most effective and feasible way of combating CO2 emissions?
Again, kind of strawmanning here. I never said it is the most efficient way to tackle it, but we need to realise that if our population keeps going up, the problem will become more and more exacerbated.
> The truth is that overpopulation is a huge issue, but it is politically incorrect to bring this up.
It's really not an issue. Negative externalities associated with the environment is a huge issue, and population decline will become a big issue in about 80 years.
It's really not an issue. Negative externalities associated with the environment is a huge issue, and population decline will become a big issue in about 80 years.
> It's really not an issue.
Really? As an extreme example, are you saying that if our planet only had only 1 million people, we'd have the exact same problem? This holds for 1 billion or 3 billion instead of the almost 8 billion we're going to get to soon.
Population decline will become an issue _economically_. Environmentally, it's great.
Really? As an extreme example, are you saying that if our planet only had only 1 million people, we'd have the exact same problem? This holds for 1 billion or 3 billion instead of the almost 8 billion we're going to get to soon.
Population decline will become an issue _economically_. Environmentally, it's great.
> As an extreme example, are you saying that if our planet only had only 1 million people, we'd have the exact same problem?
Our planet could in principle support hundreds of billions as long as you're not married to the idea of preserving biodiversity.
Our planet could in principle support hundreds of billions as long as you're not married to the idea of preserving biodiversity.
If you separate this conversation from reality and strip any sort of relevant context, then yes, population and pollution are orthogonal concerns. What you're saying is "if human existence didn't cause externalities, then a growing population would no be an environmental problem". Preserving biodiversity is not desirable just to stroke our egos, it is actually vital for our world to continue.
If we actually talk about the real world, without unrealistic hypotheticals, and without circular arguments, then you can't possibly be right. Every extra human born pollutes and has an environmental impact. We are very far away from bringing that to zero and, unless we do, population growth is an environmental problem.
If we actually talk about the real world, without unrealistic hypotheticals, and without circular arguments, then you can't possibly be right. Every extra human born pollutes and has an environmental impact. We are very far away from bringing that to zero and, unless we do, population growth is an environmental problem.
> If you separate this conversation from reality and strip any sort of relevant context, then yes, population and pollution are orthogonal concerns. What you're saying is "if human existence didn't cause externalities, then a growing population would no be an environmental problem".
Not exactly. I'm saying that problems are always caused when negative externalities are not accounted for, therefore the problem of not accounting for negative externalities is literally to account for negative externalities.
The population size is a complete red herring to this basic fact. The fact that a low population entails that we can ignore certain externalities is completely uninteresting.
> Every extra human born pollutes and has an environmental impact. We are very far away from bringing that to zero and, unless we do, population growth is an environmental problem.
It will never be zero. So what? Population growth for affluent nations is already negative. Growth rate falls as a nation enjoys better health care and more opportunities, which is why global population will start falling in about 80 years. Population growth clearly has a form of autoregulation.
What's not autoregulating are negative externalities of common goods, by definition. That's why population growth is not a problem and negative externalities are.
Not exactly. I'm saying that problems are always caused when negative externalities are not accounted for, therefore the problem of not accounting for negative externalities is literally to account for negative externalities.
The population size is a complete red herring to this basic fact. The fact that a low population entails that we can ignore certain externalities is completely uninteresting.
> Every extra human born pollutes and has an environmental impact. We are very far away from bringing that to zero and, unless we do, population growth is an environmental problem.
It will never be zero. So what? Population growth for affluent nations is already negative. Growth rate falls as a nation enjoys better health care and more opportunities, which is why global population will start falling in about 80 years. Population growth clearly has a form of autoregulation.
What's not autoregulating are negative externalities of common goods, by definition. That's why population growth is not a problem and negative externalities are.
Sustainability is not just about CO2 emissions. Countries that have low per-capita greenhouse emission or pollution have their own ecological problems caused by e.g. deforestation, depletion of fishing grounds, depletion of water sources, extinction of species that are vital for food production, air/land/water pollution by garbage, toxic waste, plastics. Ever went to a less-developed south-asian country? Low per-capita CO2 emissions, but I wouldn't say a hallmark of sustainability, especially not in the densely populated areas.
I would say reducing per-capita CO2 emissions is probably one of the easier problems to solve, especially considering the already huge differences between developed countries. But that alone is not going to save the planet, not by a long shot.
I would say reducing per-capita CO2 emissions is probably one of the easier problems to solve, especially considering the already huge differences between developed countries. But that alone is not going to save the planet, not by a long shot.
> How does your argument deal with the fact as nations becomes more developed, birthrates plummet?
There was an HN article recently that this (unfortunately) may be relatively short lived. Birthrates plummet particularly as women have better education and better access to contraception. However, as birthrates plummet, that also means there is new selective pressure that favors the genetics of people who want to have large families or are in some other way averse to birth control. That selective pressure didn't exist until the past 50 years or so.
There was an HN article recently that this (unfortunately) may be relatively short lived. Birthrates plummet particularly as women have better education and better access to contraception. However, as birthrates plummet, that also means there is new selective pressure that favors the genetics of people who want to have large families or are in some other way averse to birth control. That selective pressure didn't exist until the past 50 years or so.
That point was raised earlier in a different branch of the discussion. My response is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403067
> The fact of the matter is that there is only one environmental problem here on earth, and that is an overabundance of humans. But saying that is taboo, even here on HN.
Because it is wrong, or rather: Only correct if you say humans cannot change. The core problem is resource usage. Now, fewer people use fewer resources. So far, you are correct. But what also uses fewer resources is a different lifestyle. People in the west, and especially in the USA, use far more resources in their life than people living in other parts of the world. So, we only have an "overabundance of humans" if we don't change that. And that is more a matter of society than evolution.
Because it is wrong, or rather: Only correct if you say humans cannot change. The core problem is resource usage. Now, fewer people use fewer resources. So far, you are correct. But what also uses fewer resources is a different lifestyle. People in the west, and especially in the USA, use far more resources in their life than people living in other parts of the world. So, we only have an "overabundance of humans" if we don't change that. And that is more a matter of society than evolution.
> The core problem is resource usage
No, it isn't. The core problem is exponential growth. The population today is double what it was just 50 years ago, so you could cut resource usage in half and all that would accomplish is taking us back to the problem as it stood in 1970 or so.
It's true that this is a social issue, but even there the problem is very difficult. The entire world economy is built on the premise of eternal exponential growth in something with economic value. That is fundamentally unsustainable. At some point we will have to transition to at leasy polynomial growth, if not an actual steady-state solution. No one is even talking about that AFAICT.
No, it isn't. The core problem is exponential growth. The population today is double what it was just 50 years ago, so you could cut resource usage in half and all that would accomplish is taking us back to the problem as it stood in 1970 or so.
It's true that this is a social issue, but even there the problem is very difficult. The entire world economy is built on the premise of eternal exponential growth in something with economic value. That is fundamentally unsustainable. At some point we will have to transition to at leasy polynomial growth, if not an actual steady-state solution. No one is even talking about that AFAICT.
Just to emphasize what lisper is saying, the core problem is exponential growth, even if we invent FTL spaceships, even if we invent warp drive, the core problem is still exponential growth.
We could turn the Galaxy green† and still not have enough room. We could fill it with Ringworlds, with Dyson Spheres, and still not have enough room.
The core problem is exponential growth.
† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Coloni...
We could turn the Galaxy green† and still not have enough room. We could fill it with Ringworlds, with Dyson Spheres, and still not have enough room.
The core problem is exponential growth.
† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Coloni...
Even with a population as low as a few million, humans could rapidly destroy the climate. Or 10B humans could live sustainably for a long time. The pain involved in the latter is fairly small.
> 10B humans could live sustainably for a long time. The pain involved in the latter is fairly small.
That is far from clear. But whether or not this particular data point is defensible, it misses the larger point. (And you are not alone in this. This missing-of-the-point is my point.)
There are really two separate problems here, a short-term one and a long-term one. And by "short term" I mean like the next 100 years or so.
The short term problem is that our rate of carbon emissions control the third or fourth derivative of the economic impacts of climate change. We could drop our carbon emissions to zero tomorrow and still not avoid many of the negative impacts of climate change because we're still at >400PPM and will be for a very long time no matter what we do in the coming years.
The long term problem is that our entire global economic system is predicated on the assumption of eternal exponential growth in something, and that is not sustainable in the long run under any circumstances. At some point we're going to have to transition to at least polynomial growth, more likely an actual steady-state. AFAICT no one is even thinking about that.
That is far from clear. But whether or not this particular data point is defensible, it misses the larger point. (And you are not alone in this. This missing-of-the-point is my point.)
There are really two separate problems here, a short-term one and a long-term one. And by "short term" I mean like the next 100 years or so.
The short term problem is that our rate of carbon emissions control the third or fourth derivative of the economic impacts of climate change. We could drop our carbon emissions to zero tomorrow and still not avoid many of the negative impacts of climate change because we're still at >400PPM and will be for a very long time no matter what we do in the coming years.
The long term problem is that our entire global economic system is predicated on the assumption of eternal exponential growth in something, and that is not sustainable in the long run under any circumstances. At some point we're going to have to transition to at least polynomial growth, more likely an actual steady-state. AFAICT no one is even thinking about that.
When you say "the pain involved in the latter is fairly small" are you speaking from personal experience?
To be fair, this started pretty much with the either first stone axe or the first field of wheat. "Sapiens" by Yuval Harari is a great read. Where we are now, just about to go over the edge, is perhaps inevitable; it is actually the direct result of technology, as it has always been employed for greater environmental exploitation and leads to population increase. Growth.
> only a small fraction are sufficiently intelligent
Eugenics for the win...
Eugenics for the win...
But capitalism is meritocracy, so the capitalist oligarchy are meritocrats (and, likewise, capitalism is an empirical testing ground for functionality of ideas, so they are also technocrats, moreso than their ivory-tower challengers)...at least, that's what the proponents of capitalism have always said.
(When you get down to it, almost everyone is a meritocrat, and almost everyone has a self-serving definition of “merit”.)
(When you get down to it, almost everyone is a meritocrat, and almost everyone has a self-serving definition of “merit”.)
>But capitalism is meritocracy.
That breaks down when you have inherited wealth.
That breaks down when you have inherited wealth.
It breaks down, IMO, for any non-circular definition of merit any time you have unequal distribution of wealth, even if the unequal distribution itself is due to prior merit. Inheritance is a dramatic example, but not the whole problem.
There's a reason I said “...at least, that's what the proponents of capitalism have always said.” I'm not actually endorsing the viewpoint as correct.
There's a reason I said “...at least, that's what the proponents of capitalism have always said.” I'm not actually endorsing the viewpoint as correct.
>When meritocrats and technocrats fail to seize power, extinction ensues.
Well, if you want to implement that, you'd have to abandon democracy and follow the Chinese model of a one-party state. You cannot force people to vote for scientists, rather than demagogues. Technocrats would have to be appointed rather than elected.
Well, if you want to implement that, you'd have to abandon democracy and follow the Chinese model of a one-party state. You cannot force people to vote for scientists, rather than demagogues. Technocrats would have to be appointed rather than elected.
We're not extinguishing the only intelligent life in the universe, because I don't think this is nearly enough to extinguish humanity. It will be sad and miserable for us, but we'll survive it.
I firmly believe the last human will eat the last cockroach.
I firmly believe the last human will eat the last cockroach.
Cockroaches are small. Note that most of the animal species that survive mass extinction are small.
Also, ocean warming can trigger anoxic events which release hydrogen sulfide which can suffocate entire coastlines and also attack the ozone layer affecting life everywhere. The worst case feedback loops are nightmarish.
And it would also be nice to avoid the not-even-worst case where civilization is reduced to some isolated enclaves clinging on with their bare lives.
Also, ocean warming can trigger anoxic events which release hydrogen sulfide which can suffocate entire coastlines and also attack the ozone layer affecting life everywhere. The worst case feedback loops are nightmarish.
And it would also be nice to avoid the not-even-worst case where civilization is reduced to some isolated enclaves clinging on with their bare lives.
>The oligarchs of the world have more than enough money to fix all the climate issues, but since they derive their wealth from exploiting the climate, there is no hope for a fix from them.
No they don’t. Money isn’t something you can turn into zero carbon infrastructure at the snap of a finger.
We have a very large global population and carbon keeps it alive, and materially satisfied. Shut it off too fast, and people get dead and grumpy. Shut it off too slow, and our civilization collapses.
We’re all part of the system, and the system is the problem. I think the best thing oligarchs could do is buy politicians to change the system to incentivize replacing carbon in a way that doesn’t make people dead or grumpy. Grumpy people vote out politicians with long term views for those who offer short term solutions.
No they don’t. Money isn’t something you can turn into zero carbon infrastructure at the snap of a finger.
We have a very large global population and carbon keeps it alive, and materially satisfied. Shut it off too fast, and people get dead and grumpy. Shut it off too slow, and our civilization collapses.
We’re all part of the system, and the system is the problem. I think the best thing oligarchs could do is buy politicians to change the system to incentivize replacing carbon in a way that doesn’t make people dead or grumpy. Grumpy people vote out politicians with long term views for those who offer short term solutions.
Did you forget just how easily the oligarchs provided hundreds of millions in funding for the Notre Dame when it caught fire this year? It doesn't deserve that funding, but climate change does. The oligarchs splurge like there is no tomorrow.
....hundreds of millions doesn't solve climate change.
Mostly oligarchs invest their money in companies. So, they own shares. They could sell the shares to someone, and then they have money.
So, suppose you had a net worth of $10 billion in shares. You now have the same in liquid wealth.
How do you stop climate change? You seem to think it is easy to do with money, pieces of paper and ones and zeros in a bank account.
What do they buy, off the shelf, that solves the problem, easy as that?
You could perhaps buy rights in an oil field and then refuse to mine it. That would help.
You could fund research into solar cells or invest into the market. Though investing money isn't what makes a venture successful: customers actually have to buy the resulting product.
So how do you use your $10 billion to make people stop buying carbon? You seem to think it would be very, very easy. So tell us what practical step they could take, on their own without popular support. Simply by being an oligarch.
Mostly oligarchs invest their money in companies. So, they own shares. They could sell the shares to someone, and then they have money.
So, suppose you had a net worth of $10 billion in shares. You now have the same in liquid wealth.
How do you stop climate change? You seem to think it is easy to do with money, pieces of paper and ones and zeros in a bank account.
What do they buy, off the shelf, that solves the problem, easy as that?
You could perhaps buy rights in an oil field and then refuse to mine it. That would help.
You could fund research into solar cells or invest into the market. Though investing money isn't what makes a venture successful: customers actually have to buy the resulting product.
So how do you use your $10 billion to make people stop buying carbon? You seem to think it would be very, very easy. So tell us what practical step they could take, on their own without popular support. Simply by being an oligarch.
Spend a ton of money lobbying for alternate power (nuclear plants, renewables). Push legislation that cuts down on carbon footprints (e.g., better networks for remote work, encourage building mixes that reduce commuting).
Ten billion isn't that much money compared to the problem, but you can do some smart things with it.
Ten billion isn't that much money compared to the problem, but you can do some smart things with it.
That + basic research would be my goto. It would definitely be helpful, I agree.
I just wanted to show OP that the scale of the problem isn't something oligarchs can "easily" solve.
I just wanted to show OP that the scale of the problem isn't something oligarchs can "easily" solve.
For one, sponsor lobbyists for renewables and invest in renewable energy plants. Do this especially where this competition from fossil fuel plants, with a clear intent to attempt to shut them down due to lack of business. Most customers will buy cheaper energy from renewables.
Eyeballing this IEA report, globally there's about $600 billion per year spent on renewables, battery storage, and nuclear: https://www.iea.org/wei2018/
And let me assure you they have lobbyists.
Meanwhile, you have $10 billion to spend, once. It isn't an annual flow of money.
More renewable investment is helpful! But I fail to see how oligarchs could solve the problem as simply as you suggest simply by investing in renewables and lobbying.
And let me assure you they have lobbyists.
Meanwhile, you have $10 billion to spend, once. It isn't an annual flow of money.
More renewable investment is helpful! But I fail to see how oligarchs could solve the problem as simply as you suggest simply by investing in renewables and lobbying.
And yet Notre Dame isn’t repaired/rebuilt yet. If all it needed were money then it would have been done the day after.
It wasnt more than a few generations ago that many of the best-and-brightest were all-in with eugenics.
What extremes would todays generation consider to fix the problem?
What extremes would todays generation consider to fix the problem?
>When meritocrats and technocrats fail to seize power, extinction ensues.
I'm curious to see how your sample size for that statement is anything other than 0.
>The oligarchs of the world have more than enough money to fix all the climate issues, but since they derive their wealth from exploiting the climate, there is no hope for a fix from them.
There's a huge disconnect here. The wealthy of the world do not have massive piles of cash sitting around with which they can use to change all of society to value the environment. The majority of their wealth is in assets...companies, properties, relationships etc. The value exists in those assets because of a huge underlying social structure that supports that value. You allude to it when you say "since they derive their wealth from X." That wealth is mobilized only through structures that permeate and are supported by most of human society.
It's easy to point our fingers at wealthy people and blame them for not fixing the world, but the reality is that they are merely figureheads for the global trends of our collective decisions. You want the top of a pyramid to touch another point in the sky, because it is clearly the tallest and has reach, but you want it to do so without moving the entire supporting pyramid base. It's not going to happen. The change has to be grass roots, only then will the wealth of the world represent different collective decisions.
The only alternative to grass roots change is authoritarianism...by forcing society to change through state sponsored violence. But at least here in America, you will find that that will not work out so well for you.
I'm curious to see how your sample size for that statement is anything other than 0.
>The oligarchs of the world have more than enough money to fix all the climate issues, but since they derive their wealth from exploiting the climate, there is no hope for a fix from them.
There's a huge disconnect here. The wealthy of the world do not have massive piles of cash sitting around with which they can use to change all of society to value the environment. The majority of their wealth is in assets...companies, properties, relationships etc. The value exists in those assets because of a huge underlying social structure that supports that value. You allude to it when you say "since they derive their wealth from X." That wealth is mobilized only through structures that permeate and are supported by most of human society.
It's easy to point our fingers at wealthy people and blame them for not fixing the world, but the reality is that they are merely figureheads for the global trends of our collective decisions. You want the top of a pyramid to touch another point in the sky, because it is clearly the tallest and has reach, but you want it to do so without moving the entire supporting pyramid base. It's not going to happen. The change has to be grass roots, only then will the wealth of the world represent different collective decisions.
The only alternative to grass roots change is authoritarianism...by forcing society to change through state sponsored violence. But at least here in America, you will find that that will not work out so well for you.
The single best thing as an individual you can do for yourself[1] and the planet[2][3] is adopt a vegan diet. we could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 24% simply by abstaining from meat and dairy products.
[Edit]Other key insights from J.Poole's study addressing climate change thru food[1]
>Eating vegetable products - even the highest emitting products, will still have a better impact on the environment than selecting only low emitting meat products
>Food responsible for 31% of global GHG
>High impact beef producing 5000% more emissions than low impact beef
>Agriculture sits at heart of all environmental problems
>Population size highly correlated with global c02
1. https://www.drcarney.com/blog/health-issues/diet-linked-to-h...
2. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b0b53649-5e93-4415-bf07-6b...
[Edit]Other key insights from J.Poole's study addressing climate change thru food[1]
>Eating vegetable products - even the highest emitting products, will still have a better impact on the environment than selecting only low emitting meat products
>Food responsible for 31% of global GHG
>High impact beef producing 5000% more emissions than low impact beef
>Agriculture sits at heart of all environmental problems
>Population size highly correlated with global c02
1. https://www.drcarney.com/blog/health-issues/diet-linked-to-h...
2. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b0b53649-5e93-4415-bf07-6b...
I find this attitude not only wrong, but misleading and in the end doing more harm than good. individuals having the illusion of any kind of control of the incoming global warming, deflects the real issues which can only be resolved with real pressure on decision makers. if the average person thinks it's enough that he recycles and eats only vegetables, he's never going to pressure his government to solve the issue before it's too late.
How is that possible when animal agriculture only accounts for ~3% of greenhouse emissions? Even if you take into account the entire agriculture sector it's only 9%.
Let's not use this as a grandstand for pushing political agendas. There are much larger contributors that can be addressed. It just dilutes the entire climate change message by pushing a vegan agenda.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Let's not use this as a grandstand for pushing political agendas. There are much larger contributors that can be addressed. It just dilutes the entire climate change message by pushing a vegan agenda.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
It's pretty simple actually. Think of energy as a closed loop system down here on earth. Now imagine the amount of energy it takes to: Grow the feed to feed the animals, butcher and transport the meat/dairy in refrigerated vehicles, store/prepare/cook the meat, etc. The impact is much greater than the "cow farts" that are released into the atmosphere, despite methane actually being a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (which I'm not sure if they account for in the report).
The energy, of course, has to come from somewhere. Typically it comes from coal or gasoline.
The energy, of course, has to come from somewhere. Typically it comes from coal or gasoline.
> Now imagine the amount of energy it takes to: Grow the feed to feed the animals
Animals are fed from crops, which sequester carbon from the air. Carbon atoms make up about 15-20% of most animal's mass. A 1000 lb cow would have sequestered 200 lbs of carbon out of the atmosphere. Some of which will be re released when eaten, but not it's not as simple as just saying "look how much energy goes into feeding a cow". Because most of that energy comes from crops - cows don't eat gasoline.
> butcher and transport the meat/dairy in refrigerated vehicles, store/prepare/cook the meat, etc.
All of which had to be done for plant products as well.
In reality is that going vegan isn't going to have a significant impact on the environment. About 10% of the US's carbon emissions are from any kind of agriculture, and animal products are a fraction of that 10%.
Animals are fed from crops, which sequester carbon from the air. Carbon atoms make up about 15-20% of most animal's mass. A 1000 lb cow would have sequestered 200 lbs of carbon out of the atmosphere. Some of which will be re released when eaten, but not it's not as simple as just saying "look how much energy goes into feeding a cow". Because most of that energy comes from crops - cows don't eat gasoline.
> butcher and transport the meat/dairy in refrigerated vehicles, store/prepare/cook the meat, etc.
All of which had to be done for plant products as well.
In reality is that going vegan isn't going to have a significant impact on the environment. About 10% of the US's carbon emissions are from any kind of agriculture, and animal products are a fraction of that 10%.
Livestock accounts for 77% of all agricultural land space and takes up about 30% of the world's habitable land. That us a HUGE proportion of land. If we removed meat from our diets that would free up space for carbon sinks (reforestation)[1] if everyone switched to a plant based diet. Additionally, urban vertical farming methods such as those used by aerofarms[2] have by far the lowest environmental impact, lowest water use, lowest land use, pesticide free.
1.https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/Land-use-graphics...
2. Https://aerofarms.com
1.https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/Land-use-graphics...
2. Https://aerofarms.com
> Livestock accounts for 77% of all agricultural land space and takes up about 30% of the world's habitable land. That us a HUGE proportion of land
You omitted the fact that livestock is often raised in land unsuitable for cultivation. Not all pasture can be converted to farms. Most pasture is in grasslands. Closing these pastures would not free up land for reforestation. Taking up habitable land is also not surprising. Everyone needs to eat, so it makes sense to put farms close to population centers. Doing otherwise would result in higher transportation costs (and more carbon emissions). Living space also isn't a constraint in most developed countries. Their populations are shrinking and urbanizing. Why are you so intent on finding problems for veganism or vegetarianism to solve?
Vertical farming is promising, but it requires energy. It's tough to compete against traditional farming where energy is free from the sun. Using solar power is obviously not efficient - crops outdoors are already solar powered. Maybe feasible with more nuclear power, but that's not popular these days.
You omitted the fact that livestock is often raised in land unsuitable for cultivation. Not all pasture can be converted to farms. Most pasture is in grasslands. Closing these pastures would not free up land for reforestation. Taking up habitable land is also not surprising. Everyone needs to eat, so it makes sense to put farms close to population centers. Doing otherwise would result in higher transportation costs (and more carbon emissions). Living space also isn't a constraint in most developed countries. Their populations are shrinking and urbanizing. Why are you so intent on finding problems for veganism or vegetarianism to solve?
Vertical farming is promising, but it requires energy. It's tough to compete against traditional farming where energy is free from the sun. Using solar power is obviously not efficient - crops outdoors are already solar powered. Maybe feasible with more nuclear power, but that's not popular these days.
>Animals are fed from crops, which sequester carbon from the air.
Most animals are fed from industrially grown crops. Those crops require tons of oil to grow and contribute to deforestation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-ani...
Most animals are fed from industrially grown crops. Those crops require tons of oil to grow and contribute to deforestation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-ani...
Obviously corn is a huge one because the government subsidizes it so heavily.
But another popular food source for animals is beet pulp pellets. Now these are pure waste by products of sugar production. So even if you don't feed animals it's not going to reduce the impact of this.
But another popular food source for animals is beet pulp pellets. Now these are pure waste by products of sugar production. So even if you don't feed animals it's not going to reduce the impact of this.
Research suggests strongly that this armchair analysis is wrong [1].
I personally don't advocate for completely eliminating meat from our diets, but it's pretty naive to outright deny the environmental impact (including greenhouse gas emission) of meat production.
[1] Tons of original research here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
I personally don't advocate for completely eliminating meat from our diets, but it's pretty naive to outright deny the environmental impact (including greenhouse gas emission) of meat production.
[1] Tons of original research here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
> Research suggests strongly that this armchair analysis is wrong [1].
Perhaps, but not the article you linked to. Your link doesn't deviate from the 3% of total GHG emissions figure. Actually it provides the lower figure of 2.6%. The Wikipedia article claims this figure is criticized, but doesn't provide any alternative ones.
Perhaps, but not the article you linked to. Your link doesn't deviate from the 3% of total GHG emissions figure. Actually it provides the lower figure of 2.6%. The Wikipedia article claims this figure is criticized, but doesn't provide any alternative ones.
3% is still significant and such estimates vary. Some estimate it at 15%.
Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions aren't end all be all. Animal agriculture fucks up the environment. It's a source of drug-resistant diseases.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal...
Unless you have certain medical issue, the cost of not eating meat is just a minor inconvenience.
Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions aren't end all be all. Animal agriculture fucks up the environment. It's a source of drug-resistant diseases.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal...
Unless you have certain medical issue, the cost of not eating meat is just a minor inconvenience.
The cost of not eating meat is also a large quality of life impact in that now you can't eat a substantial portion of dishes. Let alone going vegan as the original commenter proposed. You may see this as "just a minor inconvenience", much of the world disagrees.
I would argue quality of life should increase by not eating meat. Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease are all highly correlated with meat consumption.[1]
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
Quality of life is not the as quantity of life. Not everyone sees their bodies machines that need to be optimized, they'd rather eat tasty food.
I agree that going 100% vegan is "a large quality of life impact". I don't agree that going vegetarian is.
>much of the world disagrees
Much of the world didn't ever try it.
>much of the world disagrees
Much of the world didn't ever try it.
This study you cite only accounts for U.S. emissions. I'm citing GLOBAL emissions.
I challenge you to commit to a vegan diet for 3 weeks and let me know how your body feels. Personally, I'm much more energized and more productive than when I was 4 weeks ago eating meat everyday. I breathe easier, my sleep has improved, I dont feel bloated. And to top it off I'm reducing my carbon footprint.
This is completely departing from the original claim that going vegan is "the single best thing an individual can do" for the planet.
Your comment has nothing to do with any of the arguments nightski brought up.
24% sounds really high when I think of the global economy built on oil, gas, coal, plastics, rubber, etc.
framing climate change as something that can be feasibly solved by individual consumer behaviors is basically a psyop by the corporations that are actually responsible for climate change.
being vegan is cool, and i support anyone who does it, but calling it the "single best thing" is not honest IMO.
being vegan is cool, and i support anyone who does it, but calling it the "single best thing" is not honest IMO.
Depends on the individual. How often do they fly, for instance?
If you fly from the US to Austrailia just once a year you erase all of your progress, but not every single individual flies that distance...
Most people don't, but a lot of people make multiple shorter flights each year. Not to mention that it's far less effort to change a single action than a lifestyle.
No, the single best thing you can do for yourself at this point is move away from water, learn basic farming skills, and teach your kids and grand kids how to survive the next, turbulent, 100 years.
The single most impactful to thing an individual can do is to work towards the development of large-scale policies that address climate change on a systemic level.
On a basic level, that starts with voting for people who have the competence and political cachet to implement such policies.
On a basic level, that starts with voting for people who have the competence and political cachet to implement such policies.
Real question: why isn’t some billionaire using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into doing something? If it can work for Russia to put Trump into the Whitehouse, can it not work in support of carbon reduction?
> why isn’t some billionaire using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into doing something?
Maybe there is selection bias, where only borderline (at least) psychopaths seeking individual profit and power become billionaires.
Also, I think the steel-man of the conservative position isn't that AGW doesn't exist (it clearly does), but that economic damage from over-reaction is actually a bigger threat and cost than adaptation will be. They just focus on fuzzing over the science since that is much easier to sell than what they really believe, which I think is actually more like "We just don't care much about animals, and what we're doing is about comparable to effect to what our species did when we invented the automobile and air travel and paved the earth. This is progress, deal with it."
Maybe there is selection bias, where only borderline (at least) psychopaths seeking individual profit and power become billionaires.
Also, I think the steel-man of the conservative position isn't that AGW doesn't exist (it clearly does), but that economic damage from over-reaction is actually a bigger threat and cost than adaptation will be. They just focus on fuzzing over the science since that is much easier to sell than what they really believe, which I think is actually more like "We just don't care much about animals, and what we're doing is about comparable to effect to what our species did when we invented the automobile and air travel and paved the earth. This is progress, deal with it."
They are. They are using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into believing the climate change isn't an issue or isn't anything to do with human activity, or is impossible to solve or is part of a big conspiracy to increase government control. See the comment by brighter2morrow in this discussion.
Maybe a lack of a recognition? You can slap your name on the side of a hospital, museum, or college library with a big enough check and everybody will know you spent some money to do it. Save the earth and the bunch of ungrateful plebes that get to continue living will never believe it, they'll think the problem never existed in the first place.
I think many people believe that carbon reduction isn’t a serious solution.
Or a rogue terraforming project like seeding the ocean with iron or deploying reflective particulates into the atmosphere.
Perhaps, because anyone capable of launching a project like this is also aware of the terminal stupidity of doing so. Proposing geoengineering when we can't even predict weather for 7 days into future in a reliable way despite having monitoring stations everywhere is akin to hitting a computer with a hammer to fix a software bug. Unfortunately we are affecting a system we do not understand. The only rational choice is to stop affecting it, not desperately try to swing it the other way with no understanding of how it works.
The biggest danger of the climate change is that some nation or company gets a bright idea how to fix it and then seriously fucks the climate up. If you think few degrees too warm is bad, consider how bad having a mile thick ice cap all over Europe and North America would be if we manage to swing the system the other way.
The biggest danger of the climate change is that some nation or company gets a bright idea how to fix it and then seriously fucks the climate up. If you think few degrees too warm is bad, consider how bad having a mile thick ice cap all over Europe and North America would be if we manage to swing the system the other way.
It is very hard to become a billionaire without exploiting the environment in some significant way. So you'd have to become a billionaire, understand why the actions that got you there were immoral, and then be willing to risk your entire fortune if your plan succeeds (or waste it if it fails).
Because none of them care to - or more specifically because it would work squarely against their interests. These people got rich in the current system, and fixing the climate at this point would require massive economic shifts, generally at the expense of all the industries these billionaires are deeply invested in.
Is that really true? Only a few billionaires have most of their assets in the fossil fuel industry.
[deleted]
If I became a billionaire I would mine, crush and spread olivine rocks in the ocean:
http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli...
Weathering is exactly how the earth brought itself back into equilibrium over millions of years after the mass extinction events. We just have to advance that process dramatically, and specifically target beaches and critical places in the ocean where ocean acidification would devastate ecosystems.
Edit: Also this is an affordable plan. It costs about $12 per metric ton of carbon removed compared to other carbon sequestration technologies which usually cost $100+/ton.
http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli...
Weathering is exactly how the earth brought itself back into equilibrium over millions of years after the mass extinction events. We just have to advance that process dramatically, and specifically target beaches and critical places in the ocean where ocean acidification would devastate ecosystems.
Edit: Also this is an affordable plan. It costs about $12 per metric ton of carbon removed compared to other carbon sequestration technologies which usually cost $100+/ton.
Don't need a billionaire, just need a kickstarter or indiegogo to make that happen.
Luckily someone else is already doing that and I've already donated to it:
https://projectvesta.org/
If we want to offset a huge chunk of human emissions we still need billionaire or government backing.
If we want to offset a huge chunk of human emissions we still need billionaire or government backing.
Olivine weathering seems very hopeful! Some links:
Same folks as Vesta, I think: https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change...
Some general information: https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-...
Another research group, I think: https://olivoa.eu/
Same folks as Vesta, I think: https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change...
Some general information: https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-...
Another research group, I think: https://olivoa.eu/
I think the population is less manipulable than people think. On the case of Trump, we’re talking about 2-3% swings, if that much. The man is genuinely popular with a large part of America.
To change opinion on climate you’re talking 30-705 swings. Even those who believe in it don’t take it that seriously for the most part. Support for a meaningful level of carbon taxation is quite low.
I think it’s beyond the level of billionaires to sway. They could buy politicians, who are easier to influence. But politicians can’t move far ahead of the people.
Yes, I’m aware the petroleum industry and Fox News have a very effective disinformation campaign. But that’s moving in a short term direction people are already inclined to support.
Look at Japan and Germany, two countries largely uninfluenced by American media propaganda and renowned for sensible planning: they’re both tearing down nuclear plants and increasing their carbon emissions.
The world population at large doesn’t take climate change seriously, and it’s damned hard to swing public opinion as much as we would need.
To change opinion on climate you’re talking 30-705 swings. Even those who believe in it don’t take it that seriously for the most part. Support for a meaningful level of carbon taxation is quite low.
I think it’s beyond the level of billionaires to sway. They could buy politicians, who are easier to influence. But politicians can’t move far ahead of the people.
Yes, I’m aware the petroleum industry and Fox News have a very effective disinformation campaign. But that’s moving in a short term direction people are already inclined to support.
Look at Japan and Germany, two countries largely uninfluenced by American media propaganda and renowned for sensible planning: they’re both tearing down nuclear plants and increasing their carbon emissions.
The world population at large doesn’t take climate change seriously, and it’s damned hard to swing public opinion as much as we would need.
Japan is not tearing down any nuclear plants, we are building more. Nobody wants to increase carbon emissions here, it’s just that we have growing demand that cannot be met without importing. A huge chunk of energy in Japan is imported but we are slowly adding renewables and more nuclear. It’s silly to think that a country WANTS to depend on imports for a majority of its energy needs. The energy department has a forecast to 2030 somewhere out there (a pdf) and the goal is to reduce imports while putting more into renewables.
You're right, I was somewhat incorrect. Japan temporarily shutdown its reactors after fukushima, with plans to reactivate. However, according to wikipedia only 5 out of ~50 are reactivated now.
This may be outdated. The article also mentioned some 80% of the japanese population is opposed to nuclear.
There are obviously valid concerns, but....my point is the public fears one and takes little heed of CO2.
This may be outdated. The article also mentioned some 80% of the japanese population is opposed to nuclear.
There are obviously valid concerns, but....my point is the public fears one and takes little heed of CO2.
Yeah, it's 150ppm. Anything less than that and we're definitely heading towards mass extinction, as proven by history. Anything on the upper bound is theoretical and based on shaky models, whereas the lower bound is proven based on historical examples.
Edit: Bring on the downvotes, but it won't change the science.
Edit: Bring on the downvotes, but it won't change the science.
Rothman looked through these geologic records and observed that over the last 540 million years, the ocean’s store of carbon changed abruptly, then recovered, dozens of times in a fashion similar to the abrupt nature of a neuron spike. This “excitation” of the carbon cycle occurred most dramatically near the time of four of the five great mass extinctions in Earth’s history.
I'm not an expert but the term "near" in geological times is not so "near" in life span times, I think the article is not so objective...
However, that we're creating a problem is obvious.