Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth(resilience.org)
resilience.org
Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-04-24/shell-admits-1-5c-climate-goal-means-immediate-end-to-fossil-fuel-growth/
355 comments
If we can't reach 1.5°C then we should try to reach 1.6°C. If we can't reach that then 1.7°C. Ultimately: It doesn't matter whether we can reach 1.5°C, because everything we try helps making things better.
And any carbon sequestation technology will only help significantly after drastic emission cuts, not as a replacement for it.: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x
And any carbon sequestation technology will only help significantly after drastic emission cuts, not as a replacement for it.: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x
Goals should be realistic.
Aiming for 1.5C, then missing it and then continuously failing on 1.6C, 1.7C, 1.8C etc. is akin to a fat person missing their goal of 200lbs, and then telling themselves in front of the mirror every extra 10lb - "I'm going to stop eating junk food today! No, really, this is the day!"
It's a cognitive failure to adequately process signals that the real physical world is sending to you. Or measurements that you take from the real world.
We _should_ be making things better, yes. But setting an arbitrary goal isn't helpful.
You know what would be helpful? Just giving ever person who's considering a solar project a much larger tax break than currently exists. Expand community solar programs for medium-size installations up to 2MW. Subsidize energy storage installations to complement that installed solar.
Anyone who's advocating for targeting an ambitious goal is missing the point completely. If that was helpful, why not just say we're targeting 0C?
In fact, let's target -1C and shoot extra energy into space. We might even discover some cool tech this way.
Aiming for 1.5C, then missing it and then continuously failing on 1.6C, 1.7C, 1.8C etc. is akin to a fat person missing their goal of 200lbs, and then telling themselves in front of the mirror every extra 10lb - "I'm going to stop eating junk food today! No, really, this is the day!"
It's a cognitive failure to adequately process signals that the real physical world is sending to you. Or measurements that you take from the real world.
We _should_ be making things better, yes. But setting an arbitrary goal isn't helpful.
You know what would be helpful? Just giving ever person who's considering a solar project a much larger tax break than currently exists. Expand community solar programs for medium-size installations up to 2MW. Subsidize energy storage installations to complement that installed solar.
Anyone who's advocating for targeting an ambitious goal is missing the point completely. If that was helpful, why not just say we're targeting 0C?
In fact, let's target -1C and shoot extra energy into space. We might even discover some cool tech this way.
Well, the goals were realistic, and only became unrealistic, because action was lacking... and is still lacking.
People are being told technology will solve the problem, you can do x only if the alternative has at least the same advantages and no more disadvantages and you can't do y, because 'freedom'. (oh and did I forget 'communism'?)
1,5 degrees aren't an arbitrary goal either, at least to climate scientists: four tipping points are triggered at about that temperature. https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/16164772483740467...
People are being told technology will solve the problem, you can do x only if the alternative has at least the same advantages and no more disadvantages and you can't do y, because 'freedom'. (oh and did I forget 'communism'?)
1,5 degrees aren't an arbitrary goal either, at least to climate scientists: four tipping points are triggered at about that temperature. https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/16164772483740467...
The problem with a "relaxed" or "realistic" goal is that it will make us lazy. If we set a goal of 1.5C which we probably won't meet then at least we are able to tell people what would happen when we reach that goal. Maybe then when someone adds 0.5C to the new target would take things more seriously.
I find this a sad dilemma. We want to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, but we are more worried about crashing the economy.
I find this a sad dilemma. We want to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, but we are more worried about crashing the economy.
If we crash the economy then we will lose the surplus capacity to address climate change, and people will keep burning fossil fuels just to survive. Concerns about a 1.5 °C (or whatever number) goal several decades in the future are meaningless if you don't have a way to get to work and your home is freezing cold today.
> If we crash the economy
You're assuming that a drastic response to stop climate change will crash the economy more than climate change itself will, which is a highly dubious proposition given that many countries (e.g. Denmark) are case studies that show the feasibility and relative ease of the transition (relative to climate change itself).
You're assuming that a drastic response to stop climate change will crash the economy more than climate change itself will, which is a highly dubious proposition given that many countries (e.g. Denmark) are case studies that show the feasibility and relative ease of the transition (relative to climate change itself).
Denmark hasn't done much significant about climate change. Like many other wealthy countries their efforts have been more about symbolism and political virtue signaling without addressing the core issues or making any drastic changes. Much of their food, energy, and other products is still produced using fossil fuels in foreign countries and then imported.
To be clear, I think that every country should do more and something is better than nothing. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the minor changes made by Denmark are sufficient, or that they could even be replicated in most other countries. Our physical stuff still has to be made somewhere.
To be clear, I think that every country should do more and something is better than nothing. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the minor changes made by Denmark are sufficient, or that they could even be replicated in most other countries. Our physical stuff still has to be made somewhere.
Well I agree with some of what you said, Denmark hasn't done nearly enough, but they have done quite a bit, and they aren't any closer to an economic crash after that than they were before it. This leads me to doubt the claim that addressing climate change will cause a crash, let alone a crash as bad as what would be expected if the IPCC assessments come to pass.
It's quite a stretch to pick Denmark with excellent geographic conditions, great economy and surrounded by similar wealthy countries to point out that if they can do it, then surely everybody else can too without significant consequences.
I mean, we could stop CO2 emissions "tomorrow" if we really wanted to. We just need massive investments in tons of infrastructure, stop building with concrete, convince people not to travel, etc. Which - now as I type this - sounds like COVID lockdown to me which we still haven't recovered from fully. Even minor shifts in trends have cascading effects in the economy, so I'm not surprised at all, that things are going so slowly.
I mean, we could stop CO2 emissions "tomorrow" if we really wanted to. We just need massive investments in tons of infrastructure, stop building with concrete, convince people not to travel, etc. Which - now as I type this - sounds like COVID lockdown to me which we still haven't recovered from fully. Even minor shifts in trends have cascading effects in the economy, so I'm not surprised at all, that things are going so slowly.
The alternative is a higher number, and then continuously not doing anything by pushing it into the future, eventually blowing past it anyway
If you make the speed limit for cars 55mph people will still got a bit faster, 60mph, 65mph. But almost no one would be driving 85mph. But if you say "nah people drive 65mph anyway, let's be realistic and make the the speed limit" they will go 75mph and more.
So if you want to not reach much more than 1.5°C, let's say 2°C or 2.5°C, you need to be realistic and set a lower goal. We will always be above any goal.
So if you want to not reach much more than 1.5°C, let's say 2°C or 2.5°C, you need to be realistic and set a lower goal. We will always be above any goal.
Really, the goal needs to be to minimize it to whatever we can attain.
There's some really bad redline some place past 1.5C.
Putting the goal possibly to the right of that redline (and possibly blowing past it anyways) is not good.
1.5C is a decent benchmark because it lets us measure various scales of intervention against it.
There's some really bad redline some place past 1.5C.
Putting the goal possibly to the right of that redline (and possibly blowing past it anyways) is not good.
1.5C is a decent benchmark because it lets us measure various scales of intervention against it.
How about we aim for an achievable goal instead. What’s the point of setting ourselves up for failure?
That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.
That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.
I think most of us would be fine with an "achievable goal" but that's not really what you asked for or proposed in your first comment and most of the people who say something like "I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore" aren't offering new goals as much as they are throwing up their hands and essentially saying "oh well, what are you going to do". I'm not saying you think that way but that's the people who suggest giving up say the same things.
Too many people are just "hoping for a miracle" as if that's doing something. Or they think "technology will fix this before it gets too bad". It might, but it will be in spite of those people, not because of. If we want technology to save us we have to make investments today, not "when it gets bad".
Too many people are just "hoping for a miracle" as if that's doing something. Or they think "technology will fix this before it gets too bad". It might, but it will be in spite of those people, not because of. If we want technology to save us we have to make investments today, not "when it gets bad".
An achievable goal is exactly what I’m asking for. That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.
If you only just fail on a more ambitious goal that’s better than succeeding on a less ambitious one
There's nothing unachievable about 1.5C
It would require sacrifices and global cooperation, but any real solution to climate change will require that
It would require sacrifices and global cooperation, but any real solution to climate change will require that
It is though. The Co2 we emit today will only have a greenhouse effect in 20 years.
The average climate we have today is the result of the Co2 we put in the atmosphere in 2003.
The average climate we have today is the result of the Co2 we put in the atmosphere in 2003.
Indeed, this inertia has been missing in the media coverage recently where it was mentioned very often a few years ago. I wonder why.
>There's nothing unachievable about 1.5C
>It would require sacrifices and global cooperation
Is IS unachievable. You just said right here exactly why it's unachievable: "global cooperation" is pure fantasy.
Is IS unachievable. You just said right here exactly why it's unachievable: "global cooperation" is pure fantasy.
There is 50% chance that in the next five years we will experience a year where the global average temperature is greater than 1.5° C. We are already in 1.2° C and the El Niño index is negative. There is high probability that 2024 will be the hottest year on record (probably getting really close to 1.5° C).
Global carbon emissions are still rising. Climate policies are not being rolled out, new fossil fuel projects are still being approved and built.
I think that even if we stop emitting all CO2 right now (which is not going to happen), we are still looking at 1.5° C. I think it is time to admit that we have failed. And climate doom is upon us all. We are all going to die.
Global carbon emissions are still rising. Climate policies are not being rolled out, new fossil fuel projects are still being approved and built.
I think that even if we stop emitting all CO2 right now (which is not going to happen), we are still looking at 1.5° C. I think it is time to admit that we have failed. And climate doom is upon us all. We are all going to die.
I agree we will hit the 1.5 degrees for sure. There's a lot of inertia in climate change anyway. Even if we stop tomorrow it will still continue to rise for years.
But I don't agree we're all going to die. It's not a human extinction type problem. There will still be habitable places and some places will become more habitable (the Russians even had a crazy plan in the 60s to dam the Bering strait and melt the Arctic with nukes to make Siberia more habitable.... :X )
The problem is mostly that a ton of people now live in the areas that will become much less habitable and the resulting mass-migrations will lead to extreme societal disruption and possibly wars. And the areas that will become more habitable have no infrastructure. This is why it's going to be more expensive to deal with the problem later than to prevent it.
I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live.
In fact climate change is normal in the scope of earth. The situation we are in now has become this way also due to change from the ice age that was before. The bigger problem is that we made this a phenomenon on the scale of decades where it was previously millennia. So society and nature can't adapt quickly enough.
But I don't agree we're all going to die. It's not a human extinction type problem. There will still be habitable places and some places will become more habitable (the Russians even had a crazy plan in the 60s to dam the Bering strait and melt the Arctic with nukes to make Siberia more habitable.... :X )
The problem is mostly that a ton of people now live in the areas that will become much less habitable and the resulting mass-migrations will lead to extreme societal disruption and possibly wars. And the areas that will become more habitable have no infrastructure. This is why it's going to be more expensive to deal with the problem later than to prevent it.
I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live.
In fact climate change is normal in the scope of earth. The situation we are in now has become this way also due to change from the ice age that was before. The bigger problem is that we made this a phenomenon on the scale of decades where it was previously millennia. So society and nature can't adapt quickly enough.
> But I don't agree we're all going to die. It's not a human extinction type problem. There will still be habitable places and some places will become more habitable (the Russians even had a crazy plan in the 60s to dam the Bering strait and melt the Arctic with nukes to make Siberia more habitable.... :X )
It is a "human extinction type problem" (and likely most if not all life on Earth) … not necessarily directly killed by the climate itself, but by the way that stressed out stupid "people in power" react to the stresses brought on by that changing climate. We have entirely too many literally insane people in positions of power commanding weaponry that could conceivably wipe out all of humanity (and much if not all of the other life on this planet), and we're doing very little to rein them in or control them. Feels like a very real danger to me.
It is a "human extinction type problem" (and likely most if not all life on Earth) … not necessarily directly killed by the climate itself, but by the way that stressed out stupid "people in power" react to the stresses brought on by that changing climate. We have entirely too many literally insane people in positions of power commanding weaponry that could conceivably wipe out all of humanity (and much if not all of the other life on this planet), and we're doing very little to rein them in or control them. Feels like a very real danger to me.
I agree that climate change will bring about human suffering far beyond anything most people envision. But I am mostly confident that extinction is not in the cards. Nukes could only erase a few thousand square miles, not enough to kill a majority of humans much less all of them. Starvation and collapse would kill many more, but still far from extinction.
If you mean novel bioweapons then I can see that being a problem.
If you mean novel bioweapons then I can see that being a problem.
For the record, when I stated: “We are all going to die!” I meant it as a hyperbole. I actually don’t believe a literal total extinction of the human species is a likely scenario (even in a +4° horror scenario; even with a nuclear holocaust on top of it). “We are all going to die” is more of a you and me are personally very likely to die because of climate inaction, or at the very least, our lives will suffer, and there is nothing we can do about it.
I understand, I just objected to it because I see in my environment that there are seriously people thinking now that climate change can be a human extinction event (though it will be for many other species of course)
There seems to be a 'project fear' movement that thinks it's ok to overblow scientific conclusions in order to sway people to act. I personally think this is a very bad idea as deliberate lies will only lead to deep disillusionment with government and the scientific community. It can also lead to fatalism where people won't act because they believe the worst outcome is already locked in.
And really, the truth about climate change is scary enough as it is. But we do still have the opportunity to mitigate some of the worst of it.
There seems to be a 'project fear' movement that thinks it's ok to overblow scientific conclusions in order to sway people to act. I personally think this is a very bad idea as deliberate lies will only lead to deep disillusionment with government and the scientific community. It can also lead to fatalism where people won't act because they believe the worst outcome is already locked in.
And really, the truth about climate change is scary enough as it is. But we do still have the opportunity to mitigate some of the worst of it.
I honestly don't believe "climate change" in and of itself will kill us all off (although there's always that possibility, depending on tipping points and other factors). I'm more worried about how the humans in control of some of the deadliest killing technologies ever devised are gonna exacerbate an already horrifying future as things progress and ever more tension is created by the situations climate change will bring about. Humans (as always) are the scariest part of the equation.
I hold the same worries about A.I. The tech itself (currently just a tool, and honestly not nearly as "advanced" one as many seem to believe) isn't nearly as scary as how the dumbest of our number (our so-called "leaders") are gonna use and / or abuse it.
I honestly believe that if there is a true extinction of humanity (or life in general) on this planet, it's far more likely that a small group of exceptionally stupid humans will inflict it upon us than almost any other "doomsday scenario" I can imagine.
I hold the same worries about A.I. The tech itself (currently just a tool, and honestly not nearly as "advanced" one as many seem to believe) isn't nearly as scary as how the dumbest of our number (our so-called "leaders") are gonna use and / or abuse it.
I honestly believe that if there is a true extinction of humanity (or life in general) on this planet, it's far more likely that a small group of exceptionally stupid humans will inflict it upon us than almost any other "doomsday scenario" I can imagine.
>I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live.
The Netherlands will be fine if they just dam up the North Sea. The main problems with this are 1) the English Channel is a huge trade route and damming it (without a way of passing ships through) would destroy the EU economy, and 2) Russia would be very hostile to anything that restricts their access to the ocean from the Baltic.
The Netherlands will be fine if they just dam up the North Sea. The main problems with this are 1) the English Channel is a huge trade route and damming it (without a way of passing ships through) would destroy the EU economy, and 2) Russia would be very hostile to anything that restricts their access to the ocean from the Baltic.
I could imagine damming off the channel. But on the north side? It's way too wide there. It would be shorter to just dam around the entire country.
But the cost would be extreme. Shipping access isn't a major issue though. A dam can have locks.
But the cost would be extreme. Shipping access isn't a major issue though. A dam can have locks.
It's not too wide: the Netherlands actually did a study on this.
It is a pretty extreme proposal of course, but it is possible. It would have some big benefits, not just to Netherlands, but all the countries around it, because all of them (UK, France, Germany, Belgium) stand to lose a lot of land to rising sea levels. Instead, with this dam, they could actually create a LOT more new land in what's now the North Sea. Remember, much of the North Sea used to be dry land (we call it "Doggerland" now), only about 8000 years ago, and had human settlements.
I think shipping could still be an issue. Sure, dams can have locks, but the sheer amount of ship traffic there might be difficult. Maybe they should build new some ports and use freight rail to move cargo around.
It is a pretty extreme proposal of course, but it is possible. It would have some big benefits, not just to Netherlands, but all the countries around it, because all of them (UK, France, Germany, Belgium) stand to lose a lot of land to rising sea levels. Instead, with this dam, they could actually create a LOT more new land in what's now the North Sea. Remember, much of the North Sea used to be dry land (we call it "Doggerland" now), only about 8000 years ago, and had human settlements.
I think shipping could still be an issue. Sure, dams can have locks, but the sheer amount of ship traffic there might be difficult. Maybe they should build new some ports and use freight rail to move cargo around.
we did aim for an achievable goal, and steamed straight past it with our fingers in our ears.
Yep. And those of us who listened to the experts and took steps to understand the issue and act upon our findings were largely ridiculed and harassed endlessly as "tree hugging hippies" or "paranoid tin-foil hatted doomers" and shunned by pretty much everyone else around us until many of us (like myself) have simply given up. Why the hell should I care about literally anything if that caring only utterly destroys any chance at a remotely enjoyable life? I don't want to live the rest of my life learning to hate every single human I meet simply because they're human (monster). I'd rather just accept we're all doomed because most of us are ignorant, greedy, hateful, and stupid, and depressing though that may be, it's less depressing than speaking about things I know to be true and instantly being shunned for it by almost everyone. The alternative (one I've seriously considered) is for me to sneak off to the woods somewhere and build a cabin and defend it to the death.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted? He's right. The odds that global warming will stay below 1.5C are miniscule. I guess there may be PR benefits in pushing 1.5C because it's ambitious (shoot for the moon and land among the stars), but those PR benefits will be offset by the fact that anyone who does the tiniest bit of research will realize that it's bullshit! Not to mention that using 1.5C as a goal without lying is difficult.
"If we do <x> we'll be able to stay under 1.5C" <- lie
"If we don't do <y> we won't be able to stay under 1.5C" <- possibly true, but deceptive
"Our goal is to keep global warming under 1.5C" <- lie, a goal is by definition achievable and anyone who's giving statements on climate change knows that 1.5C is not achievable
"If we do <x> we'll be able to stay under 1.5C" <- lie
"If we don't do <y> we won't be able to stay under 1.5C" <- possibly true, but deceptive
"Our goal is to keep global warming under 1.5C" <- lie, a goal is by definition achievable and anyone who's giving statements on climate change knows that 1.5C is not achievable
If we're already going to have to heavily adapt our living arrangements to account for extreme climate change, at what point does 0.1° not matter? 5.0° vs 5.1°? 10.0° vs 10.1°?
It's an average on the whole planet and the whole year.
0.1 on average can mean huge spikes on some parts of the globe.
0.1 on average can mean huge spikes on some parts of the globe.
The difference is how many billions of dollars it costs, and by proxy, who can afford to survive climate change.
Learn the concept of marginality. Things get progressively worse. Reality is usually not a binary switch.
Just think of that 0.1C as an incremental step making even more of what's currently productive agricultural land, not. Can you give up a little more? Maybe... but not forever.
Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this. This is their inheritance, generations of neglect for the environment and rampant profiteering culminating in a climate catastrophe.
I'd add that all our models include some form of carbon removal, which is still within the realm of fiction in any meaningful capacity.
So not only do our children inherit the mess, but our most optimistic scenarios all include our children being the ones to invent some sort of miracle tech.
Meanwhile we're mostly sitting on our asses and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change.
So not only do our children inherit the mess, but our most optimistic scenarios all include our children being the ones to invent some sort of miracle tech.
Meanwhile we're mostly sitting on our asses and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change.
"Us" is, of course, influence- and wealth-weighted. Plenty of people wanted many of the pandemic changes to stick. We liked seeing clear air and water, we liked inclusive work and communications policies that kept people off roads and consuming less. But there's too much money tied up in the status quo, on one hand, and too many loud extroverts who cannot bear any real shift away from their social advantage (and emotional safe space) on the other. It wasn't so much about convincing everyone, as it was about us getting dragged by the throat back to "normal".
It's not all bad. The "business as usual" scenario was actually always unlikely and we're already far from realizing it, because it assumed, among other things, that China would increase its coal consumption much more than it actually did.
No reason to celebrate because there's much to do, but it's not all doom and gloom.
No reason to celebrate because there's much to do, but it's not all doom and gloom.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense that COVID would have caused some kind of climate revolution. If anything, it made in-person physical work — necessary to build sustainable infrastructure — more difficult.
As it stands, global PV installed capacity has been growing by a pretty constant 20% per annum for the last five years, about half of which is in China and Europe but with similar exponential rates in other countries (Brazil in particular has doubled its installed capacity in less than three years). At that rate, depending on the capacity factor, it would produce the majority of the world's electricity in 15-20 years. Storage is behind, but faces a chicken-and-egg problem: if you don't have installed PV capacity, there's no demand to build storage.
My point is: 20% YoY growth is fast by the standards of almost anything, let alone durable infrastructure. Rome wasn't built in a day. Part of the challenge is to make sure we keep it up.
As it stands, global PV installed capacity has been growing by a pretty constant 20% per annum for the last five years, about half of which is in China and Europe but with similar exponential rates in other countries (Brazil in particular has doubled its installed capacity in less than three years). At that rate, depending on the capacity factor, it would produce the majority of the world's electricity in 15-20 years. Storage is behind, but faces a chicken-and-egg problem: if you don't have installed PV capacity, there's no demand to build storage.
My point is: 20% YoY growth is fast by the standards of almost anything, let alone durable infrastructure. Rome wasn't built in a day. Part of the challenge is to make sure we keep it up.
The COVID effect was mostly one of trend accelerations: more people using online services for everything, delivery for everything. It produced a shock that is currently changing our infrastructure patterns.
We learned relatively quickly that although the streets cleared out, our energy use stayed roughly similar overall, and the supply shocks are tied to that story by shifting demand for goods and services in a relatively short period.
Back-to-office is also part of that because one of the goods and services that could not move that quickly is real estate: individuals could move, but businesses had leases. And everyone looking at the commercial real estate market has been shaking their heads and seeing a negative trend: yes, companies did mobilize to get people back on their office commute, but the market is still sliding and cities are looking at the difficult prospect of converting commercial buildings to housing now.
We learned relatively quickly that although the streets cleared out, our energy use stayed roughly similar overall, and the supply shocks are tied to that story by shifting demand for goods and services in a relatively short period.
Back-to-office is also part of that because one of the goods and services that could not move that quickly is real estate: individuals could move, but businesses had leases. And everyone looking at the commercial real estate market has been shaking their heads and seeing a negative trend: yes, companies did mobilize to get people back on their office commute, but the market is still sliding and cities are looking at the difficult prospect of converting commercial buildings to housing now.
> and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change.
How is this related? What change was expected from the pandemic?
How is this related? What change was expected from the pandemic?
The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is that it was overall a positive experience. Then damn near every company out there made up some nebulous claims about "lost productivity" citing some internal study, and now nearly everyone is back to commuting at least partially.
We know we can live without the commute, we have actual data on its impact on CO2 thanks to the pandemic, and now we're mostly back to commuting. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not a real, tangible change that could've easily stayed.
We know we can live without the commute, we have actual data on its impact on CO2 thanks to the pandemic, and now we're mostly back to commuting. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not a real, tangible change that could've easily stayed.
> The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is
WFH was never about the workers perspective, it was enforced and companies had no choice.
That the workers were positive about it is irrelevant to whether companies were productive with it
If you go far back enough in my comment history you'll find me arguing FOR WFH, but I'll still be the first to admit that all companies I personally observed took a huge hit to productivity when WFH was in force.
WFH was never about the workers perspective, it was enforced and companies had no choice.
That the workers were positive about it is irrelevant to whether companies were productive with it
If you go far back enough in my comment history you'll find me arguing FOR WFH, but I'll still be the first to admit that all companies I personally observed took a huge hit to productivity when WFH was in force.
[deleted]
We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables.
Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.
Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.
"There are 53 nuclear reactors currently under construction around the world. Only two are in the United States" [0x3F800000]
"The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000]
[0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nu...
[0x40000000] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear...
"The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000]
[0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nu...
[0x40000000] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear...
It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.
Some of those choices are on the consumption side and many of us are awful.
It would have a hugeeee impact, but definitely not everything.
Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.
Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.
Except nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have and it's also zero-carbon and renewable. We know it would solve the problem and we really don't know what else would so why not?
I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board.
> we really don't know what else would
We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up.
> We know it would solve the problem
No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not.
Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good.
* Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.
> we really don't know what else would
We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up.
> We know it would solve the problem
No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not.
Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good.
* Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.
That is misinformation. We absolutely cannot meet our needs with other clean energy sources until we figure out how to deliver reliable, economical base load power. There are a variety of proposals for grid scale energy storage but so far none have been proven to work at scale. We certainly can't build enough batteries to keep industrial customers running through several days of minimal sunshine and wind. So the reality is that nuclear power is the only viable non-fossil fueled option to service the base load in most areas.
qqqwerty(1)
I, and many other, know what you are saying but the community is not aware of any of this. After the serious incidents people are still not turning their faces to the nuclear. Teaching is not a right word to use in this situation, however I think the governments should do whatever they can do. Fo example, the social media accounts of Department of Energy, Us doing good for a while.
What are those other solution ? Nuclear, in my opinion, is the only solution that doesn't require the developed world to lower it's standard of living.
The "ultra-rich" and their "pocket puppet" politicians and corporate entities (who cause the "Lion's share" of the problem are the ones who most (and most immediately) need to "lower their standard of living" to combat this particular problem. They ain't gonna do it. Period. Anyone who thinks they will is just as insane as they are… Thus, we're pretty much screwed no matter what the rest of us do. Those who can improve the situation will absolutely not do it. It would cut into their "infinite profits from a finite planet" fantasy.
This lists about 40 or so, doesn't seem like nuclear makes the top ten.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
The IPCC gives a list with options, cost and potential emission savings:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-polic...
Not making any decisions because we need to thoroughly review every option, even bad ones, so that everyone can feel good about themselves and all sacred cows coddled is precisely the way that we've been sitting on our asses for the past 40 years.
The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
Super simple and good starting place.
It's unfortunate that this is such a common belief. There is no silver bullet for solving these problems. Yes, nuclear energy has a part to play. But it's a relatively small part, and absolutely not "a solution" in itself.
MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal nuclear energy's effects are on their own. Compare that to, for example, just "highly reducing" methane emissions.
[1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2...
MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal nuclear energy's effects are on their own. Compare that to, for example, just "highly reducing" methane emissions.
[1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2...
The carbon pricing slider is very powerful in that simulation! (also surprised me the effects of deforestation and afforestation)
It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable.
Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).
It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable.
Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).
Why focus on a technology of the past when it all just takes continuous investment of a couple percent of GDP into renewables?
Nuclear takes so long to build it doesn't help at all.
Nuclear takes so long to build it doesn't help at all.
For those wondering, it’s about 6% of global GDP [0], annually. That’s what the world was spending on all things military during the Cold War, so it’s very doable.
[0] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-fo...
[0] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-fo...
That is a policy issue, if you want to save the world, you are going to have to drop the onerous regulations. You cant have it both ways.
That would have helped if we had started 20-30 years ago, but it is too late now. Renewables have become much cheaper, and the installations come online much more quickly; nuclear can no longer compete.
Nuclear needs such a highly complex organisation to keep it running. I really don't think that's a long term vision with the current technology. Also Ukraine just last year was close to a drama with.the fighting.
that may have been a solution a long time ago, but it wouldn't have fixed the meat problem or the transportation problem.
We will live long enough for some of these hens to come home to roost.
Kids judge their parents on their inability to change when it matters, and when you’re old and infirm and “kids” are taking care of you, you’re gonna be in for a bad time.
Kids judge their parents on their inability to change when it matters, and when you’re old and infirm and “kids” are taking care of you, you’re gonna be in for a bad time.
You make it sound like out generation chose this.
No, we didn't, just like our kids didn't.
We didn't choose shit, we took what we were given while a small minority in a minority of countries chose this.
No, we didn't, just like our kids didn't.
We didn't choose shit, we took what we were given while a small minority in a minority of countries chose this.
Our kids will also inherit all of the amazing technologies and scientific advances that were developed as a result of cheap, abundant energy. It is a tradeoff and climate change is a solvable problem.
It’s easy and comforting to spout predictions of the apocalypse, but realistically speaking, things will be okay.
It’s easy and comforting to spout predictions of the apocalypse, but realistically speaking, things will be okay.
Realistically speaking, all signs are pointing to things not being okay.
Climate is not a "solvable problem" anymore, we are past the point of no return (several of them). Damage control is all we can do now, and we are not doing it.
If you think things will be okay because historically has been so, let me remind you that a permanent change of this scale is a catastrophe that is unmatched and unprecedented in human history. Maybe nuclear conflict was as scary, but its solution was comparatively much simpler, and it never passed the point of no return.
More than that, things usually do not turn out okay except for the class of people who initially benefited from bringing about the problem. Many peoples have faced horrors that were not and could not be undone, though it's easy to forget that while living in the society built on their ashes. Things always turn out to be okay... for the colonizer, the wealthy, the powerful
Statistically speaking, commenting on this platform firmly places you in a category that will likely survive climate change (at least in the medium term...) and probably profit from it, so excuse me for calling out your reasons for believing that technology will save us.
By the way, it is my understanding that the scientific consensus is that technological solutions are not going to be able to save us (as they are impractical, too far off, and harder to implement than just stopping the use of fossil fuels).
Also if you think that "spouting predictions of the apocalypse" is comforting, you severely misunderstand the psychological issues that (especially the younger generations) are facing in light of terrifying powerlessness against climate change
Ultimately, this is a political problem, and assuring everyone that "things will be okay" only makes it less likely that any action will be taken in time.
Now is the time to panic, and do something about it. If we are able to turn the tide and somehow make things okay... great! The panic was well placed.
If you think things will be okay because historically has been so, let me remind you that a permanent change of this scale is a catastrophe that is unmatched and unprecedented in human history. Maybe nuclear conflict was as scary, but its solution was comparatively much simpler, and it never passed the point of no return.
More than that, things usually do not turn out okay except for the class of people who initially benefited from bringing about the problem. Many peoples have faced horrors that were not and could not be undone, though it's easy to forget that while living in the society built on their ashes. Things always turn out to be okay... for the colonizer, the wealthy, the powerful
Statistically speaking, commenting on this platform firmly places you in a category that will likely survive climate change (at least in the medium term...) and probably profit from it, so excuse me for calling out your reasons for believing that technology will save us.
By the way, it is my understanding that the scientific consensus is that technological solutions are not going to be able to save us (as they are impractical, too far off, and harder to implement than just stopping the use of fossil fuels).
Also if you think that "spouting predictions of the apocalypse" is comforting, you severely misunderstand the psychological issues that (especially the younger generations) are facing in light of terrifying powerlessness against climate change
Ultimately, this is a political problem, and assuring everyone that "things will be okay" only makes it less likely that any action will be taken in time.
Now is the time to panic, and do something about it. If we are able to turn the tide and somehow make things okay... great! The panic was well placed.
I'm not having kids - I'm already shouldering all the terrible decisions of my parents and their parents.
I didn't get to choose it either. It's what happens when money is power. If you want to fix it going forward, you've got to divorce the two.
If we have to divorce money and power in order to fix climate change then we are completely fucked
Yes, we definitely are.
Our kids will also benefit from the advances provided by fossil fuels. Such is life.
No, previous generations profited from easy access to energy, and let all that profit concentrate in the hands of the few, meaning that average people born today have a measurably crummier chance at a good life than previous generations.
Most of these advances rely on (actual and quasi-) resources we're doing our best to exhaust before some future generation gets to have a share.
"Peak oil" and CO2 are just the tip of the iceberg.
Some future generation is going to dig up the garbage we buried and harvest it for resources. To a degree we're already doing this ourselves looking for stuff like palladium and rhodium.
"Peak oil" and CO2 are just the tip of the iceberg.
Some future generation is going to dig up the garbage we buried and harvest it for resources. To a degree we're already doing this ourselves looking for stuff like palladium and rhodium.
How is it "generations of neglect" if we didn't even really know about global warming until the 80s? Maybe you can label the last decade or two as reckless but hard for me to get on board with such a long time scale when broad awareness is so recent.
> Our kids, who will shoulder far more of the effects of this than us, didn't get to choose this
Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else
Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else
> Are today's kids more concerned about the environment than we were? It seems they like to consume as much as anybody else
I think we are talking about people who are yet to be born (in the future), not younger humans already born.
I think we are talking about people who are yet to be born (in the future), not younger humans already born.
Who teaches the kid that individual consumerism comes before everything else?
And who teaches that kid that any other kid who doesn't adhere to that "individual consumerism first" mentality is a valid target for endless harassment and hatred?
[deleted]
Hopefully the kids will realize the only retribution they’re going to get involves sending everybody that caused this into a wood chipper that shoots out directly into a fire.
They’ll probably never find the attention span to do so. But I can hope.
They’ll probably never find the attention span to do so. But I can hope.
I suppose the carbon intensity of firing people into the sun is too high
It is like an imminent impact with your car. Whether you can still make it or not - you want to break as hard as possible to make the impact, if it cannot be avoided, the least violent you still can manage.
We are already at 1.2° C. This is despite the fact that the El Niño index is negative. There is over 50% chance that we will experience a year in the next five years where the average temperature is > 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average.
This is dire. I think we need to admit defeat, and declare a climate failure. Our goal going forward should be to do everything that keeps the temperature as possible. So far the goal of 1.5° C seems like it is taking us to 3-4° C by the end of the century, 3-4° C is basically an end of the world scenario.
This is dire. I think we need to admit defeat, and declare a climate failure. Our goal going forward should be to do everything that keeps the temperature as possible. So far the goal of 1.5° C seems like it is taking us to 3-4° C by the end of the century, 3-4° C is basically an end of the world scenario.
[deleted]
Carbon sequestration is promising, but still years away. We need to start looking at stop gap solutions that buy us more time.
Two of the biggest (non industrial) CO2 emitters are heating and transportation.
One of the lowest hanging fruits would be reducing CO2 emitting car use, using a massive capital expenditure to enable lower emitting public transit and cycling to enable people to drive less.
It's endlessly frustrating that even those polices, where are relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things are apparently too impossible for our political leadership.
One of the lowest hanging fruits would be reducing CO2 emitting car use, using a massive capital expenditure to enable lower emitting public transit and cycling to enable people to drive less.
It's endlessly frustrating that even those polices, where are relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things are apparently too impossible for our political leadership.
We can reforest vast swaths of land right now. For instance, most of the US east of the Mississippi.
That can happen with tax code changes and land trusts.
We don't need to wait for new tech to scale up. We need to prioritize the planet.
That can happen with tax code changes and land trusts.
We don't need to wait for new tech to scale up. We need to prioritize the planet.
Yes, more trees, but still not enough, here is a handy guide on the different solutions and consequences: https://www.roadto10gigatons.com/
We can't stop climate change by making it profitable. That's literally what got us into this mess in the first place.
I think that's the only way we can stop it.
If we make reducing emissions profitable our existing system will do it.
The other alternative is to completely rebuild our political/social system around something other than profit. Good luck with that, that's a fools errand.
If we make reducing emissions profitable our existing system will do it.
The other alternative is to completely rebuild our political/social system around something other than profit. Good luck with that, that's a fools errand.
When you put it like that it sounds really difficult, but what exactly would it mean to "completely rebuild"?
IMO it could look something like this:
- Governments around the world set up a Climate Change Council
- The council is given power to regulate industry, and assign national resources
- High impact industry is shut down or refactored. For example, coal should be banned, but oil companies should be nationalized and fazed out while alternatives are built
That's pretty much it. It's hard, and it's a large effort over a long period of time, but there's nothing impossible about it. We don't have to reimagine society to do it.
IMO it could look something like this:
- Governments around the world set up a Climate Change Council
- The council is given power to regulate industry, and assign national resources
- High impact industry is shut down or refactored. For example, coal should be banned, but oil companies should be nationalized and fazed out while alternatives are built
That's pretty much it. It's hard, and it's a large effort over a long period of time, but there's nothing impossible about it. We don't have to reimagine society to do it.
Roughly half (even in the US!) our current system is built around something other than profit - i.e. the government directed part of the economy.
If economic forces are powerful enough to cause climate change it seems reasonable to use another economic force to revert/cancel that out.
The economic forces that caused it were based on resource extraction.
Resource extraction is the core of our economy. Its why the US has vested interests in countries that have natural resources, and why the US is so quick to act when resources are nationalized.
We can either directly use taxpayer money to fund these initiatives and give them priority over things like starting wars and playing world police, or pay private individuals and ask very nicely that they help.
I much rather that national approach as I don't think middle men sapping a fat percentage is a great solution.
Its essentially a protection racket at the end of the day.
Resource extraction is the core of our economy. Its why the US has vested interests in countries that have natural resources, and why the US is so quick to act when resources are nationalized.
We can either directly use taxpayer money to fund these initiatives and give them priority over things like starting wars and playing world police, or pay private individuals and ask very nicely that they help.
I much rather that national approach as I don't think middle men sapping a fat percentage is a great solution.
Its essentially a protection racket at the end of the day.
You can't always fight fire with fire though
[deleted]
Carbon sequestration is trivial: we rewild destroyed ecosystems. We don't need to die waiting for Elon.
I await my downvotes.
I await my downvotes.
The city where I live is considering a tree ordinance, driven by some local NIMBYs. I did some rough numbers based on things I found around the internet and:
One year of carbon sequestration from a mature tree == 1 or 2 days of commuting to the city 20 miles away that many people who are priced out of this town drive back and forth from.
Trees are great, and most places should plant more street trees. But if you preserve trees at the cost of building dense cities that are more environmentally friendly, you're doing it wrong. Dense cities also allow for more trees in actual wild lands outside of them, rather than sprawl.
In the US, transportation and heating are our biggest individual contributions to climate change.
One year of carbon sequestration from a mature tree == 1 or 2 days of commuting to the city 20 miles away that many people who are priced out of this town drive back and forth from.
Trees are great, and most places should plant more street trees. But if you preserve trees at the cost of building dense cities that are more environmentally friendly, you're doing it wrong. Dense cities also allow for more trees in actual wild lands outside of them, rather than sprawl.
In the US, transportation and heating are our biggest individual contributions to climate change.
There is no single silver bullet, but if you combine tree planting with nuclear / renewable power with remote work with electric vehicles ... eventually it starts to add up.
Shooting down solutions because they aren't the entire solution will mean we never make any progress.
Shooting down solutions because they aren't the entire solution will mean we never make any progress.
Sure; I wasn't saying don't plant trees (street trees provide all kinds of benefits: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/tag/street+trees ), just that transportation and how we build our cities are so critical. I did not realize the huge, orders of magnitude disconnect between exactly how much CO2 driving puts out and trees sequester.
In other unfortunate news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/25/gm-bolt-ev-production-to-end...
GM ending production of the Chevy Bolt in favor of bigger, heavier, deadlier, less efficient EV's.
In other unfortunate news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/25/gm-bolt-ev-production-to-end...
GM ending production of the Chevy Bolt in favor of bigger, heavier, deadlier, less efficient EV's.
Replace EVs with mass transit, and you've got something there. Density as an important component in reducing consumption doesn't end at the apartment building/Nplex lobby. Walking and cycling infrastructure also reduces health costs. Do you want to help curtail the oncoming Medicare crisis? Make Boomers bike.
That... seems obvious. Why do you assume the person you're responding to is proposing we increase sprawl? Increase density, increase public transit, and rewild outlying areas. It all goes together.
I was just stating some stuff. I was pretty surprised by just how much CO2 cars put out compared to what trees store.
Maybe mandate twice as thick wooden frames - that would capture more carbon in the house walls, and also conserve heating, as wood is a good insulator?
Just "Reduce conversion of natural ecosystems" is the second biggest GHG impact, after solar and just above wind (though at a slightly higher cost), according to the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
Reforesting, afforesting and ecosystem restoration are nearly as impactful, but listed seperately.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
Reforesting, afforesting and ecosystem restoration are nearly as impactful, but listed seperately.
> Current studies suggest that mangroves and coastal wetlands annually sequester carbon at a rate ten times greater than mature tropical forests. They also store three to five times more carbon per equivalent area than tropical forests.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coastal-blue-carbon...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coastal-blue-carbon...
If we planted trees on every square meter outside of current cities (and let them grow without disturbing them), would that make a dent in carbon sequestration?
Serious question. Planting trees and re-growing ecosystems seems like a simple, straightforward solution, but I feel like it's a red herring.
Serious question. Planting trees and re-growing ecosystems seems like a simple, straightforward solution, but I feel like it's a red herring.
Afforestation pretty much linearly absorbs carbon based on the size of the area you cover with trees, as a percentage of current forest area.
So if we doubled the size and carbon trapping of all the forests on earth, yes, it would make a big dent (solve the problem entirely, maybe). But that's unrealistic, because forests currently cover 30% of the land area of the planet, so we're practically never going to get to 60% forest coverage. It would involve giving up important things like farming.
It's not entirely a red herring, it will undoubtedly be a big part of climate change mitigation, but the first and most important step is to stop pumping oil out of the ground and burning it, like the article.
So if we doubled the size and carbon trapping of all the forests on earth, yes, it would make a big dent (solve the problem entirely, maybe). But that's unrealistic, because forests currently cover 30% of the land area of the planet, so we're practically never going to get to 60% forest coverage. It would involve giving up important things like farming.
It's not entirely a red herring, it will undoubtedly be a big part of climate change mitigation, but the first and most important step is to stop pumping oil out of the ground and burning it, like the article.
There's something you've missed there: forests - not just trees but the forest's understory, the animals living in it, the microbes in the soil etc - sequester carbon constantly. It isn't just "how much does the tree weigh, we've sequestered that much", it is about the ecological processes involved.
To give a fairly obvious example, think about deciduous trees: once a year they shed a large amount of carbon (leaves) which then goes into the soil. The nitrogen content is used for matter for plants, while the carbon is not.
Over time, this deposits more and more carbon in the ground itself. This is a good, safe place for it, and the model above is one of the simplest. Ecosystems are great at this stuff if we stop setting them on fire or otherwise killing everything.
Agreed on keeping it in the ground, though.
To give a fairly obvious example, think about deciduous trees: once a year they shed a large amount of carbon (leaves) which then goes into the soil. The nitrogen content is used for matter for plants, while the carbon is not.
Over time, this deposits more and more carbon in the ground itself. This is a good, safe place for it, and the model above is one of the simplest. Ecosystems are great at this stuff if we stop setting them on fire or otherwise killing everything.
Agreed on keeping it in the ground, though.
Well, the studies I was summarizing basically take that into account. The raw tree mass itself is both a) not that big and b) renewed, as you say, by decomposition.
Really the purpose of forests is more in terms of soil creation and preservation, as you point out, a lot of the times in the form of shrubs, leaves, or needles and downed wood being infiltrated into substrate.
Really the purpose of forests is more in terms of soil creation and preservation, as you point out, a lot of the times in the form of shrubs, leaves, or needles and downed wood being infiltrated into substrate.
My understanding is it would help quite a lot, and would also not be sufficient by itself to solve the problem.
Too many people jump from "it's not sufficient" to "therefore, we shouldn't do it".
Too many people jump from "it's not sufficient" to "therefore, we shouldn't do it".
It’s just not enough. Fossil fuels represent millions of years of the stored output of fully wild ecosystems. Rewilding the Earth today only gets us to the starting line to repeat that process.
Sequestration only starts making sense when we have basically unlimited green energy to throw at it. I know some moments have excess green energy already but you're not going to build a huge plant and run it only 2 hours a day.
The amount of natural resources needed to build enough plants to make it more than a drop in the bucket is also going to require significant mining operations and other big polluters. It's a nice idea but science fiction for now, at least at a scale that is actually effective at countering climate change.
And even if we had unlimited energy and materials the inertia of greenhouse emissions (the CO2 heating us now was emitted decades ago) building it at scale will come too late to avert a crisis.
It's still much easier and more efficient to avoid emitting the carbon we still do than to try and capture it back. Though even that will come too late really.
The amount of natural resources needed to build enough plants to make it more than a drop in the bucket is also going to require significant mining operations and other big polluters. It's a nice idea but science fiction for now, at least at a scale that is actually effective at countering climate change.
And even if we had unlimited energy and materials the inertia of greenhouse emissions (the CO2 heating us now was emitted decades ago) building it at scale will come too late to avert a crisis.
It's still much easier and more efficient to avoid emitting the carbon we still do than to try and capture it back. Though even that will come too late really.
This is going to sound kind of cynical, but the primary mechanism of democratic — popular — feedback, in most countries around the world, is embarrassment. In the West, embarrassment means you lose elections; in less democratic countries, it may mean you get forced from power by other means.
So the optimal climate target should maximize the utility of this embarrassment. It should not be too achievable, or countries will slack off, but it should not be obviously impossible, or that will be an excuse to give up. The carrot must always dangle just far enough in front of the horse.
The point of 1.5 C as a target isn't that we meet it, but that we try to. If we could meet the target, we'd do even worse, and say "close enough", but that's no good.
So the optimal climate target should maximize the utility of this embarrassment. It should not be too achievable, or countries will slack off, but it should not be obviously impossible, or that will be an excuse to give up. The carrot must always dangle just far enough in front of the horse.
The point of 1.5 C as a target isn't that we meet it, but that we try to. If we could meet the target, we'd do even worse, and say "close enough", but that's no good.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with American politics, but embarrassment is not a factor for roughly half our politicians. They can literally be child predators, why would their base care if they're destroying the environment future generations, even if they believed it?
>They can literally be child predators
Whatever particular incident you're referring to, the evidence was not released in a straightforward fashion, but tricked out through document drops and the partisan media, so that the pols could avoid a clear public announcement that so-and-so was a pedophile. That's exactly consistent with "avoiding embarrassment"; it just happens that a small fraction — usually, people who were already opposed to that official — believe they should be embarrassed.
When there are clear allegations of CSA, as with Mark Foley, the individual is quickly cast out. When a politician embarrasses their own party, as with Madison Cawthorn, the same thing happens. When the message can be sufficiently contained and redirected, the embarrassment has been avoided.
Whatever particular incident you're referring to, the evidence was not released in a straightforward fashion, but tricked out through document drops and the partisan media, so that the pols could avoid a clear public announcement that so-and-so was a pedophile. That's exactly consistent with "avoiding embarrassment"; it just happens that a small fraction — usually, people who were already opposed to that official — believe they should be embarrassed.
When there are clear allegations of CSA, as with Mark Foley, the individual is quickly cast out. When a politician embarrasses their own party, as with Madison Cawthorn, the same thing happens. When the message can be sufficiently contained and redirected, the embarrassment has been avoided.
The priority should be on protecting the biosphere, not on reaching arbitrary quantitative goals. The planet has adapted to much bigger temperature changes in the past, and will do so again, as long as humans stay out of the way. Staying out of the way means occupying less space, and particularly freeing up migratory corridors.
The "miracle" would be admitting that technology can't get us out of every predicament we throw ourselves into, and disabusing ourselves of the notion that anything - the economy, civilization, human population - can grow infinitely on a finite planet without complete catastrophe. Admitting any one of those three things is anathema, though, so we comfort ourselves with pipe dreams of carbon sequestration, dyson spheres, and sending out probes to mine all our resources from the asteroid belt.
A recent piece in The Economist argued that China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation, and if America is going to do better then we'll have to become more like China. I agree on both points. And I think that will be the outcome eventually.
China is building a huge amount of renewable power and shipping tech to the world. But they're also burning a phenomenal amount of coal: so much so that they alone may determine whether we survive this next few decades.
> China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation
If this is happening, and no reason to doubt that, it is easier for a Nation like China to do this than say the US. Why, Xi can say "Build more windmills now in ..." and it will happen.
In the US, the 'in' is important, people will fight any development with in 10 miles of where they live. So it takes over 10 years for just the plan to be finalized. For a good example see:
https://www.wcvb.com/article/nantucket-residents-lawsuit-to-...
That is just the latest suit, IIRC this has been on-going for like 10 years.
If this is happening, and no reason to doubt that, it is easier for a Nation like China to do this than say the US. Why, Xi can say "Build more windmills now in ..." and it will happen.
In the US, the 'in' is important, people will fight any development with in 10 miles of where they live. So it takes over 10 years for just the plan to be finalized. For a good example see:
https://www.wcvb.com/article/nantucket-residents-lawsuit-to-...
That is just the latest suit, IIRC this has been on-going for like 10 years.
If we can force people out of their homes for overpasses and football stadiums, we can sure as hell force renewable projects through.
China has one thing right, the idea of actions for a greater good. I forget the actual wording/idiom but we severely lack that in the west. It's all "what about me" and it drags any kind of progress to a halt unless it can be put in someone elses back yard or they can make a profit off of it.
China has one thing right, the idea of actions for a greater good. I forget the actual wording/idiom but we severely lack that in the west. It's all "what about me" and it drags any kind of progress to a halt unless it can be put in someone elses back yard or they can make a profit off of it.
That's fascinating, especially considering the source - do you have a link by any chance?
I just looked but I can't find it. Is possible it was in another publication.
> China is doing more to combat global warming than is any other nation
What?
The west is working hard at lowering it's emissions, but all that work is getting undone because China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has:
- Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%)
- A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%)
Meanwhile for the same period China has had
- a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%)
- 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007
So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation.
Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
What?
The west is working hard at lowering it's emissions, but all that work is getting undone because China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has:
- Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%)
- A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%)
Meanwhile for the same period China has had
- a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%)
- 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007
So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation.
Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
For sure China is a huge problem with their use of coal. But they do have a plan, and a command economy that let's them execute on that plan.
I am fully in favor of the kind of "fair trade" that would force countries to eat their environmental externalities. In the case of China, it's a double-win since it would put huge pressure on them to change and also more than fund all of our environmental initiatives. But without a global carbon tax/credit system, this just ain't gonna happen.
I am fully in favor of the kind of "fair trade" that would force countries to eat their environmental externalities. In the case of China, it's a double-win since it would put huge pressure on them to change and also more than fund all of our environmental initiatives. But without a global carbon tax/credit system, this just ain't gonna happen.
Your comparison between China and US from 1973 to now is fundamentally wrong. In 1970s, US already was a developed country, while China was barely rising from poverty.
It's unfair when the western countries demand lowering emissions from the third world. West was able to enjoy unlimited carbon emissions for years, while the third world was mostly agricultural and had poorly developed economies. Now, when other countries undergo the same economic transformations US had long time ago, Americans demand them to ditch progress for the sake of preventing climate change. And that's while outsourcing "dirty" manufacturing and waste management to the same third world countries.
It's unfair when the western countries demand lowering emissions from the third world. West was able to enjoy unlimited carbon emissions for years, while the third world was mostly agricultural and had poorly developed economies. Now, when other countries undergo the same economic transformations US had long time ago, Americans demand them to ditch progress for the sake of preventing climate change. And that's while outsourcing "dirty" manufacturing and waste management to the same third world countries.
> Now, when other countries undergo the same economic transformations US had long time ago
Here's the thing: they don't have to make all the same mistakes we made. Wind and solar was science fiction in the 70's and is economically feasible today yet China choose to go all-in with the dirtiest coal on the planet.
Here's the thing: they don't have to make all the same mistakes we made. Wind and solar was science fiction in the 70's and is economically feasible today yet China choose to go all-in with the dirtiest coal on the planet.
Uhm, if you don’t think China is investing heavily in solar and wind generation, then you are in for a very big surprise. It’s just that with NG going up so much recently, they are leaning on coal heavily again so their economy doesn’t crash, long term they have a good direction set with renewables, better probably than the USA.
And it’s all due to economic self interest and survival that they are doing renewables so aggressively, it has nothing to do with perceived fairness or whatever.
And it’s all due to economic self interest and survival that they are doing renewables so aggressively, it has nothing to do with perceived fairness or whatever.
[deleted]
piuantiderp(5)
This is where I’m at too.
At least as far as I understand it today (leaving this comment in the hope that folks can help me expand my understanding)
Life on earth is not stable. We are in the final death throes of this planet. Roughly 75% of life on earth is behind us. Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left[1] until our carbon cycles grind to a halt due to the earth moving outside of the habitable zone and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event.
This pending extinction event is not human made. It was coming regardless of whether humans evolved on this planet.
From everything I can tell, there is no making it through, let alone coming back from, this impending extinction event without “technology” that decouples life from the carbon cycles on this planet.
In 4.2bn years life on this planet has printed exactly one golden ticket for escaping that fate: humans.
We’ve done some bad things along the way to industrialization processes that can produce the technology necessary to get life off this rock - and to artificially sustain life on this rock as it becomes unsuitable for life.
But I’m not confident that the bad stuff we have done is sufficient to condemn our species and disqualify us as a suitable steward for this planet. Primarily because there is no alternative, there is no species in “second place” that I’d trust to evolve a civilization capable of getting life off this planet in the time we have left.
The eco-movements (outside of whole earth) have lost me. The calls for an immediate suspension of industrial processes, or the sentiment that life on earth would be better off if humans didn’t evolve to be what we are today, seems misplaced.
Without humans, and without our recent attempts to escape this planet, all life on earth is doomed to complete extinction.
It seems like we are in a critical several hundred year window where humans need to appreciate both that we are accelerating the end of the Holocene, a climate that was critical for the development of our civilizations, and do our best to slow that process already under way.
At the same time, we need to maintain the civilization that’s setting life on earth on an escape trajectory.
If we toss the baby with the bathwater we doom all life on earth to guaranteed extinction.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
At least as far as I understand it today (leaving this comment in the hope that folks can help me expand my understanding)
Life on earth is not stable. We are in the final death throes of this planet. Roughly 75% of life on earth is behind us. Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left[1] until our carbon cycles grind to a halt due to the earth moving outside of the habitable zone and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event.
This pending extinction event is not human made. It was coming regardless of whether humans evolved on this planet.
From everything I can tell, there is no making it through, let alone coming back from, this impending extinction event without “technology” that decouples life from the carbon cycles on this planet.
In 4.2bn years life on this planet has printed exactly one golden ticket for escaping that fate: humans.
We’ve done some bad things along the way to industrialization processes that can produce the technology necessary to get life off this rock - and to artificially sustain life on this rock as it becomes unsuitable for life.
But I’m not confident that the bad stuff we have done is sufficient to condemn our species and disqualify us as a suitable steward for this planet. Primarily because there is no alternative, there is no species in “second place” that I’d trust to evolve a civilization capable of getting life off this planet in the time we have left.
The eco-movements (outside of whole earth) have lost me. The calls for an immediate suspension of industrial processes, or the sentiment that life on earth would be better off if humans didn’t evolve to be what we are today, seems misplaced.
Without humans, and without our recent attempts to escape this planet, all life on earth is doomed to complete extinction.
It seems like we are in a critical several hundred year window where humans need to appreciate both that we are accelerating the end of the Holocene, a climate that was critical for the development of our civilizations, and do our best to slow that process already under way.
At the same time, we need to maintain the civilization that’s setting life on earth on an escape trajectory.
If we toss the baby with the bathwater we doom all life on earth to guaranteed extinction.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
It seems to me to be incredibly arrogant to be reasoning starting from humanity as saviors of life in 500 million years.
And to say that that somehow means that the eco-movements (many of which are focused on the keeping us alive for the next few thousand years) are flawed seems wrong.
The focus put on silly Greenpeace actions and fights about nuclear in the media is part of a somewhat intentional strategy to paint all environmentalists as wrongheaded or stupid.
And to say that that somehow means that the eco-movements (many of which are focused on the keeping us alive for the next few thousand years) are flawed seems wrong.
The focus put on silly Greenpeace actions and fights about nuclear in the media is part of a somewhat intentional strategy to paint all environmentalists as wrongheaded or stupid.
I’m not sure it is arrogant. Arrogant would be saying we have some divine right or special capacity that places us at the center of this.
I think we’ve gotten incredibly lucky in the last 600 years or so and have stumbled our way into a viable exit strategy for life on our planet.
We don’t necessarily deserve this role.
I think I’m well aligned that keeping life alive for the next few thousand years is absolutely necessary. We can’t do anything on a 500m year timeline if our species is wiped out in 1000 years.
But, I’d disagree with many of the seemingly “at all costs” approaches I’ve seen advocated for in my social circles (outside of the media). I’ve seen my friends adopt a “humans were a mistake” mindset over the past decade.
If we save all life on earth in the next 1000 years by ridding the planet of human civilization, we doom it to death in 500m years. Unless another species stumbles into another approach for leaving this planet, everything dies. If we are going to step down, we absolutely need to acknowledge that.
If you want to save life on earth, your plan needs to save life on earth. If you aren’t solving for these expected extinction events on these timelines, what are you solving for?
To put that another way: if you save life on earth over the next 1000 years by collapsing human civilization, you haven’t saved life on earth. You’ve doomed it to a slow death unless lightning strikes twice and cephalopods figure out how to build rockets.
I don’t think we deserve this role, we’ve lucked into it. But now that we wield the capacity to get life off of this rock, stepping down from that role on moral grounds seems… immoral. We do this because it’s what our ecosystem demands of us, not because of anything special about us but because there is no other species that can do it. The ball is in our court regardless of whether we like it or deserve it.
I think we’ve gotten incredibly lucky in the last 600 years or so and have stumbled our way into a viable exit strategy for life on our planet.
We don’t necessarily deserve this role.
I think I’m well aligned that keeping life alive for the next few thousand years is absolutely necessary. We can’t do anything on a 500m year timeline if our species is wiped out in 1000 years.
But, I’d disagree with many of the seemingly “at all costs” approaches I’ve seen advocated for in my social circles (outside of the media). I’ve seen my friends adopt a “humans were a mistake” mindset over the past decade.
If we save all life on earth in the next 1000 years by ridding the planet of human civilization, we doom it to death in 500m years. Unless another species stumbles into another approach for leaving this planet, everything dies. If we are going to step down, we absolutely need to acknowledge that.
If you want to save life on earth, your plan needs to save life on earth. If you aren’t solving for these expected extinction events on these timelines, what are you solving for?
To put that another way: if you save life on earth over the next 1000 years by collapsing human civilization, you haven’t saved life on earth. You’ve doomed it to a slow death unless lightning strikes twice and cephalopods figure out how to build rockets.
I don’t think we deserve this role, we’ve lucked into it. But now that we wield the capacity to get life off of this rock, stepping down from that role on moral grounds seems… immoral. We do this because it’s what our ecosystem demands of us, not because of anything special about us but because there is no other species that can do it. The ball is in our court regardless of whether we like it or deserve it.
Oh, I certainly disagree with people who put the environment above humans. But usually I just discount such people - they "are not serious people."
> my friends adopt a “humans were a mistake” mindset over the past decade.
This is an edgy take that I see increasingly adopted by young people in cities.
Generally I try to recenter around "okay, if humans are a mistake, who would you like to kill first?" People find it easy to reason about the end of a species in the abstraction, not when it is their friends and family who either die or cannot have children because the world is in such shambles.
> my friends adopt a “humans were a mistake” mindset over the past decade.
This is an edgy take that I see increasingly adopted by young people in cities.
Generally I try to recenter around "okay, if humans are a mistake, who would you like to kill first?" People find it easy to reason about the end of a species in the abstraction, not when it is their friends and family who either die or cannot have children because the world is in such shambles.
Agreed, I suspect we are closer to being on the same page than it originally seemed.
I’ve seen it fairly broad and wide, not just city kids but there is a concentration there.
It’s most apparent to me in the debates downstream of the “whole earth” movement. The eco movements of the previous few decades seemed to be fairly unified because tech wasn’t at a place where we could reasonably attempt to fix some of the problems humans had manifested.
Now that this tech is starting to shake out as viable, we are seeing a hard split in the eco movement.
One faction is advocating for humans to “just stop.”
The other is advocating for humans to try and solve the problems.
You see this in the de-extinction movement where eco-advocates are trying to bring back extinct keystone species that humans drove to extinction, in an attempt to restore the ecosystems we disrupted. You see serious eco-advocates shake out of the woodwork fighting the de-extinction movement on anti-human grounds.
To be fair, there are valid arguments against the de-extinction movement; but these aren’t the arguments I see most frequently.
You see the same arguments shake out for carbon capture, green energy, rocketry, colonizing other planets, etc.
I think the core of this split is that there were two currents of thought in the eco-movement that were so similar folks didn’t realize they disagreed until recently when “bringing extinct species back” became viable. One current of thought was that what humans did was bad. The other was that humans were bad.
I’ve seen it fairly broad and wide, not just city kids but there is a concentration there.
It’s most apparent to me in the debates downstream of the “whole earth” movement. The eco movements of the previous few decades seemed to be fairly unified because tech wasn’t at a place where we could reasonably attempt to fix some of the problems humans had manifested.
Now that this tech is starting to shake out as viable, we are seeing a hard split in the eco movement.
One faction is advocating for humans to “just stop.”
The other is advocating for humans to try and solve the problems.
You see this in the de-extinction movement where eco-advocates are trying to bring back extinct keystone species that humans drove to extinction, in an attempt to restore the ecosystems we disrupted. You see serious eco-advocates shake out of the woodwork fighting the de-extinction movement on anti-human grounds.
To be fair, there are valid arguments against the de-extinction movement; but these aren’t the arguments I see most frequently.
You see the same arguments shake out for carbon capture, green energy, rocketry, colonizing other planets, etc.
I think the core of this split is that there were two currents of thought in the eco-movement that were so similar folks didn’t realize they disagreed until recently when “bringing extinct species back” became viable. One current of thought was that what humans did was bad. The other was that humans were bad.
It's just stupid Nihilism in an attempt to seem cool. It's putting lipstick on the pig of just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. There's a lot of money in ignoring the problem, so a lot of pressure by certain groups to do so.
To clarify; human are not part of the environment? What is setting us apart exactly ?
I suspect the fact that we use various tools. But at the end of the day we need food, light and water.
I suspect the fact that we use various tools. But at the end of the day we need food, light and water.
Well if someone other than humanity wants to step up and save life I’m sure we would be okay with it but my dog still spends his time licking himself and my houseplants are not especially active so I think it’s up to us.
500 million years is longer than the time it has taken to evolve mammalian life. Assuming that no other intelligent species would ever evolve is pretty crazy, it's only taken us 200 million years. If that's an average, we could be looking at 1 to 3 other intelligent species developing on this planet alone.
It has not taken 200m years. It has taken 4.2bn years.
Every other species today has had the same 4.2bn years.
In 4.2bn years, we’ve had one successful draw of a species with sufficient intelligence born into an environment with sufficient incentives to tackle this problem (that we know of).
Saying another 1 will happen in time to thwart the pending extinction event strikes me as an aggressive gamble, let alone 3.
Every other species today has had the same 4.2bn years.
In 4.2bn years, we’ve had one successful draw of a species with sufficient intelligence born into an environment with sufficient incentives to tackle this problem (that we know of).
Saying another 1 will happen in time to thwart the pending extinction event strikes me as an aggressive gamble, let alone 3.
It has actually taken over 13 billion years if we're being pedantic. But that's not the point.
What we need to consider is the level of complexity life will be able to sustain after our annihilation. How long did it take to get to humanity from the last time life was at that level of complexity? Much less than 4.2bn years, since we likely will not be reducing life to the level of one single living cell.
What we need to consider is the level of complexity life will be able to sustain after our annihilation. How long did it take to get to humanity from the last time life was at that level of complexity? Much less than 4.2bn years, since we likely will not be reducing life to the level of one single living cell.
500 million years and your dog will be the ancestor of Dog Richard Feynman.
Before the sun goes red we need to understand and categorize the interactions of life on earth, preferably including extinct animals as much as possible, and using that knowledge, we need to attempt to recreate it elsewhere. 2000 years ago the earth was covered with tribes and nations that had an intuitive understanding of these things, built on analogy and language. Even dredging that level of understanding up would help us today. Investigating the observations contained in that folk wisdom is often how science works. We haven’t been doing the work because industrial Ag and transportation have their own solutions which sound more appealing (as is often the case, doing the wrong thing feels easier and more fun).
I’m guessing you’re getting downvoted for not expanding on:
> Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left until our carbon cycles grind to a halt and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event.
> Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left until our carbon cycles grind to a halt and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event.
Thanks, I’ve taken this as a “known.”
I’ll update the comment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
As far as I understand, the habitable zone in our system is not stable. It’s shifting. Between 500m and 800m years from now it’ll have moved sufficiently where our carbon cycles start grinding to a halt.
I’ll update the comment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
As far as I understand, the habitable zone in our system is not stable. It’s shifting. Between 500m and 800m years from now it’ll have moved sufficiently where our carbon cycles start grinding to a halt.
I disagree, my guess is the downvotes is for the idea that the CURRENT trajectory of industry and technology -- largely focused on converting non-renewable sources into luxuries and trinkets for humans currently alive -- has to continue uninterrupted to be the one shot humans have to go to the starts.
If we had to go to the stars in the next 50 years, sure, current industry would be our best bet.
If we (or whatever is evolved) have 500 million years, why would not environmentalists be RIGHT that we need to focus on sustainability first, and improve the odds of society not getting a huge setback?
If we had to go to the stars in the next 50 years, sure, current industry would be our best bet.
If we (or whatever is evolved) have 500 million years, why would not environmentalists be RIGHT that we need to focus on sustainability first, and improve the odds of society not getting a huge setback?
[deleted]
500m is a lot of time even evolutionarily. Dinosaurs were around 245m-66m years ago. There very well may be another animal/civilization in the next 500m years that has a decent shot at escaping from earth.
This particular extinction is indeed man made. Oil companies knew of their impact and role in the seventies and close to not just suppress their knowledge but in fact funded disinformation campaigns.
See https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...
Where did you read that the carbon cycle is coming to an end?
Paragraph 3 of here [0] probably
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth
TL;DR the sun is expected to continue brightening, and that's likely to cause the end the carbonate-silicate cycle in a few hundred million years, which will mean the end of photosynthesis soon (for geological values of "soon") after that starts to grind to a halt. The end of photosynthesis means the end of large, complex life-forms on earth, permanently, forever, never to return.
This means that the practical end of the Earth, as far as humans are concerned, is on track not for a few billion years from now when the Sun expands—the commonly imagined end of "Earth gets charred/absorbed by the Sun"—but a few hundred million years from now. Maybe sooner for a variety of reasons, but that's likely to be the final lights-out—the upper bound—for everything but some microbes and a few lobsters around deep-sea vents or whatever. Barring some serious intervention by intelligent, technologically-advanced life, anyway.
This means that the practical end of the Earth, as far as humans are concerned, is on track not for a few billion years from now when the Sun expands—the commonly imagined end of "Earth gets charred/absorbed by the Sun"—but a few hundred million years from now. Maybe sooner for a variety of reasons, but that's likely to be the final lights-out—the upper bound—for everything but some microbes and a few lobsters around deep-sea vents or whatever. Barring some serious intervention by intelligent, technologically-advanced life, anyway.
Personally I think you are underestimating evolution - we can fix carbon in other ways, but I agree life will be dramatically different.
It isn't the poster who's developed this theory. It's a matter of chemistry. It's possible life could persist, but we don't know of chemical processes that would make it possible, so we shouldn't expect that it can.
> we don't know of chemical processes that would make it possible
C4 carbon fixation would already last a lot longer than C3 carbon fixation. Probably some other sources of carbon that can be found.
C4 carbon fixation would already last a lot longer than C3 carbon fixation. Probably some other sources of carbon that can be found.
Er, I don't know of a chemical process that would make it possible. :)
There won't be a miracle. The best and most scalable carbon sequestration is still growing trees without them rotting, but that takes generations to have an effect, assuming overproduction of CO2 stops right away.
But at this point we've passed the point of no return; probably years ago, with permafrost, ice caps and glaciers melting and all the effects that has. I don't think any CO2 measures now will help anymore.
But at this point we've passed the point of no return; probably years ago, with permafrost, ice caps and glaciers melting and all the effects that has. I don't think any CO2 measures now will help anymore.
For all of the shellacking the fossil fuel industry gets (rightfully so), they have signalled several times that they are willing to transition to lower productions and higher prices and even into green energy. In 2016 oil companies spent the least amount on oil discovery in over 70 years!
It was only after extreme political pressure that oil companies were basically forced into re-expanding capacity again.
The market is willing - the demand is weak.
It was only after extreme political pressure that oil companies were basically forced into re-expanding capacity again.
The market is willing - the demand is weak.
They might have signaled one thing via press releases, PR campaigns, token donations to activists or whatever.......but let's be completely clear - their lobbying dollars and large campaign donations haven't gone to politicians promoting green energy nor to politicians who want to transition away from oil.
On a longer time scale, let's see where the bulk of their lobbying budgets go (to a particular party or sect within a given party), or the initiatives their lobbyist friends have been tasked with passing or defeating.
My guess is that when push comes to shove, the oil companies are not friendly to green energy.
On a longer time scale, let's see where the bulk of their lobbying budgets go (to a particular party or sect within a given party), or the initiatives their lobbyist friends have been tasked with passing or defeating.
My guess is that when push comes to shove, the oil companies are not friendly to green energy.
I mean, let's not overrate the lobbying of the Oil and Gas industry. They don't even crack the top 5 sources of lobbying dollars in the US. They are there right alongside lobbyists for solar and wind and nuclear and etc. (And let's also not set aside that most of the oil extracted in the world is not done by private companies but by government ventures).
And again, their lobbying is a drop in the bucket as to their actual discovery expenditures.
I don't think it's a helpful narrative that oil companies are hell bent on forcing oil down our throats unwillingly. Sure, they will do whatever to make a buck, but they would gladly switch to green energy if they thought it was more profitable. We have even seen this when Exxon (briefly) was the number one spender on solar R&D in the world.
I think people see the lobbying and underrate the extent that it's a two-way street. Politicians NEED low oil prices. Voters WANT low oil prices. And to a certain extent, oil companies have all the cards because of the demand.
And again, their lobbying is a drop in the bucket as to their actual discovery expenditures.
I don't think it's a helpful narrative that oil companies are hell bent on forcing oil down our throats unwillingly. Sure, they will do whatever to make a buck, but they would gladly switch to green energy if they thought it was more profitable. We have even seen this when Exxon (briefly) was the number one spender on solar R&D in the world.
I think people see the lobbying and underrate the extent that it's a two-way street. Politicians NEED low oil prices. Voters WANT low oil prices. And to a certain extent, oil companies have all the cards because of the demand.
Open secrets lists oil & gas at $123 million/year of lobbying, #8th highest spender
#3 highest spender is insurance, at $158m, #2 electronics at $221m, pharma at #1 $373m.
I too think we have to try to be reasonable, & there's a lot of factors, and it's hard. They are a gigantic lobbying force, quite close to top 3 though.
#3 highest spender is insurance, at $158m, #2 electronics at $221m, pharma at #1 $373m.
I too think we have to try to be reasonable, & there's a lot of factors, and it's hard. They are a gigantic lobbying force, quite close to top 3 though.
It's also worth keeping in mind that they don't have to lobby -- US O&G is a strategic source of strength and have had power that went all the way to the top. The Bush family, for example, produced two Presidents, and the Bush fam were all about oil.
No need to spend the money when you get it for free.
Meanwhile it's clear to the average American that healthcare is broken as shit and is ruining lives daily; takes a lot of money to keep things looking good for Pharma. Ditto for much of the tech world.
No need to spend the money when you get it for free.
Meanwhile it's clear to the average American that healthcare is broken as shit and is ruining lives daily; takes a lot of money to keep things looking good for Pharma. Ditto for much of the tech world.
Right - my point exactly. $123m a year is serious coin. A few puff-piece PR releases saying "we're going green! yay us!" are pennies in comparison.
Sure - but setting aside lobbying and PR releases their own capex reports show that US domestic companies were seriously cutting back on oil exploration between 2014 and 2020. And the investments they were making were overwhelmingly to (lower carbon) natural gas.
To put it another way, in that period they reduced their lobbying budget by $50 million and their production investment by $400 billion. It is the lobbying that is pennies.
To put it another way, in that period they reduced their lobbying budget by $50 million and their production investment by $400 billion. It is the lobbying that is pennies.
I've seen enough Climate Town videos (YT channel) to not trust anything that comes the from O&G direction. It may be very well that the exploration was cut back, but that could be for a number of reasons. Without knowing any details, I would blatantly assume they cut back purely out of it being the most profitable thing to do.
Seriously, go watch Climate Town, the guy running the channel is a comedy genius (and also has a degree in climate science).
Seriously, go watch Climate Town, the guy running the channel is a comedy genius (and also has a degree in climate science).
> Without knowing any details, I would blatantly assume they cut back purely out of it being the most profitable thing to do.
Yes, that is blatantly what they did. There was an entire speech from President Biden on it:
“You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining, - Invest in America for the American people. Bring down the price you charge at the pump to reflect what you pay for the product... My message to oil companies is this: You’re sitting on record profits. And we’re giving you more certainty so you can act now to increase oil production now.”
So again, oil and gas companies found it more profitable to produce less, and it became a national political issue to not let them.
Yes, that is blatantly what they did. There was an entire speech from President Biden on it:
“You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining, - Invest in America for the American people. Bring down the price you charge at the pump to reflect what you pay for the product... My message to oil companies is this: You’re sitting on record profits. And we’re giving you more certainty so you can act now to increase oil production now.”
So again, oil and gas companies found it more profitable to produce less, and it became a national political issue to not let them.
Yep, that sounds about right. O&G being O&G and American politicians being American politicians.
Rant: I'm so sick of the phrase "what the average citizen pays at the pump" and it's relatives. How about making public transport viable? Nope, everyone's got to have big cars and cheap fuel.
Rant: I'm so sick of the phrase "what the average citizen pays at the pump" and it's relatives. How about making public transport viable? Nope, everyone's got to have big cars and cheap fuel.
The power of the oil industry comes not through their lobbying, but mainly from the fact that $5.00 gas will get politicians voted out of office, and they all know it.
If we're not at peak oil, we're close to it.
I mean, even if we were at peak oil that would still give us a still a ton of carbon left to extract.
I would honestly give up on the concept of peak oil thought. If for no other reason than the fracking revolution may have alone doubled the available fossil fuels.
I would honestly give up on the concept of peak oil thought. If for no other reason than the fracking revolution may have alone doubled the available fossil fuels.
This has been true for the past 30 years.
I’m beginning to suspect peak oil was never an actual prediction, and more of a statement—or rather a lie—that we would naturally wean of fossil fuels in a couple of years as production would slow. I’m beginning to think peak oil was always a ruse so that the fossil fuel industry could delay climate actions for another couple of decades (and doom us all in a climate disaster while they were at it).
I’m beginning to suspect peak oil was never an actual prediction, and more of a statement—or rather a lie—that we would naturally wean of fossil fuels in a couple of years as production would slow. I’m beginning to think peak oil was always a ruse so that the fossil fuel industry could delay climate actions for another couple of decades (and doom us all in a climate disaster while they were at it).
The "peak oil" concept originates in a 1956 paper by Marion King Hubbert titled "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels."
You can read it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubber...
Here's the central thesis: "When we consider that it has taken 500 million years of geological history to accumulate the present supplies of fossil fuels, it should be clear that, although the same geological processes are still operative, the amount of new fossil fuels that is likely to be produced during the next few thousands of years will be inconsequential. Therefore, as an essential part of our analysis, we can assume with complete assurance that the industrial exploitation of the fossil fuels will consist in the progressive exhaustion of an initially fixed supply to which there will be no significant additions during the period of our interest."
The paper outlines the historical growth of fossil fuel exploitation and posits how it will reach a peak and then decline. The last third of it notes that nuclear fuels, having an energy content several orders of magnitude greater than that of fossil fuels, can supply abundant energy for at least 5000 years into the future. The age of fossil fuels is a short lived transitional phase in the development of industrial civilization.
"Peak oil" later accumulated a vast penumbra of connotations beyond Hubbert's rather technical and dry outlook. The peak oil movement, if it can be called such, has in recent decades predicted the imminent collapse of industrial civilization due to oil shortages. Neither Hubbert's original prediction nor the more recent peak oil collapse predictions have been driven by climate change denial. At best (worst?) I remember peak oilers who believed that we needed to increase coal exploitation because otherwise we'd be facing gigadeaths from energy shortages in a decade or two.
You can read it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubber...
Here's the central thesis: "When we consider that it has taken 500 million years of geological history to accumulate the present supplies of fossil fuels, it should be clear that, although the same geological processes are still operative, the amount of new fossil fuels that is likely to be produced during the next few thousands of years will be inconsequential. Therefore, as an essential part of our analysis, we can assume with complete assurance that the industrial exploitation of the fossil fuels will consist in the progressive exhaustion of an initially fixed supply to which there will be no significant additions during the period of our interest."
The paper outlines the historical growth of fossil fuel exploitation and posits how it will reach a peak and then decline. The last third of it notes that nuclear fuels, having an energy content several orders of magnitude greater than that of fossil fuels, can supply abundant energy for at least 5000 years into the future. The age of fossil fuels is a short lived transitional phase in the development of industrial civilization.
"Peak oil" later accumulated a vast penumbra of connotations beyond Hubbert's rather technical and dry outlook. The peak oil movement, if it can be called such, has in recent decades predicted the imminent collapse of industrial civilization due to oil shortages. Neither Hubbert's original prediction nor the more recent peak oil collapse predictions have been driven by climate change denial. At best (worst?) I remember peak oilers who believed that we needed to increase coal exploitation because otherwise we'd be facing gigadeaths from energy shortages in a decade or two.
Well, fossil fuels are obviously finite so there will always be a peak. The concept itself is sound.
The question is when and where it will occur. On one side more difficult extractions become viable, on the other side green energy makes the oil economy less viable (though notably most plastics are still fossil based)
The question is when and where it will occur. On one side more difficult extractions become viable, on the other side green energy makes the oil economy less viable (though notably most plastics are still fossil based)
[deleted]
The difference is due to US transitioning to shale oil. Current known deposits are effectively infinite.
Look at planned capital investments for fossil fuel energy. Especially power generation. It needs to be zero, yet the industry (and finance) is still full steam ahead.
Look at planned capital investments for fossil fuel energy. Especially power generation. It needs to be zero, yet the industry (and finance) is still full steam ahead.
What political pressure are you alluding to?
For decades now in Canada companies have been endlessly lobbying the government to allow for more expansion of pipelines to enable more production and more growth.
There is nothing new that has changed their approach.
For decades now in Canada companies have been endlessly lobbying the government to allow for more expansion of pipelines to enable more production and more growth.
There is nothing new that has changed their approach.
Look at the political strain that develops when gasoline prices increase in the US and Canada. Loads of people start demanding cheaper gas and expect the government to step in and ensure low-ish gas prices.
The gas tax hasn't budged since 1993 despite really needing it, largely because of the backlash politicians would get for making gasoline more expensive.
The gas tax hasn't budged since 1993 despite really needing it, largely because of the backlash politicians would get for making gasoline more expensive.
nationally, no, there hasn't been much change but many states have high ones; PA comes to mind.
Uh, there was literally a White House speech in 2022 on the subject. "You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining" - words from the president himself. This ended up kicking off a months long negotiation to convince oil and gas companies to increase domestic production.
For the Canadian industry I think you are underrating how much of a hand the government of Alberta themselves are playing in this. This has been an economic development project for them and things like the Keystone pipeline have been spearheaded by the government to get access to the global market as a way of attracting investment from the oil and gas industry.
For the Canadian industry I think you are underrating how much of a hand the government of Alberta themselves are playing in this. This has been an economic development project for them and things like the Keystone pipeline have been spearheaded by the government to get access to the global market as a way of attracting investment from the oil and gas industry.
So sounds like we're agreeing. The oil and gas industry has very been enthusiastic about growth and more production.
I don't think this is new. O&G was pushing just as hard for pipelines in the last government too.
Not just Alberta but of course the Feds themselves bought a pipeline in order to get it built and push back against accusations from the opposition that they were against the O&G industry.
I don't think this is new. O&G was pushing just as hard for pipelines in the last government too.
Not just Alberta but of course the Feds themselves bought a pipeline in order to get it built and push back against accusations from the opposition that they were against the O&G industry.
climate change isn't a problem of science it is a problem of oppression. It is an unjust decision by the power elites to continue the status quo while hoping some silly valley hoohaw is going to come up with a silver bullet but if not who cares, got mine. It is about stealing from present and future generations. It is about stealing from the poor, people of color who will be displaced by rising sea levels. It is about stealing from the plants and animals we share this planet with that are currently going through a massive extinction event.
Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion technology grows more efficient over time). The homegrown demand rises because we are padding our numbers with immigration to boost GDP (enriching the wealthy, primarily), and newcomers adopt the same carbon footprint as the rest of us, through consumption. They want houses, vehicles, electricity, gadgets, delicious and convenient food too.
The argument has been made that it's inhumane to demand that developing countries (e.g. in Africa, or BRIC) opt to lower their fossil fuel consumption, restraining themselves from improving their quality of life over time. I agree. We benefited, so should they. If it were possible for them to catch up purely on green tech, they would.
Only a fraction of fossil fuel use is actually for generating electricity. The other uses are currently non-abatable, until technology improves. Other uses include blast furnaces for cement and coke, steel-making, creating ammonia, creating plastics. On the electricity front, things are still a mess.
The argument has been made that it's inhumane to demand that developing countries (e.g. in Africa, or BRIC) opt to lower their fossil fuel consumption, restraining themselves from improving their quality of life over time. I agree. We benefited, so should they. If it were possible for them to catch up purely on green tech, they would.
Only a fraction of fossil fuel use is actually for generating electricity. The other uses are currently non-abatable, until technology improves. Other uses include blast furnaces for cement and coke, steel-making, creating ammonia, creating plastics. On the electricity front, things are still a mess.
a third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other living things.
Teddy Roosevelt said, “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.”
We must conserve and protect this planet. Even if that means doing so from other humans.
Teddy Roosevelt said, “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.”
We must conserve and protect this planet. Even if that means doing so from other humans.
>They don't have the right to do it.
Well, if they say they have the right then they have the right. They are, after all, as free to govern themselves as we are. If you mean ethics doesn't allow them, sure, but the same ethics doesn't allow us to let them pay for the damage we did and especially since much of their pollution is actually them producing stuff for us. Chinese made pollution creating stuff for Americans should clearly be in the US pollution account, not the Chinese one.
It is going in circles, wasting time on talk. The only solution is that those that polluted in the past pay for those that are on the rise now. Either directly or by not pollution in the future. Anything else (unless you invent a Pollution Eater 9000) is the typical talk and zero real action.
Step one: Let companies like Apple pay for 100% of their pollution all the way from mineral mining to garbage disposable.
Well, if they say they have the right then they have the right. They are, after all, as free to govern themselves as we are. If you mean ethics doesn't allow them, sure, but the same ethics doesn't allow us to let them pay for the damage we did and especially since much of their pollution is actually them producing stuff for us. Chinese made pollution creating stuff for Americans should clearly be in the US pollution account, not the Chinese one.
It is going in circles, wasting time on talk. The only solution is that those that polluted in the past pay for those that are on the rise now. Either directly or by not pollution in the future. Anything else (unless you invent a Pollution Eater 9000) is the typical talk and zero real action.
Step one: Let companies like Apple pay for 100% of their pollution all the way from mineral mining to garbage disposable.
Worth reminding that the IPCC stance is not apocalyptic, in contrast to what you seem to suggest.
Rich countries are scarcely getting back around to upscaling nuclear themselves, much less subsidizing it in others. One advantage the developing countries have is they don't have the baggage of existing extensive infrastructure for electricity, and some renewables can be deployed in a more decentralized fashion (i.e. solar). I believe this is currently happening in India in limited fashion.
Add to the fact, renewable tech, and mitigating tech like carbon capture, is very much subsidized in the West. The necessary shift from the private sector is going to cost trillions; it's happening already, but not overnight, and the angsty projection against barons and the wealthy class won't make it go any faster. I mean, they needed to hear the message, but there's no reason to believe it isn't loud and clear at this point.
Rich countries are scarcely getting back around to upscaling nuclear themselves, much less subsidizing it in others. One advantage the developing countries have is they don't have the baggage of existing extensive infrastructure for electricity, and some renewables can be deployed in a more decentralized fashion (i.e. solar). I believe this is currently happening in India in limited fashion.
Add to the fact, renewable tech, and mitigating tech like carbon capture, is very much subsidized in the West. The necessary shift from the private sector is going to cost trillions; it's happening already, but not overnight, and the angsty projection against barons and the wealthy class won't make it go any faster. I mean, they needed to hear the message, but there's no reason to believe it isn't loud and clear at this point.
This isn't limited to a couple degrees of temperature. We are killing the planet with the current mass extinction event. We don't have the right to do that.
But I agree with you which is why I devote my time to research related to climate mitigation topics such as co2 sequestration.
But I agree with you which is why I devote my time to research related to climate mitigation topics such as co2 sequestration.
Extremely reductive take, to the point of naivety.
How is it reductive? Literally speaking, climate change will most impact the people who benefited the least from the burning of fossil fuels. Those are the people who come from poor and hot countries in the global south and near the equator, who have historically burned far less fossil fuels per-capita, but nevertheless will be harmed the most per-capita given their climates are already precarious. Then, when the consequences boil over in a few decades and their countries become too hot to be healthily habitable, they will be banned from migrating to colder, richer countries by those countries' local conservatives, who will lobby government to restrict or ban immigration intake. What a sick and hypocritical situation that will be. Those rich and cold countries' wealth was generated by the fossil fuels that were burned that put those poor people in the global south in that awful predicament to begin with, and now they'll be stuck there to deal with the consequences that they didn't primarily create. It's a world-scale theft of opportunity, wealth and life.
Extremely reductive response to the point of naivete.
One eye-opening fact I recently learned is that fossil fuel infrastructure being built today is expected to have a three-decade lifespan, after completion of its construction. So every time you hear about a new pipeline, drilling project, or refinery being built you know that the people sitting in the rooms authorizing billions of dollars being allocated to the project all believe it will safely be operating and producing profit 35 years from now; they wouldn't invest otherwise. This is what business as usual looks like. Every new fossil energy project is incompatible with a world that takes climate change seriously. Money talks.
Do you believe we'll ever stop using fossil fuels in the "near" term? Just about every single product nowadays has some piece of plastic in it, including new EVs, which require fossil fuels to manufacture. There are plenty of lubricants to run the machinery in the factories that manufacture those products, including the renewable energy sources, which (again) require fossil fuels to manufacture.
Getting people to switch cars may be a part of reducing the dependency, but still contributes to the use. It'll be a long road that includes getting down to the minutia, like stopping girls from wearing makeup, before you can entirely remove fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels will not go away for at least a few more generations, because they are far too beneficial and there are no replacements for the myriad of uses they have today.
Getting people to switch cars may be a part of reducing the dependency, but still contributes to the use. It'll be a long road that includes getting down to the minutia, like stopping girls from wearing makeup, before you can entirely remove fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels will not go away for at least a few more generations, because they are far too beneficial and there are no replacements for the myriad of uses they have today.
Plastics, lubricants, and any other hydrocarbon derived products can be synthesized starting from carbon dioxide, water, and electricity. For example, the most common plastic monomers (ethylene and propylene) are readily synthesized from methanol via the so-called "methanol to olefins" process. Methanol itself has been synthesized commercially since the 1920s [1]. The methanol-to-olefins process is already commercialized in China [2], albeit with methanol derived from coal rather than from clean feedstocks.
The vast majority of fossil fuels are used as fuel, not for producing materials/chemicals. Only 16% of oil goes to petrochemical production: https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...
The other 84% is just burned for energy. "Entirely" removing fossil fuels won't happen for a very long time if ever, but that's not a barrier to slashing CO2 emissions from fossil combustion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#History
[2] https://www.chemengonline.com/methanol-to-olefins-plant-star...
The vast majority of fossil fuels are used as fuel, not for producing materials/chemicals. Only 16% of oil goes to petrochemical production: https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...
The other 84% is just burned for energy. "Entirely" removing fossil fuels won't happen for a very long time if ever, but that's not a barrier to slashing CO2 emissions from fossil combustion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#History
[2] https://www.chemengonline.com/methanol-to-olefins-plant-star...
> Every new fossil energy project is incompatible with a world that takes climate change seriously. Money talks.
This depends on more information. It’s unlikely we’ll be using zero fossil fuels in 35 years. So the goal is to reduce over time, so a new project today could be replacing an old project going offline.
Or perhaps the project has a transition path to do something else.
I don’t think these are pedantic clarifications as things aren’t fatalistic. Investors are rational and while money talks it doesn’t mean that all the billions put into these projects isn’t a waste in climate terms.
This depends on more information. It’s unlikely we’ll be using zero fossil fuels in 35 years. So the goal is to reduce over time, so a new project today could be replacing an old project going offline.
Or perhaps the project has a transition path to do something else.
I don’t think these are pedantic clarifications as things aren’t fatalistic. Investors are rational and while money talks it doesn’t mean that all the billions put into these projects isn’t a waste in climate terms.
Well, here's your more information: https://i.imgur.com/B2QBY6u.png
Fossil fuel investment has been climbing year-over-year. Fossil fuel companies aren't replacing existing infrastructure to taper out usage of fossil fuels. They are introducing and expanding with new infrastructure.
From the Bloomberg NEF 2023 Energy Transition Investment Trends report, which is incredible reading: https://about.bnef.com/energy-transition-investment/
Fossil fuel investment has been climbing year-over-year. Fossil fuel companies aren't replacing existing infrastructure to taper out usage of fossil fuels. They are introducing and expanding with new infrastructure.
From the Bloomberg NEF 2023 Energy Transition Investment Trends report, which is incredible reading: https://about.bnef.com/energy-transition-investment/
This is just a 5 year graph and it seems to show level funding. Where do you see expansion in this graph?
Of course any investment is new infrastructure. I think the analysis you want to do is a long term trend line of fossil fuel investment and a projection into the future.
What we, hopefully, want to see is that the overall % energy production projected into the future is decreasing.
Of course any investment is new infrastructure. I think the analysis you want to do is a long term trend line of fossil fuel investment and a projection into the future.
What we, hopefully, want to see is that the overall % energy production projected into the future is decreasing.
> One eye-opening fact I recently learned is that fossil fuel infrastructure being built today is expected to have a three-decade lifespan
Same thing goes for innovation. For instance, the first nuclear power plants are from the 50s. 70 years later nuclear energy powers only 10% of electricity in the world (and electricity provides only a fraction of our energy needs).
Same thing goes for innovation. For instance, the first nuclear power plants are from the 50s. 70 years later nuclear energy powers only 10% of electricity in the world (and electricity provides only a fraction of our energy needs).
Net zero means that the over-all result is zero. There will still be fossil fuel operations ongoing after net zero is achieved, until the economics of it don't make sense anymore. For projects that were already in the works, this makes sense. Those are already financed on the order of decades and planned long in advance.
And where are those being built? Overwhelmingly in Asia and Africa
As I said, money talks. I'd like to share a chart I saw a couple months ago that stopped me dead in my tracks. It was in the Bloomberg NEF Energy Transition Investment Trends 2023 report, which you can get emailed to you by filling out a form here: https://about.bnef.com/energy-transition-investment/
Since that's a bit of trouble, I've clipped this incredible chart for you here: https://i.imgur.com/OlMAKVd.png
This single chart completely inverted how I think about this problem and the leadership of western countries in world affairs generally.
Since that's a bit of trouble, I've clipped this incredible chart for you here: https://i.imgur.com/OlMAKVd.png
This single chart completely inverted how I think about this problem and the leadership of western countries in world affairs generally.
Plenty of projects in North America and Europe.
The number of refineries, etc. in those places are only decreasing. Sure, there might be some additional projects but for the most part: no.
First of all, you are wrong. There are new fossil fuel projects in North America and Europe as well (though Europe is building significantly less than North America).
Second of all, why does that matter? Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will heat the climate everywhere (albeit not evenly). The fossil fuel market is global, meaning these projects are overwhelmingly built and profited by publicly traded international fossil fuel companies. (just like the rising temperature) The money to be made is distributed everywhere on the globe (albeit more in some areas than others), regardless of where these new projects are located.
No, the climate disaster is a global crisis, and needs to be handled globally. If we were serious about minimizing the harm of climate change (and we should be; but we aren’t) than green infrastructure would be paid for by the wealthy countries even when it is rolled out in the poorer, where the rich countries won’t see any of the benefits (other then you know, saving the world from impeding doom).
Second of all, why does that matter? Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will heat the climate everywhere (albeit not evenly). The fossil fuel market is global, meaning these projects are overwhelmingly built and profited by publicly traded international fossil fuel companies. (just like the rising temperature) The money to be made is distributed everywhere on the globe (albeit more in some areas than others), regardless of where these new projects are located.
No, the climate disaster is a global crisis, and needs to be handled globally. If we were serious about minimizing the harm of climate change (and we should be; but we aren’t) than green infrastructure would be paid for by the wealthy countries even when it is rolled out in the poorer, where the rich countries won’t see any of the benefits (other then you know, saving the world from impeding doom).
And they still burn much less per-capita, so what's your point? Everyone should decarbonize quickly, but especially those wealthy countries that burn the most per-capita today, and who have burned the most historically and therefore benefited the most from the resulting wealth accumulation. And these wealthy countries should be sending truckloads of money to poor countries to help them with their decarbonization efforts, as recompense for their far outsized role in creating this problem to begin with.
Reference?
Not true, but don't let facts get in the way of your kneejerk racism.
> The U.S. is leading in global LNG supply growth with an additional 5.9 million tonnes of capacity in 2022, for a total of 80 mtpa.
> Norway saw the second-largest growth in LNG supply, with an additional 2.8 million tonnes of capacity. Malaysia and Qatar were close behind, with 2.4 million tonnes and 2.3 million tonnes of capacity growth in 2022, respectively.
> The U.S. is leading in global LNG supply growth with an additional 5.9 million tonnes of capacity in 2022, for a total of 80 mtpa.
> Norway saw the second-largest growth in LNG supply, with an additional 2.8 million tonnes of capacity. Malaysia and Qatar were close behind, with 2.4 million tonnes and 2.3 million tonnes of capacity growth in 2022, respectively.
There are going to be a lot of "stranded assets" on a dead planet.
How many of those can be repurposed to refine or carry natural gas?
Natural gas is a fossil fuel.
TIL. I don't know why I assumed otherwise. Perhaps I was thinking of "RNGs" (renewable natural gases), but it seems rather propagandish to even group those (repurposed biofuels) together with natural gases extracted from the earth.
[deleted]
can't understand the downvotes, may someone explain?
Any indication that those who control the world's wealth won't voluntarily solve this problem implies that direct action, struggle, and hardship are required of us personally if we want a future worth living in. This is not a nice thought and it is understandable people want to look away.
Somewhat clickbaity:
The dramatic shift in its new “Energy Security Scenarios” is not explicitly acknowledged, but, as Carbon Brief’s analysis shows, is hidden in plain sight.
So, no, they haven't admitted it at all.
The dramatic shift in its new “Energy Security Scenarios” is not explicitly acknowledged, but, as Carbon Brief’s analysis shows, is hidden in plain sight.
So, no, they haven't admitted it at all.
And even that is not admitting a truth, but kind of "haggling" about how bad things are, because even 0 growth in fossil fuel use does not get us < 1.5 celsius increase.
Growth? Growth?! Yes, we absolutely 100% should stop immediately digging the hole deeper.
Does anyone have recommendations for good reading on this subject? What this means for combustion engines as a whole? I am trying to imagine where the push for clean energy will lead. I am fully on team green but I think the switch happened too late.
I feel like there is a future where you have a large percent of the population (at least in the US) where EVs are too expensive to afford the monthly payment/up front payment to switch but gas prices rise to a point where they can't afford to fill their tank anymore either. People will always say "just use public transit" but most cities in the US have a barely managing system if they even have one.
Best reading recommendation would be to look at climate change projections from NOAA or similar organizations for where you live or want to live, assume those will be true within some +-, and then base your decisions off of that. There doesn't seem to be a substantial downside to getting it wrong if bad scenarios don't occur but if they do occur you'll want to have gotten it right.
> People will always say "just use public transit" but most cities in the US have a barely managing system if they even have one.
If only we could possibly do something about that....
but yea, EVs on the whole are better than ICE in this context, but 1-1 replacement schemes are a very bad idea and don't really address the underlying problems we face on climate change and other problems (social division, obesity, premature death, etc.); we need to stop driving everywhere.
Unfortunately subtractive solutions (which are almost always better) such as building a little bit closer together (nobody is taking your SFH away), allowing businesses to operate near homes, and building sidewalks don't sell cars, don't fill transportation department budgets and justify jobs, don't win elections, and don't increase GDP. Some big multi-million dollar project that brings "300 new manufacturing jobs" gets the headline and gets the funding, even though building a few sidewalks and converting surface parking lot into businesses bring even more economic activity.
> People will always say "just use public transit" but most cities in the US have a barely managing system if they even have one.
If only we could possibly do something about that....
but yea, EVs on the whole are better than ICE in this context, but 1-1 replacement schemes are a very bad idea and don't really address the underlying problems we face on climate change and other problems (social division, obesity, premature death, etc.); we need to stop driving everywhere.
Unfortunately subtractive solutions (which are almost always better) such as building a little bit closer together (nobody is taking your SFH away), allowing businesses to operate near homes, and building sidewalks don't sell cars, don't fill transportation department budgets and justify jobs, don't win elections, and don't increase GDP. Some big multi-million dollar project that brings "300 new manufacturing jobs" gets the headline and gets the funding, even though building a few sidewalks and converting surface parking lot into businesses bring even more economic activity.
Thanks for the response! I will definitely dive into that.
> even though building a few sidewalks and converting surface parking lot into businesses bring even more economic activity.
I will say, I think we are seeing a bit of movement this direction. The work-from-home boom from Covid has shows that living at the office isn't the dream it used to be. People are beginning to see the benefits of local community and business as not just the economic impact but the freedom that that proximity can provide.
> even though building a few sidewalks and converting surface parking lot into businesses bring even more economic activity.
I will say, I think we are seeing a bit of movement this direction. The work-from-home boom from Covid has shows that living at the office isn't the dream it used to be. People are beginning to see the benefits of local community and business as not just the economic impact but the freedom that that proximity can provide.
Right, but, to a large extent, Americans love the burbs and you are not going to be able to get them to vote for their demise, no matter how many benefits you can see .
Well I don't think all Americans love the suburbs for sure. Home prices in the city where I live for example seem to be skyrocketing compared to the suburbs and that's despite bad schools.
I think you are right in that many Americans won't "vote" for a lot of these benefits. Again the "300 new manufacturing jobs" headline sounds better than "16 small businesses and a 2% drop in obesity-related premature deaths over a 5 year period" [1] and that's what we optimize for.
To your point though, as many Americans won't "vote to get rid of the suburbs" they'll eventually just go bankrupt trying to maintain all of the highways and cars [2], or we'll have to go to war to secure oil flows. There's certainly a social choice to be made and I think we'll choose suburbs, cars, war, heat, and all of those things.
[1] There's nothing wrong with 300 new (or any amount) manufacturing jobs, and the numbers I'm using are made up, though my point is largely that better urban planning and design, zoning, etc. will produce greater economic benefits it's just that they aren't concentrated into a single headline that some dumb idiot can point to and say "Mission Accomplished".
[2] Please note that there's nothing wrong with cars existing, the main problem is cars being a hard requirement (government mandate really) for every single thing you do in your life.
I think you are right in that many Americans won't "vote" for a lot of these benefits. Again the "300 new manufacturing jobs" headline sounds better than "16 small businesses and a 2% drop in obesity-related premature deaths over a 5 year period" [1] and that's what we optimize for.
To your point though, as many Americans won't "vote to get rid of the suburbs" they'll eventually just go bankrupt trying to maintain all of the highways and cars [2], or we'll have to go to war to secure oil flows. There's certainly a social choice to be made and I think we'll choose suburbs, cars, war, heat, and all of those things.
[1] There's nothing wrong with 300 new (or any amount) manufacturing jobs, and the numbers I'm using are made up, though my point is largely that better urban planning and design, zoning, etc. will produce greater economic benefits it's just that they aren't concentrated into a single headline that some dumb idiot can point to and say "Mission Accomplished".
[2] Please note that there's nothing wrong with cars existing, the main problem is cars being a hard requirement (government mandate really) for every single thing you do in your life.
>[2] Please note that there's nothing wrong with cars existing, the main problem is cars being a hard requirement (government mandate really) for every single thing you do in your life.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "government mandate" in this context.
I've lived for more than half a century and have never owned a car or attempted to purchase one. In all that time, no one (affiliated with a government or not) has ever even hinted that I must have a car.
I'm not playing "gotcha" here, I just don't understand what you're getting at.
Sure, there are many places (especially in the US) where having access to a personal, motorized vehicle provides access to many of the necessities of modern life, but that's not a result of government fiat/mandate.
Rather it was population increases, cheap oil, poor land use decisions, bigotry and a host of other factors -- including government support for such decisions -- that are at the heart of those results.
Perhaps my take is too US-centric and/or I'm missing something important.
tl;dr: Governments supporting the status quo/big economic actors creating/maintaining unsustainable environments is bad public policy, but doesn't add up to a "mandate," IMNSHO.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "government mandate" in this context.
I've lived for more than half a century and have never owned a car or attempted to purchase one. In all that time, no one (affiliated with a government or not) has ever even hinted that I must have a car.
I'm not playing "gotcha" here, I just don't understand what you're getting at.
Sure, there are many places (especially in the US) where having access to a personal, motorized vehicle provides access to many of the necessities of modern life, but that's not a result of government fiat/mandate.
Rather it was population increases, cheap oil, poor land use decisions, bigotry and a host of other factors -- including government support for such decisions -- that are at the heart of those results.
Perhaps my take is too US-centric and/or I'm missing something important.
tl;dr: Governments supporting the status quo/big economic actors creating/maintaining unsustainable environments is bad public policy, but doesn't add up to a "mandate," IMNSHO.
Sure I can take a stab at it.
For the vast majority of America in order to participate in life you have to drive a car somewhere to do something. So this could be driving to get a prescription filled, it could be going to school, to work, etc. The way the government "mandates" it is by only building additional car-only infrastructure (highways, etc.) and using zoning policies that dictate that SFH and big-box retailers are the only thing that can be built. Of course places like, say, New York City have public transit but for most of America the government effectively mandates that you use a car.
While the government may not explicitly state that "you must use cars" if you take a look at state transportation department budgets, for example, you'll see that the funding is all for cars. We could split hairs and say it's not a "mandate" but I think it is effectively a mandate and if you asked, most politicians would say something like "Americans love their cars and freedom" which means "we support car-only infrastructure".
For the vast majority of America in order to participate in life you have to drive a car somewhere to do something. So this could be driving to get a prescription filled, it could be going to school, to work, etc. The way the government "mandates" it is by only building additional car-only infrastructure (highways, etc.) and using zoning policies that dictate that SFH and big-box retailers are the only thing that can be built. Of course places like, say, New York City have public transit but for most of America the government effectively mandates that you use a car.
While the government may not explicitly state that "you must use cars" if you take a look at state transportation department budgets, for example, you'll see that the funding is all for cars. We could split hairs and say it's not a "mandate" but I think it is effectively a mandate and if you asked, most politicians would say something like "Americans love their cars and freedom" which means "we support car-only infrastructure".
>While the government may not explicitly state that "you must use cars" if you take a look at state transportation department budgets, for example, you'll see that the funding is all for cars. We could split hairs and say it's not a "mandate" but I think it is effectively a mandate and if you asked, most politicians would say something like "Americans love their cars and freedom" which means "we support car-only infrastructure".
Thanks for putting a finer point on that. As an American who lives in NYC, but has traveled/lived all over the US, your assessment is spot on.
Except for the "mandate" part (at least IMHO). Which, I argue, isn't splitting hairs at all.
I say that because the activities of state and local governments are, in fact, what the people they represent want. If it were not, those folks wouldn't have been elected in the first place.
And that's especially true for local governments, where a couple dozen folks dedicated to making something happen can usually do so. That's also true (generally with a few more folks involved) for state governments.
As such, those governments are, in fact, executing the will of their constituencies. So, in my mind, that's not a "mandate" (An authoritative command or instruction)[0] by the government, but a mandate (A command or authorization given by a political electorate to the winner of an election)[0] from the folks those governments represent.
So the car culture is, as wasteful as it may be, what the citizens of such towns/cities/counties/states have demanded (or at least voted for) and not some "edict from on high," which is the sense I got from both your comments around this. If my understanding is mistaken, my apologies.
[0] https://www.wordnik.com/words/mandate
Thanks for putting a finer point on that. As an American who lives in NYC, but has traveled/lived all over the US, your assessment is spot on.
Except for the "mandate" part (at least IMHO). Which, I argue, isn't splitting hairs at all.
I say that because the activities of state and local governments are, in fact, what the people they represent want. If it were not, those folks wouldn't have been elected in the first place.
And that's especially true for local governments, where a couple dozen folks dedicated to making something happen can usually do so. That's also true (generally with a few more folks involved) for state governments.
As such, those governments are, in fact, executing the will of their constituencies. So, in my mind, that's not a "mandate" (An authoritative command or instruction)[0] by the government, but a mandate (A command or authorization given by a political electorate to the winner of an election)[0] from the folks those governments represent.
So the car culture is, as wasteful as it may be, what the citizens of such towns/cities/counties/states have demanded (or at least voted for) and not some "edict from on high," which is the sense I got from both your comments around this. If my understanding is mistaken, my apologies.
[0] https://www.wordnik.com/words/mandate
Thanks for the post and I don't disagree with your assessment on how the term "mandate" is used. It's just the closest word I could find at the time to describe how I view the current state. I know the governor for example doesn't come on the TV and say thou shalt drive but the budget and actions do show otherwise. I'm not even sure voters are effectively engaged here either. It's like the saying it's easier to destroy things than to create them. It's easier to just do cars because explaining why we shouldn't just do cars requires more discussion.
Sorry for the late response.
Point taken. As I said, aside from that particular word choice, you're spot on.
Point taken. As I said, aside from that particular word choice, you're spot on.
While there are convincing arguments for many problems with suburbs and sprawl, the one that really resonated with my own experience is their inability to maintain their infrastructure. Various schemes get them built in the first place, but there doesn't seem to be a way to get enough tax base to support all the necessary infrastructure long-term.
I live in the burbs, and everything I need is a bicycle ride away. I currently work remotely, although that's about to change because we, like most companies, seem hellbent on making people drive in traffic and be generally less happy. During the pandemic I put maybe 4-5k miles on my vehicle. I would fill up gas once a month.
Long story short stop making this about 'burbs vs cities vs rural. It's not going to work, you aren't going to guilt enough people into doing the right thing. We need to make living sustainable for a variety of different type of living arrangements because nothing in America is ever this clear cut and dry or uniform. You can exercise positive patterns of behavior and living/lifestyle choices where ever you are. Besides, 99.9% of human existence was the village model: clusters of independent and self-sufficient communities. There's nothing wrong with this, and it's what we've evolved with.
Long story short stop making this about 'burbs vs cities vs rural. It's not going to work, you aren't going to guilt enough people into doing the right thing. We need to make living sustainable for a variety of different type of living arrangements because nothing in America is ever this clear cut and dry or uniform. You can exercise positive patterns of behavior and living/lifestyle choices where ever you are. Besides, 99.9% of human existence was the village model: clusters of independent and self-sufficient communities. There's nothing wrong with this, and it's what we've evolved with.
> Long story short stop making this about 'burbs vs cities vs rural. It's not going to work, you aren't going to guilt enough people into doing the right thing
Right, the exact point I was making.
That said, your suburbia apologia is a bit silly - naturalism fallacy aside, the suburban experience isn't even close to that of primordial human tribes.
And it matters little if you bike to your stores, the goods you're buying at your store are not brought there on bikes, just the emissions from the concrete needed to pave over that amount of land is ridiculous, etc. etc.
Unlocking suburban "sustainability" would require next generation sequestration tech or full electrification + renewables.
Right, the exact point I was making.
That said, your suburbia apologia is a bit silly - naturalism fallacy aside, the suburban experience isn't even close to that of primordial human tribes.
And it matters little if you bike to your stores, the goods you're buying at your store are not brought there on bikes, just the emissions from the concrete needed to pave over that amount of land is ridiculous, etc. etc.
Unlocking suburban "sustainability" would require next generation sequestration tech or full electrification + renewables.
My suburbia apology wasn't an apology, suburbia isn't without its faults either, but recognizing that suburbia is closer to the roots than dense urbanism.
It's going to be about suburbs vs rural for as long as the suggested solutions only work in urban environments. If you don't like it being that way, then suggest a solution that works for people who don't live and work in a dense environment.
My entire point is the suggested solutions aren't solutions. The onus is on those suggesting to suggest something practical and that will actually work, not utopian fantasies.
[deleted]
You’re right that EVs are not enough to solve this. We also need to significantly reduce the amount of traveling in all cars, electric or not.
The good news is that there are fast and cheap solutions that cities can implement nearly overnight. Cities like Paris showed in recent years that “pop-up” bike lanes can be installed very quickly, and significantly increase travel by bicycle.
Many cities also have a bus system, which would also be positively transformed with just painting some bus lanes on existing roads.
The short term fixes support the longer term changes (enabling walkable communities, allowing more efficient compact housing, etc.) that we also need to be adopting as fast as possible.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/10/13/cycling-through-covid...
The good news is that there are fast and cheap solutions that cities can implement nearly overnight. Cities like Paris showed in recent years that “pop-up” bike lanes can be installed very quickly, and significantly increase travel by bicycle.
Many cities also have a bus system, which would also be positively transformed with just painting some bus lanes on existing roads.
The short term fixes support the longer term changes (enabling walkable communities, allowing more efficient compact housing, etc.) that we also need to be adopting as fast as possible.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/10/13/cycling-through-covid...
> We also need to significantly reduce the amount of traveling in all cars, electric or not.
I agree with the idea of this but in saying this you are forgetting about ~20% of the US populace that lives in rural areas.[1] I personally live ~1 hour from the nearest city. The area I live in has no access to high-speed internet to enable remote work, and the cost of driving to the city for a good paying job is still money ahead than taking a low paying job closer by. I also know I am not the only one of my neighbors in this boat.
This goes back to my original point, I think we have made the change too late. Sure we can implement solutions in cities with relative speed but the type of large scale changes that it would take to help areas, like where I'm at, will be too late by the time they are finished.
[1]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america...
I agree with the idea of this but in saying this you are forgetting about ~20% of the US populace that lives in rural areas.[1] I personally live ~1 hour from the nearest city. The area I live in has no access to high-speed internet to enable remote work, and the cost of driving to the city for a good paying job is still money ahead than taking a low paying job closer by. I also know I am not the only one of my neighbors in this boat.
This goes back to my original point, I think we have made the change too late. Sure we can implement solutions in cities with relative speed but the type of large scale changes that it would take to help areas, like where I'm at, will be too late by the time they are finished.
[1]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america...
Obviously, this isn't a one-size fits all solution. But even per your numbers, the vast majority (80%) of American's don't live in rural areas. The solutions I mentioned are the biggest bang for the buck because they are the most broadly applicable.
Even for those that do live in rural communities, this isn't an intractable situation with no possibility of improving. First of all, many rural communities existed before the invention of the automobile. They began as compact towns centered around the train station. Nearly all of them have lost passenger rail access, but places like Germany, Austria, and Switzerland show that this need not be the case. Traditional community planning would allow many people to accomplish daily tasks within town without a car, even if one was used to travel outside of town.
Second, fewer people should be living an hour away from their job in an urban center, and nobody should be forced to. It must be affordable and convenient for everyone to live close enough to their job so as to enable them to easily get there without a car, but this is not a problem that can be solved overnight.
Third, we must invest in an effort to install fiber optic internet access in these communities, in a 21st century repeat of the Rural Electrification program of the 20th century. Remote work is a vital lifeline to stave off the steady decline of population in rural areas.
Rural communities face several existential threats, climate change is just one of them. Hopefully there can be some synergy among solutions that will make these communities more resilient in every dimension, not just climate.
Even for those that do live in rural communities, this isn't an intractable situation with no possibility of improving. First of all, many rural communities existed before the invention of the automobile. They began as compact towns centered around the train station. Nearly all of them have lost passenger rail access, but places like Germany, Austria, and Switzerland show that this need not be the case. Traditional community planning would allow many people to accomplish daily tasks within town without a car, even if one was used to travel outside of town.
Second, fewer people should be living an hour away from their job in an urban center, and nobody should be forced to. It must be affordable and convenient for everyone to live close enough to their job so as to enable them to easily get there without a car, but this is not a problem that can be solved overnight.
Third, we must invest in an effort to install fiber optic internet access in these communities, in a 21st century repeat of the Rural Electrification program of the 20th century. Remote work is a vital lifeline to stave off the steady decline of population in rural areas.
Rural communities face several existential threats, climate change is just one of them. Hopefully there can be some synergy among solutions that will make these communities more resilient in every dimension, not just climate.
it's always possible to improve public transport, and it could happen fast if people would get their priorities straight; more options are car sharing and concentrating on more dense areas with walkable and cyclable infrastructure (keyword 15 minute cities).
something to watch instead of read: NotJustBikes
something to watch instead of read: NotJustBikes
David Roberts, formerly of Vox and now independent, has been a great resource for years. You can find his archive at these two links:
https://www.vox.com/authors/david-roberts
https://www.canarymedia.com/about/people/david
And he now podcasts at the site https://www.volts.wtf
https://www.vox.com/authors/david-roberts
https://www.canarymedia.com/about/people/david
And he now podcasts at the site https://www.volts.wtf
The Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence M. Krauss
https://www.lawrencemkrauss.com/single-post/the-physics-of-c...
Perhaps not exactly what you're looking for in terms of potential solutions, but it's an honest and sobering account of where we're at without any undue sensationalization.
https://www.lawrencemkrauss.com/single-post/the-physics-of-c...
Perhaps not exactly what you're looking for in terms of potential solutions, but it's an honest and sobering account of where we're at without any undue sensationalization.
Like you said, not exactly what I was looking for but still a great read regardless. Thank you!
I'll give a gaming rec that's tied to a book. https://play.half.earth/
The discussion here mirrors many of the themes in the game, and presumably the book.
The discussion here mirrors many of the themes in the game, and presumably the book.
IMO What we're consistently failing to see is that necessity is the mother of invention. Mankind has summoned seemingly unfathomable ingenuity and effort in response to dire need. It seems it will be Gen Alpha/Beta who will have their "ww2 moment" but in response to existential threat from Environmental and second order societal collapse.
Likely changes will include mass adoption of nuclear (potentially including Fusion or Thorium based), Carbon (and other gas) sequestration, Biodomes (to deal with a toxic environment), etc.
It clearly wont be the end of mankind, just mankind as we currently experience it.
Likely changes will include mass adoption of nuclear (potentially including Fusion or Thorium based), Carbon (and other gas) sequestration, Biodomes (to deal with a toxic environment), etc.
It clearly wont be the end of mankind, just mankind as we currently experience it.
>It clearly wont be the end of mankind, just mankind as we currently experience it.
Cold comfort if the new experience will be an economic crash and global food shortage. And you're assuming that, once things are terrible enough that political and economic powers can no longer ignore climate change, there will still be available solutions to have something better than a life of war and hunger.
Cities have fallen to disasters throughout history (easy example is Pompeii). Cultures vanish. The only reason anyone's still around to talk about it is because natural disasters, wars, and human errors have largely been localized. Climate change won't be.
Cold comfort if the new experience will be an economic crash and global food shortage. And you're assuming that, once things are terrible enough that political and economic powers can no longer ignore climate change, there will still be available solutions to have something better than a life of war and hunger.
Cities have fallen to disasters throughout history (easy example is Pompeii). Cultures vanish. The only reason anyone's still around to talk about it is because natural disasters, wars, and human errors have largely been localized. Climate change won't be.
>Cities have fallen to disasters throughout history (easy example is Pompeii). Cultures vanish. The only reason anyone's still around to talk about it is because natural disasters, wars, and human errors have largely been localized. Climate change won't be.
The "Bronze Age Collapse"[0] wasn't global, but it certainly wasn't "localized" in the sense that (I think) you're using it.
Yes, I'm picking a nit there. That said, you're otherwise spot on.
And that's not breaking news either, and it's been discussed ad infinitum, Fall of Civilizations[1] brings your point into a pretty clear focus. I highly recommend it!
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B965f8AcNbw
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@FallofCivilizations/videos
The "Bronze Age Collapse"[0] wasn't global, but it certainly wasn't "localized" in the sense that (I think) you're using it.
Yes, I'm picking a nit there. That said, you're otherwise spot on.
And that's not breaking news either, and it's been discussed ad infinitum, Fall of Civilizations[1] brings your point into a pretty clear focus. I highly recommend it!
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B965f8AcNbw
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@FallofCivilizations/videos
> Climate change won't be.
While I agree there will be some delta nearly every where, I disagree there will be a life ending delta every where. It's worth noting I'm talking about this very stoically. It will be horrific either way.
While I agree there will be some delta nearly every where, I disagree there will be a life ending delta every where. It's worth noting I'm talking about this very stoically. It will be horrific either way.
What happens when we can't find a solution. In a lot of ways we're lucky b/c every major problem that has come along we more or less have found a solution to. I suspect climate change may be a little different. Not sure if you saw the movie Up but the basic plot is an asteroid is going to crash into earth. They devise a mechanism to blow it up but it doesn't work and everyone dies. Not everyone is going to die from climate change but it's very possible we don't "solve" it and life as we know it is fundamentally altered.
> What happens when we can't find a solution.
We go extinct or evolve. But that's always been true about every existential problem that humanity has faced before, including how to get food, clothe ourselves, not die in childbirth, on and on goes the list of things we've solved in the past.
I'm not saying we should recklessly exacerbate every scenario but we know that distributed problems are very difficult for humanity to solve without a present crisis (as ww2 was, and unfortunately 2050 is not present enough for typical human psychology) .
> life as we know it is fundamentally altered.
Yes. This has happened dozens of times, at an increasing pace across human history. Agriculture, Printing press, Germ Theory/Antibiotics, birth control + feminine hygiene products, Nuclear theory, Extra terrestrial travel, the internet, "AI" ... Each of them has unlocked an order of magnitude difference in human existence
I fully expect us to invent something in this case, and do not fear if we do not. Given enough dice rolls something is going to end humanity eventually.
We go extinct or evolve. But that's always been true about every existential problem that humanity has faced before, including how to get food, clothe ourselves, not die in childbirth, on and on goes the list of things we've solved in the past.
I'm not saying we should recklessly exacerbate every scenario but we know that distributed problems are very difficult for humanity to solve without a present crisis (as ww2 was, and unfortunately 2050 is not present enough for typical human psychology) .
> life as we know it is fundamentally altered.
Yes. This has happened dozens of times, at an increasing pace across human history. Agriculture, Printing press, Germ Theory/Antibiotics, birth control + feminine hygiene products, Nuclear theory, Extra terrestrial travel, the internet, "AI" ... Each of them has unlocked an order of magnitude difference in human existence
I fully expect us to invent something in this case, and do not fear if we do not. Given enough dice rolls something is going to end humanity eventually.
I think you meant the movie Don't Look Up.
At the moment I don't buy the trade off for EVs. They take a lot of carbon to make since most of the chain of mining through construction is still consuming fossil fuels and buying energy from the grid is still quite carbon intensive.
You can save more money and be more helpful with solar on your roof especially in the warm areas of the US. At some point hopefully the carbon cost of the vehicles will come down and they will make more sense, they just don't save enough currently compared to a Solar array which typically pays back its carbon cost in about 90 days a vehicle is more like 5 years.
You can save more money and be more helpful with solar on your roof especially in the warm areas of the US. At some point hopefully the carbon cost of the vehicles will come down and they will make more sense, they just don't save enough currently compared to a Solar array which typically pays back its carbon cost in about 90 days a vehicle is more like 5 years.
Another "slogan", Use a bicycle.
Yes, it's:
* Not possible on non-level terrain (although e-bikes are sometimes an option).
* Potentially dangerous in some places because of traffic.
* Some places will not be accessible by bike due to various physical obstacles
* Requires some level of physical health (although you don't have to be fit to ride a bike)
but still, it's a decent solution for many of those towns without a public transport system. And if you can get your municipal authorities to support it, you can address the second and third points above.
Yes, it's:
* Not possible on non-level terrain (although e-bikes are sometimes an option).
* Potentially dangerous in some places because of traffic.
* Some places will not be accessible by bike due to various physical obstacles
* Requires some level of physical health (although you don't have to be fit to ride a bike)
but still, it's a decent solution for many of those towns without a public transport system. And if you can get your municipal authorities to support it, you can address the second and third points above.
Guess people will have to move to more dense areas if they want to survive financially then.
For that to happen, living in a dense urban area needs to be much less expensive than living out in the middle of nowhere. The average income in Mississippi is around $25k / year. I'm not sure what the distribution curve looks like, but I'd guess 2/3 of the population make at least $20k / year. Cities should be designed so that a person can live a good life on $20k / year in a city.
Yes, I agree. In many places, this is the case - but not in the US.
I'm trying to think of places where city living is significantly less expensive than living in more rural areas and about the only thing I can come up with are places where land is scarce and therefore expensive. For example, Hawaii.
And how do you propose to get produce if all the farmers move away? Saying "people should move to more dense areas" creates a whole other swath of problems to fix.
Combustion engines are an inferior tech, so they'll get replaced everywhere they can be.
I also think we could have been a decade ahead on this transition, if not more, but I think you'll still also be suprised at how quickly EVs totally replace ICE cars, even if you live in some poorly run area of the globe.
EVs already have lower TCO and leasing companies are keen to loan you the upfront difference and let you pay it back month by month instead of spending it on gas and use the more reliable EV as collateral, reducing financing risk and cost.
They'll continue to do that as the upfront price drops below ICE too.
It would be nice if the US moved to a healthier, more walkable lifestyle, but if they do insist on continuing that form of slow suicide, it'll only make the transition faster. EVs make more monetary sense the longer you drive, due to lower fuel costs.
I also think we could have been a decade ahead on this transition, if not more, but I think you'll still also be suprised at how quickly EVs totally replace ICE cars, even if you live in some poorly run area of the globe.
EVs already have lower TCO and leasing companies are keen to loan you the upfront difference and let you pay it back month by month instead of spending it on gas and use the more reliable EV as collateral, reducing financing risk and cost.
They'll continue to do that as the upfront price drops below ICE too.
It would be nice if the US moved to a healthier, more walkable lifestyle, but if they do insist on continuing that form of slow suicide, it'll only make the transition faster. EVs make more monetary sense the longer you drive, due to lower fuel costs.
Vaclav Smil - How the World Really Works, and Numbers Don't Lie.
I am a complete and absolute cynic on climate policies and outcomes, but battery technology is still having ridiculous breakthroughs day by day.
Ultimately if the base price of a vehicle increases the financial instruments to make them affordable in the face of regulatory disincentives for ICEs will appear.
Ultimately if the base price of a vehicle increases the financial instruments to make them affordable in the face of regulatory disincentives for ICEs will appear.
With China building 7 new coal plants everyday and cruise ships emitting more than all ICE cars combined I think the answer is either fusion or we just plant more and more trees.
We should plant more trees for sure!
Not because of carbon, but because of covering the soil.
Check back to garden of eden documentary.
Covering the soil is the solution to end hungry!
Why? Watch the documentary.
Public transport is impossible in most US cities. By impossible, I mean so uneconomical that it cannot happen at scale. The geography is not there.
Even in the UK, a tiny island, public transport works well in large cities like London and Manchester, sort of okay but a faff in the suburbs of those cities and smaller cities, marginally as something for tourists in small towns, and for the rest of the country there's nothing.
Almost everywhere in the US has less density than a small town in the UK. In most suburbs just getting to the end of your road is going to be 10 minutes walk. It would mean half of the country abandoning their homes and rebuilding, which I imagine would end up higher carbon than just using the ICE cars.
Even in the UK, a tiny island, public transport works well in large cities like London and Manchester, sort of okay but a faff in the suburbs of those cities and smaller cities, marginally as something for tourists in small towns, and for the rest of the country there's nothing.
Almost everywhere in the US has less density than a small town in the UK. In most suburbs just getting to the end of your road is going to be 10 minutes walk. It would mean half of the country abandoning their homes and rebuilding, which I imagine would end up higher carbon than just using the ICE cars.
The geography's fine, it's the zoning that destroyed it. You don't need to have your entire country be oceans of parking with a few buildings sprinkled in the middle.
I agree, I mean the human geography, not the size of the country, sorry if that was unclear.
A bit like how London couldn't turn into LA now without demolishing half of it. We tried to build a couple of freeways in the 60's and failed.
A bit like how London couldn't turn into LA now without demolishing half of it. We tried to build a couple of freeways in the 60's and failed.
To be fair, that's exactly how LA turned into LA: they ripped up streetcar lines, demolished parts of the city to make room for interstate highways, and changed the development rules to require low density and lots of parking.
Which is to say, American cities were not born with the car centrism, they were demolished and rebuilt with it. The reason it succeeded here, but not in London, may have a lot to do with the insane corruption due to the auto industry here (but we call it lobbying, not corruption, so it's fine :P), and also due to the hyper racist forces that drove white flight to suburbs. Also the incredible amounts of federal money that went to the interstate highway system.
Which is to say, American cities were not born with the car centrism, they were demolished and rebuilt with it. The reason it succeeded here, but not in London, may have a lot to do with the insane corruption due to the auto industry here (but we call it lobbying, not corruption, so it's fine :P), and also due to the hyper racist forces that drove white flight to suburbs. Also the incredible amounts of federal money that went to the interstate highway system.
> It would mean half of the country abandoning their homes and rebuilding, which I imagine would end up higher carbon than just using the ICE cars.
Bet you it actually wouldn't, the impact of urban sprawl is absolutely massive and continuous as compared to a one-time cost.
Bet you it actually wouldn't, the impact of urban sprawl is absolutely massive and continuous as compared to a one-time cost.
Fair enough.
I don't think it really matters to be honest, Americans are not moving into even something like my ~1500sqft terraced house en masse. You may as well ask half the country to learn Russian.
I don't think it really matters to be honest, Americans are not moving into even something like my ~1500sqft terraced house en masse. You may as well ask half the country to learn Russian.
The 60% of Millennials who don’t own a home, and the 60% of gen-Z who live with their parents would probably leap at the opportunity to own their own 1500 Sq ft row house.
We don’t need to convince anyone to move into more sustainable housing, we merely need to allow it.
We don’t need to convince anyone to move into more sustainable housing, we merely need to allow it.
This is a large part of the problem. When we went house hunting, we wanted to live in a denser area. But we just plain couldn't afford it, so suburbs it was.
[deleted]
I'm actually not so sure, especially if you use buses. The problem is its inconvenient, and if you have a car you take that instead of a bus, so no one takes the bus, which makes it hard to justify the bus and frequent schedules.
Our small suburban city of 15k actually has free bus service up and down our main stroad. Everyone is probably within a 15 minute walk to it. But it's aimed mostly at school kids, so the hours are very sparse during certain times of the day. E.g. when schools tend to get out it's every 10 minutes, but outside of those hours its every hour or so.
A lot of it is cultural too. My wife lived in Santa Monica, and she would drive for 1 hour to go 2 miles rather than walk or bike, and this behavior was common among her friends.
I live a 10 minute walk to school. My neighbors still drive their kids to school. There's no (good) excuse for that.
Our small suburban city of 15k actually has free bus service up and down our main stroad. Everyone is probably within a 15 minute walk to it. But it's aimed mostly at school kids, so the hours are very sparse during certain times of the day. E.g. when schools tend to get out it's every 10 minutes, but outside of those hours its every hour or so.
A lot of it is cultural too. My wife lived in Santa Monica, and she would drive for 1 hour to go 2 miles rather than walk or bike, and this behavior was common among her friends.
I live a 10 minute walk to school. My neighbors still drive their kids to school. There's no (good) excuse for that.
It's certainly an improvement that now they speak with partial evidence and admittance, compared to paying for "climate change hoax" campaigning.
In context, the heating we had now already caused massive destruction in polar, in whales, in shallow sea, in mosquitos, in plagues, in desertification. Thus any decrease is welcome. We are not having quota to spare. We're trying to pay a subprime mortgage made before.
Kudos to Shell for admitting that, but the question is how in the world they are able to function and sell stuff? Grid company can switch to renewable comfortably, but Shell found its way in digging ground.
I guess they at least will make the shift to natural gas as that stuff ain't that terrible compared to petroleum, and they can still sell petroleum for plastic.
In context, the heating we had now already caused massive destruction in polar, in whales, in shallow sea, in mosquitos, in plagues, in desertification. Thus any decrease is welcome. We are not having quota to spare. We're trying to pay a subprime mortgage made before.
Kudos to Shell for admitting that, but the question is how in the world they are able to function and sell stuff? Grid company can switch to renewable comfortably, but Shell found its way in digging ground.
I guess they at least will make the shift to natural gas as that stuff ain't that terrible compared to petroleum, and they can still sell petroleum for plastic.
I never understood why this 1.5-2C global temperature is such a big issue when dinosaurs were living with average 15-20C Earth temperature and much higher CO2 levels (you can just google "world temperature history" or "co2 levels history". There were much more plants, diverse wildlife, etc. Having warm Earth is much better than having an Ice age, right? Also higher CO2 levels mean more ingridients for new trees/plants (eventually - food). I'm not trolling but really curious on this PoV and seems that the media is onesided on this topic (higher temperature / CO2 levels - bad and that's it). Noone is looking at it at a diferent angle.
These questions are tackled in most basic primers that should show up in a google search such as you suggest. E.g.:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/25733/interactive...
> Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?
> All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the natural world to adapt.
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/frequently-asked-q...
> Why be concerned about a degree or two change in the average global temperature?
> A degree or two change in average global temperature might not sound like much to worry about, but relatively small changes in the earth’s average temperature can mean big changes in local and regional climate, creating risks to public health and safety, water resources, agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Among the many examples cited by the 2018 National Climate Assessment are an increase in heat waves and days with temperatures above 90°F; more extreme weather events such as storms, droughts, and floods; and a projected sea level rise of 1 to 4 feet by the end of this century, which could put certain areas of the country underwater.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/25733/interactive...
> Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?
> All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the natural world to adapt.
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/frequently-asked-q...
> Why be concerned about a degree or two change in the average global temperature?
> A degree or two change in average global temperature might not sound like much to worry about, but relatively small changes in the earth’s average temperature can mean big changes in local and regional climate, creating risks to public health and safety, water resources, agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Among the many examples cited by the 2018 National Climate Assessment are an increase in heat waves and days with temperatures above 90°F; more extreme weather events such as storms, droughts, and floods; and a projected sea level rise of 1 to 4 feet by the end of this century, which could put certain areas of the country underwater.
The current warm period is happening across the world for the first time. The rate of change is unprecedented and it happens globally. No, heating if a planet is not good, when this also comes with stronger weather extremes, areas where it is impossible to survive and ecological stress that evolution can not deal with.
I can get really tiring in explaining the basics in one of humanities biggest problem over and over again.
I can get really tiring in explaining the basics in one of humanities biggest problem over and over again.
[deleted]
Well here's a start: humans are not dinosaurs.
>Having warm Earth is much better than having an Ice age, right?
This is not the choice we're dealing with? We are not in a situation where we either continue to cause global heating or else face an ice age.
>Having warm Earth is much better than having an Ice age, right?
This is not the choice we're dealing with? We are not in a situation where we either continue to cause global heating or else face an ice age.
The media is reporting what scientists are saying, who thoroughly consider all angles. You don't see it mentioned because it's a hypothesis that was rejected (long ago), with reason.
Hint: The _rate of change_ is critical. Past climate shifts that happened in short order, lead to mass extinction events (like we're participating in now).
If you're truly "really curious" and "not trolling", there's a wealth of information at your fingertips!
Hint: The _rate of change_ is critical. Past climate shifts that happened in short order, lead to mass extinction events (like we're participating in now).
If you're truly "really curious" and "not trolling", there's a wealth of information at your fingertips!
Temperature is not the issue. Rate of change of temperature is. World ecosystem can’t adapt that fast without drastic population drops. Ever heard of overshoot?
https://medium.com/@CollapseSurvival/overshoot-why-its-alrea...
https://medium.com/@CollapseSurvival/overshoot-why-its-alrea...
[deleted]
climate change is also affected by the amount of swamp we replace by concrete. here in the Louisiana wetlands, the amount of CO2 that the environment can "sink" is enormous, but the wetlands are shrinking every day for more refineries and pipelines and.... there's a balance we haven't found and don't want to find. rich people apparently don't really care about their grandchildren.
Where in LA are you?
Most pressing issue in our futures
Futures? That's optimistic, it's affecting everyone already, right now. Droughts, food prices going up, heat records being broken.
I mean personally it hits me in the wallet for groceries and having to make adjustments to my house (built for a cooler climate) to keep it comfortable, but that's probably a luxury position to be in compared to droughts, famines and forced relocation that millions of people are having.
I mean personally it hits me in the wallet for groceries and having to make adjustments to my house (built for a cooler climate) to keep it comfortable, but that's probably a luxury position to be in compared to droughts, famines and forced relocation that millions of people are having.
A few more degrees won't hurt anyone... I mean everyone.
Keep it in the ground
admits it, yes.
gonna do something about it, no.
they've talked a good game about this previously but made no changes; no reason to think this will be any different.
gonna do something about it, no.
they've talked a good game about this previously but made no changes; no reason to think this will be any different.
"growth"? lol, more like usage.
Am I wrong? Why down vote? because it makes you feel bad? Where is the evidence we can continue doing what we are doing and not hit or exceed 1.5C?
FWIW, I think the substance of your comment is correct, but it might be the dismissive tone that attracted downvotes.
Good.
paganel(5)
Net Zero 2050[1], the very public and very well publicly elaborated plan by the United Nations and many climate groups and other NGOs to have zero net carbon emissions by 2050, is such a ridiculously extreme set of targets that it kind of looks more like a Peak Oil mitigation plan than an implementable piece of public policy. Peak Oil production was in 2018, and it hasn't gotten back there since.
Basically, I couldn't imagine Net Zero 2050 getting implemented in a democratic society. Personal automobiles and single family homes are ridiculously popular. If the amount of oil production is going to decline precipitously anyway, no matter what anyone says, why not have everyone prepare for it and make plans pretending they are doing it voluntarily. If global leaders talked about Peak Oil, that would promote nations to stop exporting oil and would stoke nationalism and make the problem dramatically worse for oil importing countries. Instead this Climate Change narrative brings countries together in a global regulatory framework.
I think part of the Ukraine war is that Russia, being one of the last big oil exporters, is probably aware of the real situation and wants to use their energy reserves in their own national interest. China wants to partner with Russia to benefit from those interests. The West would rather have the Russian natural resources come under the influence of a leadership team more amenable to distributing those resources in a way more in-line with a global government working to manage the energy transition. Soros said in a recent speech that finishing the Ukraine War will help us move on to tackling Climate Change[2]. Recent Russian estimates show the war continuing on till at least 2027. At that point we'll be much further along the possible oil depletion curve and Russia's economic power will only increase.
I would look for negligible attempts at carbon capture and sequestration, steady "voluntary" OPEC output cuts and a growing reliance on coal as tells that this is a Peak Oil mitigation plan and not about Climate Change. Look at China[3] lately going all-in on coal energy production for example.
[1]https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1645186289933623296
[2]https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-crisis-...
[3]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-production-by-countr...
Basically, I couldn't imagine Net Zero 2050 getting implemented in a democratic society. Personal automobiles and single family homes are ridiculously popular. If the amount of oil production is going to decline precipitously anyway, no matter what anyone says, why not have everyone prepare for it and make plans pretending they are doing it voluntarily. If global leaders talked about Peak Oil, that would promote nations to stop exporting oil and would stoke nationalism and make the problem dramatically worse for oil importing countries. Instead this Climate Change narrative brings countries together in a global regulatory framework.
I think part of the Ukraine war is that Russia, being one of the last big oil exporters, is probably aware of the real situation and wants to use their energy reserves in their own national interest. China wants to partner with Russia to benefit from those interests. The West would rather have the Russian natural resources come under the influence of a leadership team more amenable to distributing those resources in a way more in-line with a global government working to manage the energy transition. Soros said in a recent speech that finishing the Ukraine War will help us move on to tackling Climate Change[2]. Recent Russian estimates show the war continuing on till at least 2027. At that point we'll be much further along the possible oil depletion curve and Russia's economic power will only increase.
I would look for negligible attempts at carbon capture and sequestration, steady "voluntary" OPEC output cuts and a growing reliance on coal as tells that this is a Peak Oil mitigation plan and not about Climate Change. Look at China[3] lately going all-in on coal energy production for example.
[1]https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1645186289933623296
[2]https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-crisis-...
[3]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-production-by-countr...
Barring any miracle in carbon sequestration technology anyway. I hope we get a miracle.