Earth entering ‘uncharted territory’ as heat records quickly shatter(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Earth entering ‘uncharted territory’ as heat records quickly shatter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/07/06/earth-record-heat-climate-extremes/
164 comments
I have the opposite view. No matter what individuals do, they won't turn the system around. Furthermore, a good % of consumption is B2B.
There has to be a systemic ban on producing products that threaten the existence of life. Winning money is not an excuse to destroy the planet.
Yes, I know it's utopic, hard to regulate, implement and will never happen. But drastic decisions need to be made. People think we need cars so it's fine to destroy life to use cars. Well, humans lived a good bunch of years without cars, and humans won't be able to live when cars destroy the planet. So stop producing cars, stop producing fuel, and people will struggle but survive. Continue producing cars and fuel, and we'll all perish to greed and stupidity.
Yes, I know it's utopic, hard to regulate, implement and will never happen. But drastic decisions need to be made. People think we need cars so it's fine to destroy life to use cars. Well, humans lived a good bunch of years without cars, and humans won't be able to live when cars destroy the planet. So stop producing cars, stop producing fuel, and people will struggle but survive. Continue producing cars and fuel, and we'll all perish to greed and stupidity.
> I have the opposite view. No matter what individuals do, they won't turn the system around
I don't think we have opposite views; I don't think individuals will willingly stop consuming sources of emissions. "Systemic ban on producing products that threaten the existence of life" is what I mean by "turn the global economy into a smoking hole".
I don't think we have opposite views; I don't think individuals will willingly stop consuming sources of emissions. "Systemic ban on producing products that threaten the existence of life" is what I mean by "turn the global economy into a smoking hole".
It would never fly politically, but we could effectively deal with nuclear waste in a future-proof way if we dissolved it into sea water. Uranium's natural concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion and there are 1.3e21 kilograms of sea water. This comes out to 3.9e9 metric tons of uranium already in sea water; all these numbers utterly dwarf all the nuclear waste we could possibly ever create. Even when you consider that natural uranium is merely a toxic heavy metal and high grade radioactive waste is substantially more radioactive, that doesn't change much. The intensity of radioactive waste drops substantially if you store it even for just a few decades, which is probably unnecessary but certainly manageable.
I don't seriously propose this though, it would be pointless to propose because it would never be accepted. Even Japan dumping a tiny bit of tritium into the ocean has turned into a big controversy. Seriously suggest something like the above and most people will think you're an insane troll.
I don't seriously propose this though, it would be pointless to propose because it would never be accepted. Even Japan dumping a tiny bit of tritium into the ocean has turned into a big controversy. Seriously suggest something like the above and most people will think you're an insane troll.
That seems like an important idea. Has it been studied in depth? Ideas beyond the pale today, like geoengineering, can certainly fall inside the pale later.
I'd worry about how evenly the materials get distributed. Ocean currents are weird. The pacific garbage patch happened.
I'd worry about how evenly the materials get distributed. Ocean currents are weird. The pacific garbage patch happened.
Far more politically expedient to shoot it into the sun.
Until a failure during boost results in radioactive debris scattered all over the place.
Rocket reliability has jumped over the last decade, and a trend that is likely to continue. But one could (and should) still encapsulate the material in an explosion-proof container.
There's also another kind of doomerism, just as annoying: the one repeating "oh it goes in cycles, nature will recover" while blissfully ignoring that we probably are in position to influence and smooth out this cycle, instead of getting wiped out while nature will indeed recover in a way or another.
> We don't have enough raw materials in the world to replace the current oil grid with wind and solar
This is not true. None of the required materials are rare.
This is not true. None of the required materials are rare.
Here's the International Renewable Energy Agency arguing that scarcity needn't stop the green transition:
https://www.irena.org/News/expertinsights/2021/Nov/Materials...
https://www.irena.org/News/expertinsights/2021/Nov/Materials...
Here’s an article presenting an opposing view. It’s not just a matter of planning ahead; it’s decades of work to scale up production given harder to reach deposits, more toxic by-products, and political hurdles, ironically from many environmentalists who are demanding the switch to green energy in the first place.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2023/04/28/theres-no...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2023/04/28/theres-no...
geoengineering is the way out of this mess, not lifestyle change. see toplevel thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36616606
I've been saying for a long time that we'll eventually have to geoengineer our way out of climate change. Sadly, I still think that's the case.
For the scientific take on this with estimates of actual amounts, check out Figure 2.5 from the IPCC special report on limiting emissions to 1.5C:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/#cid_457
We are looking at a minimum of gigatons/year of carbon dioxide removal (CDR in the report), with tech that has not yet been developed.
And yet, still, people slowing down our current trajectory. We are nowhere close to making the reductions in emissions in CO2 plotted there.
Even this whole thread is filled with science-denying pedants that didn't even bother to read the attached article. The impediment to technology change is political, not technological, and we need to start holding our colleagues to a higher standard for evidence and scientific accuracy if we want to politically enable the technological change that we need.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/#cid_457
We are looking at a minimum of gigatons/year of carbon dioxide removal (CDR in the report), with tech that has not yet been developed.
And yet, still, people slowing down our current trajectory. We are nowhere close to making the reductions in emissions in CO2 plotted there.
Even this whole thread is filled with science-denying pedants that didn't even bother to read the attached article. The impediment to technology change is political, not technological, and we need to start holding our colleagues to a higher standard for evidence and scientific accuracy if we want to politically enable the technological change that we need.
Yes, and I find the arguments against quite funny. Because we are already deep into geoengineering it, only in the wrong direction. This is the whole idea behind the proposed, new anthropocene epoch. There is nothing natural behind what is happening now, it’s all literally engineered. Sure, the point hasn’t been to directly affect the climate, only inadvertently so. But that’s even worse.
The argument against is that we might fuck it up. It's a good argument.
We might. I’m one scientist working on making sure we don’t. There are many scientists trying to do that. Hopefully we can learn and act in time.
What's your take on the viability of geoengineering our way out of climate change?
It’s multifaceted. Scientifically it’s too soon to say. Engineering-wise, it’s entirely doable. I’ve seen a couple talks in which they worked out how to do it with current technology and within budgets that are manageable by cooperating governments. Politically it seems like a toss-up, but I’m least qualified to comment on that.
My hunch on the science side (take this with a grain of salt, I’m a computer scientist in climate informatics, not a climate scientist) is that there will surely be undesired effects. I’m working on method development for identifying all of the downstream impacts, but it’s low TRL. I think we’ll end up needing to weigh the negative with the positive impacts unless we find some miracle silver bullet. Intervening in a system as complex as our climate makes it a good bet there will be undesirable impacts.
My guess is we’re ~10 years from confident estimations of what is/isn’t a good idea. Then we have to convince governments to act. That’s really slow. The marginally good news is, perhaps the right intervention can cool the earth fast enough (possibly at the cost of something like Ozone).
That said, we are already intervening in the climate with greenhouse gases. The safest intervention from here is to just stop/slow that. We know what the world is like with less GHG. We only get one shot at a habitable Earth, so while it is scary to try fixing it, it’s more scary to continue breaking it in my opinion. No one wants to act hastily though, we’re working on the science to make sure we know what we’re doing.
My hunch on the science side (take this with a grain of salt, I’m a computer scientist in climate informatics, not a climate scientist) is that there will surely be undesired effects. I’m working on method development for identifying all of the downstream impacts, but it’s low TRL. I think we’ll end up needing to weigh the negative with the positive impacts unless we find some miracle silver bullet. Intervening in a system as complex as our climate makes it a good bet there will be undesirable impacts.
My guess is we’re ~10 years from confident estimations of what is/isn’t a good idea. Then we have to convince governments to act. That’s really slow. The marginally good news is, perhaps the right intervention can cool the earth fast enough (possibly at the cost of something like Ozone).
That said, we are already intervening in the climate with greenhouse gases. The safest intervention from here is to just stop/slow that. We know what the world is like with less GHG. We only get one shot at a habitable Earth, so while it is scary to try fixing it, it’s more scary to continue breaking it in my opinion. No one wants to act hastily though, we’re working on the science to make sure we know what we’re doing.
>That said, we are already intervening in the climate with greenhouse gases. The safest intervention from here is to just stop/slow that. We know what the world is like with less GHG. We only get one shot at a habitable Earth, so while it is scary to try fixing it, it’s more scary to continue breaking it in my opinion. No one wants to act hastily though, we’re working on the science to make sure we know what we’re doing.
Agreed 100%. Gambling with the only planet we have is tremendously stupid, yet there are many (including in this very thread) who advocate doing just that. The mind boggles.
Thanks for your response. I'm a former mechanical engineer turned software engineer who's currently studying data science while between jobs. I want to do something good for humanity, and your field sounds like it could be a good fit, and interesting. Are there many remote positions in climate informatics?
Agreed 100%. Gambling with the only planet we have is tremendously stupid, yet there are many (including in this very thread) who advocate doing just that. The mind boggles.
Thanks for your response. I'm a former mechanical engineer turned software engineer who's currently studying data science while between jobs. I want to do something good for humanity, and your field sounds like it could be a good fit, and interesting. Are there many remote positions in climate informatics?
Yeah it’s a dream for me and I hope funding persists.
I wish I had a good answer. I’m a late-stage PhD student and I work full time at a national lab that is doing this work. I ought to start gauging the job market for when I defend my dissertation. With the current administration, there are several national labs interested in this problem. I have thought about looking at NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, etc as well. I’ve heard many of these government orgs are looking for data scientists for climate work, I suspect eventually there will be enough climate-data-scientists to hire them specifically. It’s all government I suspect; there’s not much for a private company to gain from climate research unfortunately.
I wish I had a good answer. I’m a late-stage PhD student and I work full time at a national lab that is doing this work. I ought to start gauging the job market for when I defend my dissertation. With the current administration, there are several national labs interested in this problem. I have thought about looking at NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, etc as well. I’ve heard many of these government orgs are looking for data scientists for climate work, I suspect eventually there will be enough climate-data-scientists to hire them specifically. It’s all government I suspect; there’s not much for a private company to gain from climate research unfortunately.
It’s hard to imagine the outcome will be as bad as our current trajectory.
If everyone acted rationally yes. A good example of how we might make things worse is mandating that every structure have solar panels on the roof. Sure that might make sense in Arizona, it makes zero sense in Maine and other areas without sufficient sunlight, never-mind the implications for the grid.
Humans are prone to performative overreactions, because what works and what's emotionally satisfying to the masses are often two very different things.
Case in point: the ideological drive for electric vehicles. To ameliorate the greatest amount of carbon emissions as fast as possible we should be going all-in on PHEVs, because you can essentially take the one large battery in a single electric vehicle and chop it up to equip several PHEVs. Plus the batteries are small enough to charge overnight on a standard Level 1 outlet. Given that most people don't drive beyond a decent all-electric range (say 40-50 miles) each day, with PHEVs you get rid of something like 80% of tailpipe emissions from several people, which is a lot more than 100% of emissions from 1 person. And you don't need to build-out nearly as much extra electrical infrastructure or battery manufacturing/mining.
But let's not let math get in the way of all the talk about "half measures" and how PHEVs allow BIG WORSE-THAN-HITLER OIL to continue to exist, because obviously moral purity and Captain Planet cosplay is more important that the boring business of actually lowering carbon emissions.
Humans are prone to performative overreactions, because what works and what's emotionally satisfying to the masses are often two very different things.
Case in point: the ideological drive for electric vehicles. To ameliorate the greatest amount of carbon emissions as fast as possible we should be going all-in on PHEVs, because you can essentially take the one large battery in a single electric vehicle and chop it up to equip several PHEVs. Plus the batteries are small enough to charge overnight on a standard Level 1 outlet. Given that most people don't drive beyond a decent all-electric range (say 40-50 miles) each day, with PHEVs you get rid of something like 80% of tailpipe emissions from several people, which is a lot more than 100% of emissions from 1 person. And you don't need to build-out nearly as much extra electrical infrastructure or battery manufacturing/mining.
But let's not let math get in the way of all the talk about "half measures" and how PHEVs allow BIG WORSE-THAN-HITLER OIL to continue to exist, because obviously moral purity and Captain Planet cosplay is more important that the boring business of actually lowering carbon emissions.
BEV lifecycle emissions are significantly lower than PHEV lifecycle emissions.
https://theicct.org/publication/ghg-benefits-incentives-ev-m...
https://theicct.org/publication/ghg-benefits-incentives-ev-m...
OP says Perfect is the enemy of good
yes! Here's my reasoning:
- conservation doesn't work in the developed world: there's simply too much sacrifice required, too quickly.
- conservation doesn't work in the developing world: no way will people agree to freeze development while watching rich people in the developed world.
- decarbonization/etc are cute but even if we did EVERYTHING and ASAP, it still wouldn't be close to enough.
I'll know we're serious about climate change when we invest $trillions into R&D and seriously consider large scale geoengineering, no idea too weird.
We're getting there: consider this $52B proposal ($100+B with the usual overruns) to temporarily protect NYC/NJ from sealevel rise: https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+sea+level+rise+protectio... - now multiply to Miami, Jakarta and dozens of other cities.
- conservation doesn't work in the developed world: there's simply too much sacrifice required, too quickly.
- conservation doesn't work in the developing world: no way will people agree to freeze development while watching rich people in the developed world.
- decarbonization/etc are cute but even if we did EVERYTHING and ASAP, it still wouldn't be close to enough.
I'll know we're serious about climate change when we invest $trillions into R&D and seriously consider large scale geoengineering, no idea too weird.
We're getting there: consider this $52B proposal ($100+B with the usual overruns) to temporarily protect NYC/NJ from sealevel rise: https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+sea+level+rise+protectio... - now multiply to Miami, Jakarta and dozens of other cities.
> conservation doesn't work in the developed world: there's simply too much sacrifice required, too quickly.
I would add the corollary to this that those entities that profit from the products that are killing the environment are unlikely to be sufficiently de-incentivized by any large Capitalist or hybrid-Capitalist/Socialist society/economy.
Simply stated, superpowers like the US lack the intestinal fortitude to force megacorps- our biggest offenders- to change their ways any quicker than the torpor of a hibernating bear.
I would add the corollary to this that those entities that profit from the products that are killing the environment are unlikely to be sufficiently de-incentivized by any large Capitalist or hybrid-Capitalist/Socialist society/economy.
Simply stated, superpowers like the US lack the intestinal fortitude to force megacorps- our biggest offenders- to change their ways any quicker than the torpor of a hibernating bear.
Even if the US had the will and inclination, it would take massive wars of conquest to impose that will on the rest of the world. Such wars would probably do more damage to the planet than they could ever hope to prevent. Forget using superpowers to solve this.
yep - but even if they did have the intestinal fortitude, it still wouldn't be enough... so there's no need to get judgy when we can come together on this one, accept human nature and start looking for real solutions instead of "delay and pray" nonsense.
Yes, it's the civilizational equivalent of the student who does nothing until the deadline is near and then half-asses the project to get a C.
Perfect analogy.
Indeed, I lived that analogy. The best part is when someone says, "but what about ocean acidification?" or some other concern. That's why it's not whole-assed.
First we need fiction to inspire or convince us. A James Cameron or Roland Emmerich movie.
Ok, so you say the climate is not allowed to change anymore?
Are your shoes tied?
That is indeed a serious question. Because if you argue that we have to influence climate change through geoengineering, then there are obviously limits that humans put on the climate, within which limits it is allowed to change.
Who defines these limits? Is it allowed to get warmer? Is it allowed to get cooler? If so, how fast? Are the changes defined in a democratic decision-making process?
So please - what is your strategy then?
Who defines these limits? Is it allowed to get warmer? Is it allowed to get cooler? If so, how fast? Are the changes defined in a democratic decision-making process?
So please - what is your strategy then?
Give people a thermostat to play with and there will be fights.
Don't think of it as the hottest summer of your life, it's the coldest summer of the rest of your life!
It's a silly quote IMO, you have no idea what technology could turn the tide by then.
There really is no quick/easy technological solution at this point. At this point, except for the ultra rich, living standards will fall quite a bit for developed countries.
I think the largest fear is mass migration and war breaking out in areas below about 40 degrees latitude. This will spread north as southern regions start to get too hot for people to live.
And it is all because in the 1970s, developed nations did not want to listen to scientists and take bribes from the Oil Industry. Back then plenty could have been started, especially with the oil embargoes occurring back then.
I think the largest fear is mass migration and war breaking out in areas below about 40 degrees latitude. This will spread north as southern regions start to get too hot for people to live.
And it is all because in the 1970s, developed nations did not want to listen to scientists and take bribes from the Oil Industry. Back then plenty could have been started, especially with the oil embargoes occurring back then.
Aside: Do you really just use ChatGPT to comment, or is it just a username? Like, what's the deal here?
exactly, when we finally make that black hole we get to go right back to absolute zero
We should build underground cities like the movie "city of ember" and adapt. We can become mole people. When you dig hard enough and become an subterranean billonaire, then you can afford a house above ground. Otherwise, your social karama score will determine your above ground privileges.
The robots will farm above ground and care for the planet as we use geothermal energy and nuclear power to burrow out new homes.
Don't worry, we can still have meaningless corporate meetings underground to remind ourselves of who we truly are.
The robots will farm above ground and care for the planet as we use geothermal energy and nuclear power to burrow out new homes.
Don't worry, we can still have meaningless corporate meetings underground to remind ourselves of who we truly are.
425.01 ppm on 28 April 2023.
Biotech people: How much time, expertise, and money would it take to genetically modify an organism capable of growing significantly faster and/or requiring less trace micronutrients to grow in robotic ocean farms for purposes of maximum, permanent carbon capture and sequestration?
We're not going to remediate climate change effectively through planting trees, fractional distillation of air, waiting for industry, small-scale projects, solar shades, SO2, or ignoring it.
Biotech people: How much time, expertise, and money would it take to genetically modify an organism capable of growing significantly faster and/or requiring less trace micronutrients to grow in robotic ocean farms for purposes of maximum, permanent carbon capture and sequestration?
We're not going to remediate climate change effectively through planting trees, fractional distillation of air, waiting for industry, small-scale projects, solar shades, SO2, or ignoring it.
> We're not going to remediate climate change effectively through planting trees, fractional distillation of air, waiting for industry, small-scale projects, solar shades, SO2, or ignoring it.
We're not going to remediate climate change, full stop. If there was a time to do anything for climate change to change course it was probably 40 years ago.
Climate change is here and the cascade of events has been in motion for a while. The next couple of decades will see an exponential acceleration of ice melting, marine ecosystems going bust, and of course a slew of effects on land, from wild fires to floods.
It's here, it's happening and we have to adapt. Hopefully we'll be able to keep a certain way of life of abundance similar to what we're used to. But we might be forced to change some things or do without others. Time will tell.
We're not going to remediate climate change, full stop. If there was a time to do anything for climate change to change course it was probably 40 years ago.
Climate change is here and the cascade of events has been in motion for a while. The next couple of decades will see an exponential acceleration of ice melting, marine ecosystems going bust, and of course a slew of effects on land, from wild fires to floods.
It's here, it's happening and we have to adapt. Hopefully we'll be able to keep a certain way of life of abundance similar to what we're used to. But we might be forced to change some things or do without others. Time will tell.
This is an open scientific question, not an engineering problem, so there isn't a knowable answer right now on how long and what resources this might take. I have a feeling that time would be the bottleneck.
We also have several other routes for capturing and storing carbon from the atmosphere or ocean, other than by life forms, and it's likely that we would prefer those methods for all sorts of reasons.
Ultimately, any sequestration is going to be far more expensive than just not emitting the carbon in the first place. And today, we have the technology to interchange 95% of our economy to be carbon free, without any reduction in standard of living, and in fact we would have a better standard of living because energy would be cheaper and we would have less disease from pollution.
It's politics that is now the rate limiting step, not the tech. By the time we get that 95% of known solutions implemented, we will have lots of options for the remaining 5%
And sequestration of carbon will certainly be required, starting around the 2050 era (according to an IPCC special report), but we should let that tech bake for 30 years before we start massive deployment so we can get the best options without too much lock in. Hopefully in 2030s there will be a robust carbon trading network which will cause larger scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration, then we deploy gigaton scale in the 2050s
We also have several other routes for capturing and storing carbon from the atmosphere or ocean, other than by life forms, and it's likely that we would prefer those methods for all sorts of reasons.
Ultimately, any sequestration is going to be far more expensive than just not emitting the carbon in the first place. And today, we have the technology to interchange 95% of our economy to be carbon free, without any reduction in standard of living, and in fact we would have a better standard of living because energy would be cheaper and we would have less disease from pollution.
It's politics that is now the rate limiting step, not the tech. By the time we get that 95% of known solutions implemented, we will have lots of options for the remaining 5%
And sequestration of carbon will certainly be required, starting around the 2050 era (according to an IPCC special report), but we should let that tech bake for 30 years before we start massive deployment so we can get the best options without too much lock in. Hopefully in 2030s there will be a robust carbon trading network which will cause larger scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration, then we deploy gigaton scale in the 2050s
Right now, trace micronutrients are the bottleneck - hence propsals to seed the ocean with iron to encourage algal blooms.
Uncharted for humans. But the dinosaurs will remember these warmer temps
You might be referring to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, though the timescale for the onset of that climatic event was tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_The...
In Our Time did an excellent podcast on it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08hpmmf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_The...
In Our Time did an excellent podcast on it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08hpmmf
And where are they now ?
Some are in my fridge, under a Costco rotisserie label.
in your car more likely, and liquified at that.
Nope, that’s just a meme.
https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does...
https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does...
Those are ancient dinosaur corpses. He’s talking about ones that are fresher. Interestingly, I couldn’t find any data on how long it takes for a chicken to get from a farm to the grocery store.
From birth: Six to twelve weeks depending on breed.
From death: one or two days.
"Retail products are usually delivered to a retailer’s warehouse the day after leaving the production plant. Most often, chicken products get placed into company grocery stores the same day of delivery." [1]
[1] see step 10, https://www.chickencheck.in/faq/how-chickens-slaughtered-pro...
From death: one or two days.
"Retail products are usually delivered to a retailer’s warehouse the day after leaving the production plant. Most often, chicken products get placed into company grocery stores the same day of delivery." [1]
[1] see step 10, https://www.chickencheck.in/faq/how-chickens-slaughtered-pro...
I'm curious what the naysayers of global warming (especially the big oil?) are saying now, who kept saying all good? What's their excuse now?
"Bye I'm going to bunker that I built using $$$ from making earth hotter"?
"Bye I'm going to bunker that I built using $$$ from making earth hotter"?
Privately there's a lot of the rich doing just that but they're still pushing the do nothing response to climate change politically to continue making money in existing carbon heavy industries; see Florida rejecting solar subsidies and groups trying to force "remove the free electric chargers or put in free gas pumps" through at various local levels. There's still a huge faction of "we can't change this/it'd cost too much money to even try" out there.
What else did I see in the news? People are angry they can't buy incandescent light bulbs any more.
Yes. I'd say I'm probably one of those sort, though I'm well enough stocked that it's of no matter to me at this point.
I use them in the evenings, on deep dimmers, because I've given up trying to find LED bulbs that aren't "substantially blue" in the evenings - I've reviewed quite a few (https://www.sevarg.net/tag/spectrometer/), and having run out of the cheaper ones, I don't feel like spending $30-$40/bulb for testing the higher end ones that actually come with spectrum data showing there's still a substantial blue spike in the "messes with human sleep" chunk of spectrum. Their CRI is high, but they don't dim to a nice dull red, and that's what matters - at least for my sleep.
Though admittedly I also enjoy curling up with a good bit of fiction (on paper) and a kerosene lantern - especially in the winter, when the heat is welcome.
I built my own solar (large ground mount), I run around most of the miles in a PHEV, I'm all for reduced carbon impact. Where it matters. What I'm not for is senselessly pissing people off to "make a good point" or whatever, and the actual incandescent ban seems exactly like that.
I guarantee people I can see at night wouldn't run hundreds of watts of LEDs, were they to be lighting the outside of their house with incandescents. And we see this in the light pollution metrics over time - LEDs are more efficient in lumens out per watts in, but they tend to get used to just add more light, run them longer instead of turning them off, etc. And that's not just using more energy, it really screws with a wide range of nocturnal animals.
I use them in the evenings, on deep dimmers, because I've given up trying to find LED bulbs that aren't "substantially blue" in the evenings - I've reviewed quite a few (https://www.sevarg.net/tag/spectrometer/), and having run out of the cheaper ones, I don't feel like spending $30-$40/bulb for testing the higher end ones that actually come with spectrum data showing there's still a substantial blue spike in the "messes with human sleep" chunk of spectrum. Their CRI is high, but they don't dim to a nice dull red, and that's what matters - at least for my sleep.
Though admittedly I also enjoy curling up with a good bit of fiction (on paper) and a kerosene lantern - especially in the winter, when the heat is welcome.
I built my own solar (large ground mount), I run around most of the miles in a PHEV, I'm all for reduced carbon impact. Where it matters. What I'm not for is senselessly pissing people off to "make a good point" or whatever, and the actual incandescent ban seems exactly like that.
I guarantee people I can see at night wouldn't run hundreds of watts of LEDs, were they to be lighting the outside of their house with incandescents. And we see this in the light pollution metrics over time - LEDs are more efficient in lumens out per watts in, but they tend to get used to just add more light, run them longer instead of turning them off, etc. And that's not just using more energy, it really screws with a wide range of nocturnal animals.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Yep. Looks like our two weeks of Winter is already over. I was actually enjoying the cool mornings: 16C.
Do we have any plan collectively to do something urgently about this, or do we just die?
well, 'just die' implies some sudden event. I think that the first deaths caused by global warming have already happened but are not easy to definitively measure. given another generation of time, it will perhaps be easier to measure it, and eventually there will be a 50th percentile consensus that it's happening.
I think around the time half of people publicly agree it's happening, there will be strong support to do something reactive, and do something. My hope is that this interim time between now and then, the people who should be deciding if and how to do such a thing, are making good progress for why or why not, and how or how not to execute on it.
The other thing that keeps me up at night is that one single billionaire might try to just 'fix it' on a secret mission, botch it, and now we're all in on one person's decision. But we're already in bag on so many other topics - the next pandemic being just as existentially scary to me.
I put a lot of energy into trying to accept that I can do a little but I can't do a lot. Life is short, and maybe 6 generations of invention and progress and explosive population growth and technology have cost is some more of that limited shortness. It should be ok to have faith in technology but I sure wouldn't use it as a coping mechanism. This topic can be all-consuming; terminal patients can still live their life and find beauty in the world.
I think around the time half of people publicly agree it's happening, there will be strong support to do something reactive, and do something. My hope is that this interim time between now and then, the people who should be deciding if and how to do such a thing, are making good progress for why or why not, and how or how not to execute on it.
The other thing that keeps me up at night is that one single billionaire might try to just 'fix it' on a secret mission, botch it, and now we're all in on one person's decision. But we're already in bag on so many other topics - the next pandemic being just as existentially scary to me.
I put a lot of energy into trying to accept that I can do a little but I can't do a lot. Life is short, and maybe 6 generations of invention and progress and explosive population growth and technology have cost is some more of that limited shortness. It should be ok to have faith in technology but I sure wouldn't use it as a coping mechanism. This topic can be all-consuming; terminal patients can still live their life and find beauty in the world.
[deleted]
Judging by the amount of ignorance in this comment section ... we die.
And even if we do something about it, it will be too little, too late, and too wrong.
And even if we do something about it, it will be too little, too late, and too wrong.
Neither
So how long until we start spraying the atmosphere?
I've been saying for a long time that we'll resort to geoengineering to finagle our way out of climate change. Unfortunately I think that prediction is still spot-on.
We're clearly not going to get our shit together, things are going to start getting obviously out of control (i.e. impossible for even the most ardent coal eater to brush off as "The weather fluctuates sometimes") and governments will reach for the most knee-jerk fix available.
Then we'll really do ourselves in when suddenly we have a "fix" for CO2 emissions and we can all go back to burning oil.
Then we'll really do ourselves in when suddenly we have a "fix" for CO2 emissions and we can all go back to burning oil.
I doubt we're going back to burning oil, at least not as we have been doing. But I also doubt we're going to transition away fast enough, and once we have the "fix," the transition away from it will slow.
We have exactly one place to live in the entire known universe, and we're such a shitshow that we can't help but to gamble on destroying it.
We have exactly one place to live in the entire known universe, and we're such a shitshow that we can't help but to gamble on destroying it.
Not the atmosphere, the stratosphere. But if that cannot be undone and temps are going down more than expected, we will be in real trouble.
start?
likely referring to Stratospheric aerosol injection: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_inject...
Iirc, that was also the reason Earth plunged into a new ice age in Snowpiercer.
We have to stop fossil fuels ASAP.
Then we could start another Little Ice Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) by reforesting/afforesting and restoring wildlife populations.
Agricultural land use, particularly for animal feed, poses the biggest obstacle to ecosystem restoration and carbon sequestration, hindering climate efforts. The potential for carbon sequestration is vast, with enough capacity to meet the entire 1.5°C carbon budget.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4.
Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal...
We have enough space to reforest / afforest an area bigger than Africa right now
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. The expansion of land for agriculture is the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
The restoration and conservation of wild animals and their ecosystem is a key component that can enhance the ability to prevent climate warming beyond 1.5 °C.
https://www.oneearth.org/how-restoring-key-wildlife-species-...
Trophic rewilding can expand natural climate solutions
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01631-6
And it all comes down to agriculture and our diets.
Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
Better farming techniques across the world could lead to storage of 31 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/improvin...
Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu...
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares, and return 35% of habitable earth to wildlife and nature
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
The animal agriculture industry is the leading cause of most environmental degradation that is currently occurring.
https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomf...
Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...
Then we could start another Little Ice Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) by reforesting/afforesting and restoring wildlife populations.
Agricultural land use, particularly for animal feed, poses the biggest obstacle to ecosystem restoration and carbon sequestration, hindering climate efforts. The potential for carbon sequestration is vast, with enough capacity to meet the entire 1.5°C carbon budget.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4.
Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal...
We have enough space to reforest / afforest an area bigger than Africa right now
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. The expansion of land for agriculture is the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
The restoration and conservation of wild animals and their ecosystem is a key component that can enhance the ability to prevent climate warming beyond 1.5 °C.
https://www.oneearth.org/how-restoring-key-wildlife-species-...
Trophic rewilding can expand natural climate solutions
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01631-6
And it all comes down to agriculture and our diets.
Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
Better farming techniques across the world could lead to storage of 31 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/improvin...
Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu...
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares, and return 35% of habitable earth to wildlife and nature
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
The animal agriculture industry is the leading cause of most environmental degradation that is currently occurring.
https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomf...
Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...
[deleted]
kfrzcode(4)
kfrzcode(1)
tristanj(8)
We have the technology to solve global warming right now. We have basically unlimited clean energy in the form of nuclear fission.
There’s enough fissile material to last humanity for hundreds of years and even more untapped in the oceans.
If we were actually doomed by climate change, we could and would fix this problem. For now, most of the doom/anxiety posting seems like political tactics to me.
I’m on board with switching to renewables and investing in new technologies like EV’s. Which is happening in the private sector regardless of politicians. But I will never support using climate anxiety to restrict freedoms.
(I see restricting meat consumption, changing speed limits like on the autobahn, etc as restricting freedoms)
There’s enough fissile material to last humanity for hundreds of years and even more untapped in the oceans.
If we were actually doomed by climate change, we could and would fix this problem. For now, most of the doom/anxiety posting seems like political tactics to me.
I’m on board with switching to renewables and investing in new technologies like EV’s. Which is happening in the private sector regardless of politicians. But I will never support using climate anxiety to restrict freedoms.
(I see restricting meat consumption, changing speed limits like on the autobahn, etc as restricting freedoms)
Uncharted Territory only if you start your charts in the mid 19th century, at the end of the Little Ice Age. If you look at the full history, the Medieval Warm Period[0] was hotter than our current forecasts, and things got better. It ushered in global golden age for man.
Go back further and you can also include the Roman Warm Period, and the Late Bronze Warm Period. It's cyclical glacial/inter-glacial periods. Right now, we are in an inter-glacial period of an ice age. Overall, I'm enjoying the temperate weather, the longer growing seasons, and global-greening.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrI...
Go back further and you can also include the Roman Warm Period, and the Late Bronze Warm Period. It's cyclical glacial/inter-glacial periods. Right now, we are in an inter-glacial period of an ice age. Overall, I'm enjoying the temperate weather, the longer growing seasons, and global-greening.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrI...
I'd like it to be true, but is it? Wikipedia and XKCD disagree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/med...
https://xkcd.com/1732/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/med...
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Ok, you got me. Thousands of peer reviewed papers Vs Wikipedia and xkcd.
Xkcd was actually a joke.
The wikipedia plot is based on data from the following Nature paper, from 2020: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0 , you can see that by following the reference in the link to the plot.
I haven't read it but I'm assuming it's not total BS. Could you provide some reference for your proposal? It would be very reassuring if it's true.
The wikipedia plot is based on data from the following Nature paper, from 2020: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0 , you can see that by following the reference in the link to the plot.
I haven't read it but I'm assuming it's not total BS. Could you provide some reference for your proposal? It would be very reassuring if it's true.
anyone who has seen a temperature record going back more than a couple hundred years will tell you that this is hardly uncharted, there is strong evidence that it’s been way way hotter and way way colder before, and that at scale the global climate is oscillating back and forth between ice ages, if you look at the zoomed out view you would conclude that we are heading towards another ice age, and perhaps it seems unintuitive at first, but it’s theorized that extreme weather and fires, earthquakes and volcanoes are part of what brings about an ice age as the sun is blocked by particles in the sky…
I get they are talking “modern times” and specific types of recording history, however given what we know on a large scale it makes these kind of articles seem short sighted and uninformed at best, especially when they try to sound so scientific, and at worst, perhaps intentionally misleading FUD
after thinking about it perhaps too deeply the cynic in me sighs thinking maybe modern web analytics has taught the industry that FUD is simply what gets the most likes and shares
I get they are talking “modern times” and specific types of recording history, however given what we know on a large scale it makes these kind of articles seem short sighted and uninformed at best, especially when they try to sound so scientific, and at worst, perhaps intentionally misleading FUD
after thinking about it perhaps too deeply the cynic in me sighs thinking maybe modern web analytics has taught the industry that FUD is simply what gets the most likes and shares
> it’s theorized that extreme weather and fires, earthquakes and volcanoes are part of what brings about an ice age as the sun is blocked by particles in the sky
Whatever floats your boat, but "extreme weather and fires that block the sun eventually driving the world into an ice age" is not the win for humanity you might think it is.
Whatever floats your boat, but "extreme weather and fires that block the sun eventually driving the world into an ice age" is not the win for humanity you might think it is.
at this scale the laws of nature do not care who the winner or loser is but evidence of carbon spikes before ice ages is what lead to the theory, ie perhaps the onset of rapidly oscillating extremes eventually causes an extreme correction
> the laws of nature do not care who the winner or loser is
Ok, that's great, but anthropomorphization of nature isn't at issue here. The world is better for humans like me and one assumes also you when humans care about environmental impacts on humans.
Like...if someone is in a nihilistic death mindset, doesn't care about their own survival, doesn't care about whether the planet is hospitable to them personally, whatever, great, personal choice, knock yourself out. Literally. But there are quicker and more ethical ways to accomplish that without also taking down the people who do care.
Ok, that's great, but anthropomorphization of nature isn't at issue here. The world is better for humans like me and one assumes also you when humans care about environmental impacts on humans.
Like...if someone is in a nihilistic death mindset, doesn't care about their own survival, doesn't care about whether the planet is hospitable to them personally, whatever, great, personal choice, knock yourself out. Literally. But there are quicker and more ethical ways to accomplish that without also taking down the people who do care.
> the laws of nature do not care who the winner or loser is
LOL. Yes. Presuming you're human, let me remind you that we humans probably don't want to be on the losing side.
LOL. Yes. Presuming you're human, let me remind you that we humans probably don't want to be on the losing side.
> anyone who has seen a temperature record going back more than a couple hundred years will tell you that this is hardly uncharted, there is strong evidence that it’s been way way hotter and way way colder before, and that at scale the global climate is oscillating back and forth between ice ages
Share the charts, you can't expect "anyone who has seen" those mythical charts to just happen to be the same ones reading your comment. Supporting your claims is always a good start instead of "as it's already known" when it's definitely not the scientific consensus, hence the article talking about uncharted territory.
Just show, don't tell...
Share the charts, you can't expect "anyone who has seen" those mythical charts to just happen to be the same ones reading your comment. Supporting your claims is always a good start instead of "as it's already known" when it's definitely not the scientific consensus, hence the article talking about uncharted territory.
Just show, don't tell...
I didn’t realize it was seen as so mythical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Pl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Pl...
Modern civilisation wasn't around some tens-hundreds thousands/millions of years ago. It simply doesn't matter, it's not relevant, it won't change the argument: we are heating the Earth faster than in any other time period we are aware of, it's real, it's happening right now, and it doesn't matter that the Earth might cool or warm naturally over a span of dozens/hundreds thousands of years or more, we haven't been through it, we don't know, empirically, what will happen to us and other species, and we aren't prepared for it either.
And I never understand this argument, so what it's happened before? Our collective knowledge and intelligence has a pretty good consensus that we will experience consequences ranging from harsh to apocalyptic, no scenario predicts a good outcome, why be pedantic about "akshually, the Earth has been warmer before"? It does not add anything important to the discussion, it's just trivia.
Edit: on the topic of trivia, xkcd has a nice relevant chart [0]
[0] https://xkcd.com/1732/
And I never understand this argument, so what it's happened before? Our collective knowledge and intelligence has a pretty good consensus that we will experience consequences ranging from harsh to apocalyptic, no scenario predicts a good outcome, why be pedantic about "akshually, the Earth has been warmer before"? It does not add anything important to the discussion, it's just trivia.
Edit: on the topic of trivia, xkcd has a nice relevant chart [0]
[0] https://xkcd.com/1732/
And your point is? Humans evolved in that last tenth of the chart, and established modern society in the last pixel. I'd rather not our extremely fragile global society get disrupted by temperature fluctuations.
The article states that Monday was the hottest day in at least 125,000 years.
Do you have links to the charts you're referring to?
once I am not on mobile I can do better than Wikipedia but at first glance this might be a good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Pl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Pl...
epistasis(1)
The thing that society needs to do most urgently right now is to identify people like you then disempower, ostracize, and shun them. Free speech is great and all but there should be consequences for using your privileged access to fora like these for the purpose to which you are trying to abuse it. Access to civil society should be predicated on pulling in the direction of survival.
woa what? what do you mean? I am just sharing info on the topic at hand, how is this deserving of such a response?
jeffbee(1)
I am tired of the “end of the word is nigh” headlines about climate change. I stopped going to church regularly in my late teens because I got tired of the “Armageddon could happen anytime” messaging in protestant Christianity. Feels the same to me with climate change alarmists.
Is the earth warming? Yes. Is it net bad for people? I’m not convinced.
I’m not convinced that oceans rising an inch in the next century is going to doom humanity. More people die of cold every year than of heat. We have dikes. When something becomes a visible problem we usually either address it or find a workaround.
Is the earth warming? Yes. Is it net bad for people? I’m not convinced.
I’m not convinced that oceans rising an inch in the next century is going to doom humanity. More people die of cold every year than of heat. We have dikes. When something becomes a visible problem we usually either address it or find a workaround.
It sounds like you only care about problems that affect you very directly, which is pretty short-sighted. There are many climate-related problems that are affecting people already in Central America (no rain, can't farm, so they're walking north), the northern US and California (wildfires and wildfire smoke), the Midwest (aquifers depleted, rendering farmland less valuable), Florida (sinkholes from aquifer depletion, flooding in streets, no they can't just build a dike). It's a pretty multi-factorial problem and it's unfortunate that the interpretation here seems to be pretty simplistic.
Your does point out something, though, that really really bugs me from climate activists/politicians. The idea that you have to "believe" in climate change, like you'd believe in religious proclamations. I don't give a sh*t if you believe -- and making this ideological creates tribes where one group is like "I believe climate change isn't happening/is God's will/is natural, so I will run my F150's AC with the windows open and breathe in exhaust proudly because internal combustion and burning oil is what God has ordained as the pinnacle of human achievement". Belief whatever. I'm much more interested in action. Why does it seem good to some people to... just waste resources without much return? Irresponsibly manage our farmlands for short-term profit vs long-term yield? pin success to ownership of fossil fuels in specific places rather than a more flexible and less geopolitically fraught paradigm? There are a lot of visible problems to address, to your point, efitz.
Your does point out something, though, that really really bugs me from climate activists/politicians. The idea that you have to "believe" in climate change, like you'd believe in religious proclamations. I don't give a sh*t if you believe -- and making this ideological creates tribes where one group is like "I believe climate change isn't happening/is God's will/is natural, so I will run my F150's AC with the windows open and breathe in exhaust proudly because internal combustion and burning oil is what God has ordained as the pinnacle of human achievement". Belief whatever. I'm much more interested in action. Why does it seem good to some people to... just waste resources without much return? Irresponsibly manage our farmlands for short-term profit vs long-term yield? pin success to ownership of fossil fuels in specific places rather than a more flexible and less geopolitically fraught paradigm? There are a lot of visible problems to address, to your point, efitz.
Along these lines, if there's one place where the left and the right in the US have an easy opportunity to cooperate and yet for some reason don't, it's on Chinese emissions.
China's responsible for almost a third of all the CO2 emissions in the world, and they have some of the dirtiest industry on the planet [1]. They got their own relaxed version of the Paris Accords and haven't even been meeting those standards. You don't really see anyone dinging them for any of this though.
Now the left really dislikes emissions and the right simply dislikes China. So you'd think there would be an incentive for them to cooperate on this issue but they don't.
I think it underscores how so much of politics is basically secular religion now and really about identifying with your tribe, like the issue on the left is probably that they don't want to admit a lot of this climate problem is someone else's fault, and the issue on the right is they don't want to admit there's a problem in the first place.
[1] https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
China's responsible for almost a third of all the CO2 emissions in the world, and they have some of the dirtiest industry on the planet [1]. They got their own relaxed version of the Paris Accords and haven't even been meeting those standards. You don't really see anyone dinging them for any of this though.
Now the left really dislikes emissions and the right simply dislikes China. So you'd think there would be an incentive for them to cooperate on this issue but they don't.
I think it underscores how so much of politics is basically secular religion now and really about identifying with your tribe, like the issue on the left is probably that they don't want to admit a lot of this climate problem is someone else's fault, and the issue on the right is they don't want to admit there's a problem in the first place.
[1] https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
There isn't because geopolitics of US pushing blame based on total instead of per capita emissions (nevermind historical) would make US look retarded - the left doesn't want that taint. Since it's not going to fly internationally, which limits it to domestic politics, and basing domestic politics of changing a geopolitical rivals largely functions as political theatre.
Just to clarify, China is at ~8T per capita [1]. USA is at 14T [2]. Rhodium group [3] says it was 10.1T and 17.6 in 2019 so it seems like the numbers have quite a bit of variability.
I do think that OP has a good point that we do probably need to consider totals since the environment doesn't care about per capita. It's also important to consider that China's energy use is probably dominated by industry supporting manufacturing for the entire world, so that "per capita" number is fairly inflated vs the true number.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
[3] https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-....
I do think that OP has a good point that we do probably need to consider totals since the environment doesn't care about per capita. It's also important to consider that China's energy use is probably dominated by industry supporting manufacturing for the entire world, so that "per capita" number is fairly inflated vs the true number.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
[3] https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-....
>environment doesn't care about per capita
The enviroment doesn't care about climate change, earth will go on in some form regardless. Climate change is an anthropocene / (geo)political problem. The only way to coordinate politcal/human problem is via metrics stakeholders think is "fair" to regulate behaviors around. Currently that's per capita, which is already concession of not factoring in historic emissions. OPs point is extra useless because it tries to coordinate geopolitics of climate change via metrics most of the world will never agree to, made even more unfeasible by trying to do so via US domestic politics. It's like suggesting PRC domestic politics should be leveraged to reduce US defense spending, it's fundmentally unworkable.
The enviroment doesn't care about climate change, earth will go on in some form regardless. Climate change is an anthropocene / (geo)political problem. The only way to coordinate politcal/human problem is via metrics stakeholders think is "fair" to regulate behaviors around. Currently that's per capita, which is already concession of not factoring in historic emissions. OPs point is extra useless because it tries to coordinate geopolitics of climate change via metrics most of the world will never agree to, made even more unfeasible by trying to do so via US domestic politics. It's like suggesting PRC domestic politics should be leveraged to reduce US defense spending, it's fundmentally unworkable.
I think you're splitting hairs. Clearly "environment" in this context isn't the existence of Earth as a planet but life on Earth, the current ecology, and our place within it. That cares very much about how much total carbon output there is, regardless of what we perceive as fair. And again, as I mentioned, China's total energy use is likely artificially inflated than it might otherwise be because the world's manufacturing capacity is centered there - a fairer comparison would likely take carbon emissions used in exports and attribute that back to the home country that is importing the product. I suspect in that context USA & Europe will look remarkably worse per capita.
It may matter on academic considerations, people can discuss it, but it doesn't matter on global regulation layer whereby fairness is determined via collective consensus and for forseeable future, per capita is what everyone can live with. Your last point is signficiant because the rhetoric of total emissions isn't going to fly especially if the numbers make west look worse. In context of OPs post, trying to unilaterally frame climate debate around total emission in US and somehow turn that into geopolitcal leverage is not realistic especially if closer interogation of metric is against most major players interests. I don't think it's splitting hairs rather than acknowleding geopolitical constraints over what's workable and what's not, even if what's workable is suboptimal.
Nobody is going to give up their F150 and Corvette if they don't believe there is anything wrong with burning fossil fuels.
Unless they get better acceleration and lower cost of ownership + a cool factor.
I have a finite amount of attention, resources and energy. I'm fortunate to have more than most. But climate change is not even in my top 10 problems. Preparing for retirement, getting my kid educated, caring for ill family members, supporting my local food bank, keeping my government from going authoritarian - these are where I spend my resources. If I had more I'd probably spend them on things that literally kill millions of people per year like malaria, typhoid, infant mortality, etc.
There’s a bit of a difference between religious Armageddon and a scientifically driven concern that the changes wrought by climate change will be catastrophic on various fronts. Not to mention all climate change predictions I’ve seen are consistently under representative of how bad it’s actually getting. For example, the Great Barrier Reef has lost half its corral in the past 30 years. The impacts to humans directly will be less visible than the damage done to the broader life ecosystem (not to mention that climate change is only a part of the story - our addiction to plastics and other toxic chemicals destroys the ecosystem in other ways).
Armageddon is presented as an inevitable sudden destruction. It’s closer to an asteroid strike. Climate change is also Armageddon except it’s caused by us, it’s something under our control, and we continue to dither about how bad it will really be instead of taking explicit action. I’m an alarmist because I consistently see a lack of any real progress being made on tackling this problem in a timely manner. Remember, it took ~300 years of burning fossil fuels to get us here. In fact, most of the damage was done even more recently since it took a while for us to really scale this up. And this system has lag. That means that even if we cut emissions to 0 today (COVID is the closest we’ve come), the Earth would continue warming for a long time (decades?). Waiting for the damage wrought to be “visible” to us is waaay too late. Not to mention that it will easily become economically infeasible to address and eat up our economy in the process.
Armageddon is presented as an inevitable sudden destruction. It’s closer to an asteroid strike. Climate change is also Armageddon except it’s caused by us, it’s something under our control, and we continue to dither about how bad it will really be instead of taking explicit action. I’m an alarmist because I consistently see a lack of any real progress being made on tackling this problem in a timely manner. Remember, it took ~300 years of burning fossil fuels to get us here. In fact, most of the damage was done even more recently since it took a while for us to really scale this up. And this system has lag. That means that even if we cut emissions to 0 today (COVID is the closest we’ve come), the Earth would continue warming for a long time (decades?). Waiting for the damage wrought to be “visible” to us is waaay too late. Not to mention that it will easily become economically infeasible to address and eat up our economy in the process.
People should stop swimming the coral reefs. Human oils destroy it.
And yet, the primary cause of destruction is climate change, not human oils. On top of it, the bleaching events are happening faster & faster without giving the coral time to recover. Again, because of climate change.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/29/great-ba...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/world/un-great-barrier-reef-c...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/29/great-ba...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/world/un-great-barrier-reef-c...
I don’t think most experts are saying literally everyone will die. I think they’re saying many will and that there’s no reason to think conditions will be as favorable for humanity after we change the planet.
For example, consider that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years but only in the past 10k did civilization develop.
Was it because we sat on our hands? Did it take us that long to domesticate plants? Domestication of wheat does not take anywhere near that long even if you’re not really trying. One theory it’s that until 10k years ago there was a big ass ice age that made living pretty rough.
Once conditions became favorable human behavior changed pretty rapidly. To make all this.
So why should we be afraid of climate change? Because climate wise these 10k years have been pretty favorable for humans and there’s absolutely no reason to believe the next 10k will be if we fuck it up.
For example, consider that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years but only in the past 10k did civilization develop.
Was it because we sat on our hands? Did it take us that long to domesticate plants? Domestication of wheat does not take anywhere near that long even if you’re not really trying. One theory it’s that until 10k years ago there was a big ass ice age that made living pretty rough.
Once conditions became favorable human behavior changed pretty rapidly. To make all this.
So why should we be afraid of climate change? Because climate wise these 10k years have been pretty favorable for humans and there’s absolutely no reason to believe the next 10k will be if we fuck it up.
The fact that you are not convinced is why you need to keep hearing about it. Once people are convinced and taking reasonable steps to mitigate, we can quit harping on it.
For instance the sea level is expected to rise much more than an inch in the next century. It is projected to rise 10 inches in the next 30 years.
For instance the sea level is expected to rise much more than an inch in the next century. It is projected to rise 10 inches in the next 30 years.
The concern is not that people will start dropping like flies, it's that the changing climate will have destabilizing effects on the economy, geopolitics, and the ecosystem. For example, drought contributed to the Syrian conflict, the rise of ISIS, etc: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1421533112
If individual citizens can affect their local politics to mitigate climate change, it is important to do so.
If individual citizens can affect their local politics to mitigate climate change, it is important to do so.
That's the rational concern. The actual concern amongst large numbers of people is that we are literally "going extinct", and those people are leading the narrative. I look forward to telling my grandchildren how millions of idiots doubted they'd ever exist.
Population in Syria has more than quadrupled between 1960 and 2010, so they had to feed four times the people from the same area of not very fertile land. Are you sure climate change had a greater destabilizing effect? If so, please explain.
> Are you sure climate change had a greater destabilizing effect?
Read my comment more carefully. You don't get to dismiss contributing factors simply for not having the greatest effect. The world is complex, nuance exists.
Read my comment more carefully. You don't get to dismiss contributing factors simply for not having the greatest effect. The world is complex, nuance exists.
>> Is the earth warming? Yes. Is it net bad for people? I’m not convinced
Even if it is, why do we need to keep hearing about it? Oh yeah, this kind of news drives clicks. It creates fear and “climate anxiety” which drives more clicks. As citizens there is little we can or will do to fix this. It’s down to politicians agreeing on a strategy globally. With high inflation, and the rising cost of living, citizens have plenty of more pressing things to worry about without the media piling on more misery.
Even if it is, why do we need to keep hearing about it? Oh yeah, this kind of news drives clicks. It creates fear and “climate anxiety” which drives more clicks. As citizens there is little we can or will do to fix this. It’s down to politicians agreeing on a strategy globally. With high inflation, and the rising cost of living, citizens have plenty of more pressing things to worry about without the media piling on more misery.
We need to keep hearing about it because more than half the global population is in denial about it and we are not doing much to prevent it while preventable catastrophe looms.
"In denial" and "catastrophe looms" are exactly what I was talking about in my original post. Evangelical protestants will be happy to tell you why you need to change your ways today or else you'll go to hell along with every other non-believer, and that Christ is going to return anytime now and then it will be too late. It sounds very similar to me. Doomsaying just tunes me out, and I suspect that's a widespread pov that's not widely spoken because who wants to engage with doomsayers.
Yes, I'm sure all the Climate Change deniers both read and respect the Washington Post.
Because it is a disaster of our own creation which we can mitigate if we take it seriously. If people start taking it seriously maybe we can quite talking about it.
Because it’s the citizens who can put pressure on the politicians.
Well if you are under 60, you will find out seen enough when people from southern regions start migrating north in mass and you have constant power outages due to high demand for AC.
Where I am, when young, we never had heat like this in June/July. And in the winters the lakes would freeze enough for you to drive on. I have been unable to walk on frozen lakes for at least 10 years, never mind drive. So everyone, keep driving your SUVs :)
Where I am, when young, we never had heat like this in June/July. And in the winters the lakes would freeze enough for you to drive on. I have been unable to walk on frozen lakes for at least 10 years, never mind drive. So everyone, keep driving your SUVs :)
Also, I am tired of blaming all problems on climate change. There is a famine in region X? Let's just ignore that they have a civil war and population has tripled in the last fifty years (while arable land area has stayed the same), it must be because of climate change because only that fits our political agenda.
The people most scared about climate change are the kinds of people who tend not to have children anyway, so what are they so worried about? Are you trying to keep the earth habitable for the religious?
> what are they so worried about?
Dying of heat exhaustion if caught out in a wet-bulb event? It's pretty hard on the elderly you know. Or how about getting killed so the climate refugees can loot your air conditioner? Starving to death in a drought-induced famine? My suspicion is that people who don't have kids is that they're not much of a fan of dying regardless. Source: I don't have kids and don't want to die in any of the above ways.
Dying of heat exhaustion if caught out in a wet-bulb event? It's pretty hard on the elderly you know. Or how about getting killed so the climate refugees can loot your air conditioner? Starving to death in a drought-induced famine? My suspicion is that people who don't have kids is that they're not much of a fan of dying regardless. Source: I don't have kids and don't want to die in any of the above ways.
Higher CO2, longer growing seasons and hotter temperatures are good for crops. "Climate change" will tend to increase rainfall as well. There are technical solutions for the other issues. An air conditioner is a $200 one time purchase, we subsidize much more expensive things. Elderly people tend to stay inside. I think you can relax.
> "Climate change" will tend to increase rainfall as well
Yes, through flash-floods and mega-droughts. A bit hard to grow crops when you get your annual rainfall in one go during hurricane week.
Yes, through flash-floods and mega-droughts. A bit hard to grow crops when you get your annual rainfall in one go during hurricane week.
Alarmist nonsense. The idea that we just happen to live in the ideal climate for everything and any deviation would be catastrophic is ridiculous. Life has survived on this planet for 4 billion years through much more drastic changes. With the advantage of technology we are way ahead of any foreseeable climate change issue. Humans live in areas of the world we would have no ability to live in if we didn't have technology on our side. The whole reaction to climate change is a melodramatic overreaction driven by partisan politics and group think.
We don't have enough raw materials in the world to replace the current oil grid with wind and solar, and nuclear requires a top-tier industrial society operating at peace for thousands of years to ensure there's no risk of catastrophic failure or radiation leakage.
Instead activists like to blame the usual suspects (Exxon, BP, etc.) without asking themselves what all of this oil is getting used for. International shipping, plastic, jet fuel, auto fuel, industrial lubricant, diesel for agriculture. I know people who will go to a climate protest on Thursday and get on a plane to visit Costa Rica for fun on Friday. Climate activism at the popular level is a virtue-signalling game. If we want to stop emissions we need to turn the global economy and its consumer activity into a smoking hole and keep it that way for centuries. And concurrently we need to transition to wind, solar, and nuclear.