A 3°C world has no safe place(economist.com)
economist.com
A 3°C world has no safe place
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/07/24/a-3degc-world-has-no-safe-place
290 comments
I don't know who you're referring to as 'we' but in the US, carbon emissions have actually peaked in the early 2000s and decreased in an absolute sense since then, despite growing population and industrialization. We're currently at 1986 emission levels. US has 15% of global emissions, while China has 28% and is growing in both per person and absolute.
I don't think you're wrong to be cynical about tackling this problem but you should be honest about what reducing emissions means to billions of people that are just now coming into the industrial age.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
[1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...
I don't think you're wrong to be cynical about tackling this problem but you should be honest about what reducing emissions means to billions of people that are just now coming into the industrial age.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
[1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...
Those stats are not fair because China is the world's factory. If China decides to stop exporting manufactured products to reduce it's emissions, the US would need to manufacture itself, increasing it's emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
Take a look at "China: Consumption-based accounting: how do emissions compare when we adjust for trade?"
> Annual consumption-based emissions are domestic emissions adjusted for trade. If a country imports goods the CO₂ emissions needed to produce such goods are added to its domestic emissions; if it exports goods then this is subtracted.
2018 had 8.96 bn carbon tons in consumption out of a totla of 9.96 bn total tons (~90% consumption)
Take a look at "China: Consumption-based accounting: how do emissions compare when we adjust for trade?"
> Annual consumption-based emissions are domestic emissions adjusted for trade. If a country imports goods the CO₂ emissions needed to produce such goods are added to its domestic emissions; if it exports goods then this is subtracted.
2018 had 8.96 bn carbon tons in consumption out of a totla of 9.96 bn total tons (~90% consumption)
I loath it when statistics with titles like that are published.
The biggest amount of greenhouse gasses that china emits is from coal power plants. Naturally, figuring out what amount of electricity was used in the production of the exported goods is basically impossible, which is why its considered consumption in their data.
I'm sure the spirit of it is still correct (that most of their co2 emissions are for internal products/usage), but its hard to take that conclusion at face value when they didn't even mention the caveat that they ignore the by far biggest contributor of their emissions and consider it consumption by default.
The biggest amount of greenhouse gasses that china emits is from coal power plants. Naturally, figuring out what amount of electricity was used in the production of the exported goods is basically impossible, which is why its considered consumption in their data.
I'm sure the spirit of it is still correct (that most of their co2 emissions are for internal products/usage), but its hard to take that conclusion at face value when they didn't even mention the caveat that they ignore the by far biggest contributor of their emissions and consider it consumption by default.
Exactly.
We have moved the problem around, but we are not actually getting around to living differently.
We have moved the problem around, but we are not actually getting around to living differently.
I feel your comment is too soft on America.
The US's emissions per capita is more than 3 times the worldwide average. So we still need to cut our emissions by a factor of 3 just to be average. But considering we are the richest country in the world, I think it's reasonable we attempt to display some leadership by having below average emissions. And that's not even mentioning that the fact that of course current worldwide emissions per capita are far too high, so we really need to cut even more.
Meanwhile, China's emission per capita are roughly half that of the US.
Even considering the the meager progress made by the US in the past decades to reduce emissions, we are still the 4th most emitting nation per capita.
The US's emissions per capita is more than 3 times the worldwide average. So we still need to cut our emissions by a factor of 3 just to be average. But considering we are the richest country in the world, I think it's reasonable we attempt to display some leadership by having below average emissions. And that's not even mentioning that the fact that of course current worldwide emissions per capita are far too high, so we really need to cut even more.
Meanwhile, China's emission per capita are roughly half that of the US.
Even considering the the meager progress made by the US in the past decades to reduce emissions, we are still the 4th most emitting nation per capita.
>...so we really need to cut even more
This is the whole pitch of the green movement. Reduce emissions at whatever cost, they completely miss the point that we (the humans on this planet) dont know how to do this. Its not about what we should do its about figuring out how and until we know how there is not much point in making peoples life harder and make them feel bad for doing what they have to do. Or make placebo progress like biofuel and other nonsense.
The earth overshoot day in 2021 is on July 29. Its not hard to figure out that we are nowhere near sustainable and all the proposed cuts and implemented policies did so far is insignificantly reduce the GROWTH of global emissions.
We need real solutions, technological progress of the magnitude of the last 100 years or something like that to make any relevant difference. Not telling people how bad they are for the environment and how they can feel better by doing mostly useless stuff like carefully separating trash for the recycling-fraud industry.
This is the whole pitch of the green movement. Reduce emissions at whatever cost, they completely miss the point that we (the humans on this planet) dont know how to do this. Its not about what we should do its about figuring out how and until we know how there is not much point in making peoples life harder and make them feel bad for doing what they have to do. Or make placebo progress like biofuel and other nonsense.
The earth overshoot day in 2021 is on July 29. Its not hard to figure out that we are nowhere near sustainable and all the proposed cuts and implemented policies did so far is insignificantly reduce the GROWTH of global emissions.
We need real solutions, technological progress of the magnitude of the last 100 years or something like that to make any relevant difference. Not telling people how bad they are for the environment and how they can feel better by doing mostly useless stuff like carefully separating trash for the recycling-fraud industry.
The great majority of the world's population lives in countries with per capita emissions less than a third of the US's. Humans "know how."
It doesn't take ground breaking technology for Americans to stop driving Hummers on their office commute. Nor would it take a tech breakthrough for the US government to stop giving fossil fuel companies $20b/year in tax credits and subsidies. Nor any new tech for sunny regions to cover building roofs with solar panels. If we can spend $2 trillion plus in middle eastern wars of dubious value, surely we buy a some solar panels and batteries.
No new tech is needed. A modicum of will is all that is required.
It doesn't take ground breaking technology for Americans to stop driving Hummers on their office commute. Nor would it take a tech breakthrough for the US government to stop giving fossil fuel companies $20b/year in tax credits and subsidies. Nor any new tech for sunny regions to cover building roofs with solar panels. If we can spend $2 trillion plus in middle eastern wars of dubious value, surely we buy a some solar panels and batteries.
No new tech is needed. A modicum of will is all that is required.
>The great majority of the world's population lives in countries with per capita emissions less than a third of the US's
So what? Emissions are global and rising especially in the places where most people live (Asia). If emission of the whole USA would be zero from today on, global emission would keep growing. At the current rate it would only take a few years for the rest of the world additional emission to replace the whole USA. Needless to to say that zero emission is only a thought experiment. But if this better-than-best-case-scenario can only buy us 10 years or so maybe we should not focus on this?
If the average human causes half the emission of the US people then that is still more than the planet can sustain so why do we focus on the small portion of people who use the most? We should focus on finding a solutions that cuts emission for all. Its not hard to figure out that cutting emissions from all people in halve would have far more benefit than bring the US peoples emission down to the world average or even lower. It intuitively makes sense to reduce emission where it seems the highest but if you look a the whole picture it will not have the desired effect.
>It doesn't take ground breaking technology for Americans to stop driving Hummers on their office commute.
This is exactly what I meant in my original post. The whole green movement is about cutting emission at all cost. Regardless of the fact that removing hummers from Americans or even all cars that use above average fuel would do absolutely nothing on a global scale. Especially not if they have to be replaced by newly build cars.
The whole ideas that us middle-class and rich people who could afford to reduce their emissions should be the once who take the cut is completely absurd. Yes they probably could but would probably crash the global economy if they did and beside that it would not matter at all. The global emissions are not cased by luxury products and people with high emission hobbies like driving a sport car.
> Nor any new tech for sunny regions to cover building roofs with solar panels.....surely we buy a some solar panels and batteries.
It would takes 20-30 years and it would cause and insane amount of emissions to produce solar panels and batteries in these quantities that it would reduce significant emissions. In the same time the rest of the worlds additional emissions would at least double what the USA would reduce. especially if most of the electronics that the USA would need is produces somewhere else and the processing steps that case the most emissions would likely be done outside of the USA.
The reality is we dont know how to reduce global emissions in a significant way (unless you include "solutions" that would directly or indirectly cause the death of millions of people or otherwise would be ethically not okay). We waste time by doing green placebo-solutions rather than putting all the resources we still have into finding real solutions.
So what? Emissions are global and rising especially in the places where most people live (Asia). If emission of the whole USA would be zero from today on, global emission would keep growing. At the current rate it would only take a few years for the rest of the world additional emission to replace the whole USA. Needless to to say that zero emission is only a thought experiment. But if this better-than-best-case-scenario can only buy us 10 years or so maybe we should not focus on this?
If the average human causes half the emission of the US people then that is still more than the planet can sustain so why do we focus on the small portion of people who use the most? We should focus on finding a solutions that cuts emission for all. Its not hard to figure out that cutting emissions from all people in halve would have far more benefit than bring the US peoples emission down to the world average or even lower. It intuitively makes sense to reduce emission where it seems the highest but if you look a the whole picture it will not have the desired effect.
>It doesn't take ground breaking technology for Americans to stop driving Hummers on their office commute.
This is exactly what I meant in my original post. The whole green movement is about cutting emission at all cost. Regardless of the fact that removing hummers from Americans or even all cars that use above average fuel would do absolutely nothing on a global scale. Especially not if they have to be replaced by newly build cars.
The whole ideas that us middle-class and rich people who could afford to reduce their emissions should be the once who take the cut is completely absurd. Yes they probably could but would probably crash the global economy if they did and beside that it would not matter at all. The global emissions are not cased by luxury products and people with high emission hobbies like driving a sport car.
> Nor any new tech for sunny regions to cover building roofs with solar panels.....surely we buy a some solar panels and batteries.
It would takes 20-30 years and it would cause and insane amount of emissions to produce solar panels and batteries in these quantities that it would reduce significant emissions. In the same time the rest of the worlds additional emissions would at least double what the USA would reduce. especially if most of the electronics that the USA would need is produces somewhere else and the processing steps that case the most emissions would likely be done outside of the USA.
The reality is we dont know how to reduce global emissions in a significant way (unless you include "solutions" that would directly or indirectly cause the death of millions of people or otherwise would be ethically not okay). We waste time by doing green placebo-solutions rather than putting all the resources we still have into finding real solutions.
So what? Americans emit 3x as much CO2 per capita as does the rest of the world. The Chinese emit half as much CO2 per capita than do the Americans. This problem will not be solved on a per nation basis, it's going to be solved on a per person basis with each person taking responsibility for their own carbon footprint.
> but you should be honest about what reducing emissions means to billions of people that are just now coming into the industrial age.
Isn't that part of the point? If the US has maintained per capita emission levels that would be ruinous if the rest of the world joined us at, can you really say "we" are done with anything?
OP listed a bunch of specific things, moderate efficiencies and switching to natural gas are great but not nearly sufficient.
Isn't that part of the point? If the US has maintained per capita emission levels that would be ruinous if the rest of the world joined us at, can you really say "we" are done with anything?
OP listed a bunch of specific things, moderate efficiencies and switching to natural gas are great but not nearly sufficient.
I don't get what you're asking. US emissions per capita have been going down considerably since ~2000 without too much prodding or political will. As have Europes. If you look at the chart, there are only three countries with growing per capita emissions and that's China Russia and India, but most dramatically China.
I don't see your point refereeing the past emissions of the US as some kind of moral victory against the west, but regardless of what the west does, the math does not work without those countries taking action. We can cut emissions to 0 and that'll likely buy a decade or so with the current growth rate of China. So you're focusing your energy in the wrong place
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
I don't see your point refereeing the past emissions of the US as some kind of moral victory against the west, but regardless of what the west does, the math does not work without those countries taking action. We can cut emissions to 0 and that'll likely buy a decade or so with the current growth rate of China. So you're focusing your energy in the wrong place
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
This is where border adjustments come into play. We can, for example, implement a carbon tax in the US and impose a tariff on goods from other countries depending on their own environmental policies. This serves as a way to put pressure on all countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions together.
In fact, the EU is in the process of doing this right now, and China is definitely reacting to it (not happy, but it seems like the Chinese government is looking toward expanding their existing policies to cover more industries in an attempt to avoid the EU border adjustment).
Another way to look at it is that given how much the USA has already contributed to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, China would need to continue at their current levels for another 30 or so years before they catch up with us -- and that's with about 4x the population.
I understand that that argument may not be persuasive to some, though, because a lot of the manufacturing and technological development that took place in the USA over that time benefited many countries. And a lot of those emissions took place prior to the wide knowledge of how serious climate change is.
So I'd really say that we should aim for net zero emissions because it's the right thing to do. Everyone has to do it, and it's not going to happen if we all stand around waiting for someone else to go first. There is a pretty massive amount of emissions cutting we could do without much effort at all, and if the rest is spread out over a number of years, the cost will be very small, and will have a lot of benefits to people's health. (Climate change is not the only negative externality of burning fossil fuels by a long shot.)
The place to start is a carbon tax. I highly recommend that everyone who cares about climate change call congress (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/call-your-representative-ab...) and ask them to support a carbon tax.
In fact, the EU is in the process of doing this right now, and China is definitely reacting to it (not happy, but it seems like the Chinese government is looking toward expanding their existing policies to cover more industries in an attempt to avoid the EU border adjustment).
Another way to look at it is that given how much the USA has already contributed to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, China would need to continue at their current levels for another 30 or so years before they catch up with us -- and that's with about 4x the population.
I understand that that argument may not be persuasive to some, though, because a lot of the manufacturing and technological development that took place in the USA over that time benefited many countries. And a lot of those emissions took place prior to the wide knowledge of how serious climate change is.
So I'd really say that we should aim for net zero emissions because it's the right thing to do. Everyone has to do it, and it's not going to happen if we all stand around waiting for someone else to go first. There is a pretty massive amount of emissions cutting we could do without much effort at all, and if the rest is spread out over a number of years, the cost will be very small, and will have a lot of benefits to people's health. (Climate change is not the only negative externality of burning fossil fuels by a long shot.)
The place to start is a carbon tax. I highly recommend that everyone who cares about climate change call congress (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/call-your-representative-ab...) and ask them to support a carbon tax.
How does the life of the average human looks like in a world with net zero emissions? How is that life different than subsistence farming?
We need to articulate the future, not wax poetically toward some vague economic abstractions. Unless we can articulate some hopeful answer to this question, nothing consequential will change. People really do not want to live as subsistence farmers.
We need to articulate the future, not wax poetically toward some vague economic abstractions. Unless we can articulate some hopeful answer to this question, nothing consequential will change. People really do not want to live as subsistence farmers.
> How does the life of the average human looks like in a world with net zero emissions?
For one, net zero houses look pretty comfortable:
* https://www.chba.ca/CHBA/BuyingNew/Net-Zero-Homes.aspx
If you go further toward "passive house" you can have 5000 sq. ft. (500 sq. m.) of living area and only need 1500W (a hairdryer) to heat it:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA
Residential energy use accounts for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States:
* https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122
IMHO there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit in just efficiencies that can be plucked before lifestyle sacrifices would need to be made.
For one, net zero houses look pretty comfortable:
* https://www.chba.ca/CHBA/BuyingNew/Net-Zero-Homes.aspx
If you go further toward "passive house" you can have 5000 sq. ft. (500 sq. m.) of living area and only need 1500W (a hairdryer) to heat it:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA
Residential energy use accounts for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States:
* https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122
IMHO there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit in just efficiencies that can be plucked before lifestyle sacrifices would need to be made.
This is an excellent answer.
The number of Passivhauser in the US is apparently in the thousands. What would it take to scale this up to 100-1000 times? What would it take to change the status from luxury good to mass adoption?
https://www.pembina.org/blog/passive-house-revolution
The number of Passivhauser in the US is apparently in the thousands. What would it take to scale this up to 100-1000 times? What would it take to change the status from luxury good to mass adoption?
https://www.pembina.org/blog/passive-house-revolution
There is always a reason why <insert groundbreaking and game changing technology> has not been widely adopted.
If it was all upside, the established players, in this case home builders, would have already incorporated it to gain a competitive advantage.
I am guessing there are downsides such as cost of materials, expertise, mold, or something that keeps this from being an economical solution.
If it was all upside, the established players, in this case home builders, would have already incorporated it to gain a competitive advantage.
I am guessing there are downsides such as cost of materials, expertise, mold, or something that keeps this from being an economical solution.
Passive house is a very high standard, and I do not think it is very practical to do it at large scale.
Aiming for something that can be net zero is probably more practical: building stringently up to a certain point, and then throw some PV panels to offset whatever expected energy use is remaining.
Aiming for something that can be net zero is probably more practical: building stringently up to a certain point, and then throw some PV panels to offset whatever expected energy use is remaining.
Way to cherry pick things and sugar coat the stats for the US.
Per capita emissions for the US: 15.52 tons
Per capita emissions for India: 1.91
US has about eight times the per capita emission of India, double that of China(which makes a lot of things for the US) and somehow India and China are to blame and the US deserves no blame, even given all its riches and having the means to reduce emissions?
Per capita emissions for the US: 15.52 tons
Per capita emissions for India: 1.91
US has about eight times the per capita emission of India, double that of China(which makes a lot of things for the US) and somehow India and China are to blame and the US deserves no blame, even given all its riches and having the means to reduce emissions?
So you’re saying 300m people in the US generate only half as many emissions as 1.4 billion people living in a country that is basically the worlds factory?
And you think that’s OK?
And you think that’s OK?
We need to essentially be net negative. Note that 3/4th of the area under that graph... is literally not visible because it doesn't start from zero.
> while China has 28% and is growing in both per person and absolute.
I'm personally completely in favor of import tariffs on goods manufactured abroad with dirty energy and immigration quotas on nationals from countries that have decided not to control their emissions.
I'm personally completely in favor of import tariffs on goods manufactured abroad with dirty energy and immigration quotas on nationals from countries that have decided not to control their emissions.
What does immigration have to do with CO2?
Rich Chinese are obsessed with acquiring western passports. Making it harder will incentivize them to work harder at home to fix their country's horrible environmental record.
To be fair You could say 2020 was due to lack of car emmissions?
To me, it is just the nature of large groups of human beings that sometimes there is an impending disaster, but people do not agree on what to do about it, and humanity stumbles into disaster. Look at Europe before WW1 or WW2, how many people predicted an imminent disastrous war, and how little agreement there was on how to fix it. Climate change is probably not as bad as impending WW3, but it shouldn't be surprising that we haven't had a mass changing of opinion to avoid disaster. That never really happens.
The simplest answer is that we just need to prepare for a hotter world. This article points out that there will be "no safe place". Okay, we won't have a safe place. We will need to do the best we can to minimize natural disasters and at the same time try to figure out political and technological solutions to limiting climate change.
The simplest answer is that we just need to prepare for a hotter world. This article points out that there will be "no safe place". Okay, we won't have a safe place. We will need to do the best we can to minimize natural disasters and at the same time try to figure out political and technological solutions to limiting climate change.
>Okay, we won't have a safe place
There never was a safe place.
Nothing much may be happening around Yellowstone, but people speculate it might some day pretty much trash the whole continent if not the world.
People in the midwest don't worry about earthquakes much but New Madrid showed it is possible and could be really bad.
In the northeast, we're a long way from where most tornadoes are, but it can happen here, I've seen evidence.
Nobody's particularly worried about something like Fukushima in the US, but there are quite a few nuclear reactors all over the place. We tend to assume the Atlantic isn't going to have a tsunami, I guess. Is that certain?
In Europe, they assume there's not going to be a devastating volcano eruption, but you know, there's the historical records of Pompeii and so on.
Nobody saw Tunguska and Chelyabinsk coming, something like that could happen at any moment over a major city.
There never was a safe place.
Nothing much may be happening around Yellowstone, but people speculate it might some day pretty much trash the whole continent if not the world.
People in the midwest don't worry about earthquakes much but New Madrid showed it is possible and could be really bad.
In the northeast, we're a long way from where most tornadoes are, but it can happen here, I've seen evidence.
Nobody's particularly worried about something like Fukushima in the US, but there are quite a few nuclear reactors all over the place. We tend to assume the Atlantic isn't going to have a tsunami, I guess. Is that certain?
In Europe, they assume there's not going to be a devastating volcano eruption, but you know, there's the historical records of Pompeii and so on.
Nobody saw Tunguska and Chelyabinsk coming, something like that could happen at any moment over a major city.
I have seen in every movement that while people share the goal, they do not share the strategy. The strategy often involve trade offs and cultural values that is separated from the common goal, and the stronger people feel about the goal the more convinced they are about their own chosen strategy. The most bitter fights tend to be between people who strongly share the same goals.
Preparing for a hotter world is nice, but what I am hoping is that nations (and the green movement) will realize that all strategies need to be deployed and it doesn't matter if one strategy feels like it is being counter productive to the values of an other. Some people can focus on replacing meat with vegetarian options, other on ecological meat, some on reducing factory farming in favor of local small scale production, and some on low carbon meat like shell fish. Let some build nuclear power plants, other renewable energy and battery. Focus on building bike infrastructure, rail system and electrify all parts of the transport system.
Preparing for a hotter world is nice, but what I am hoping is that nations (and the green movement) will realize that all strategies need to be deployed and it doesn't matter if one strategy feels like it is being counter productive to the values of an other. Some people can focus on replacing meat with vegetarian options, other on ecological meat, some on reducing factory farming in favor of local small scale production, and some on low carbon meat like shell fish. Let some build nuclear power plants, other renewable energy and battery. Focus on building bike infrastructure, rail system and electrify all parts of the transport system.
I share that hope, but harbor no expectation of it actually happening.
And frankly lining things up so my fam and I can live really lean. Tough times ahead.
Might be 5 years, decade, maybe two, but tough times are coming.
The scale and latency in all this point to us having past the time when we could really mitigate, amd the scale means humans taking it hard a few times before realizing a big effort makes sense.
And frankly lining things up so my fam and I can live really lean. Tough times ahead.
Might be 5 years, decade, maybe two, but tough times are coming.
The scale and latency in all this point to us having past the time when we could really mitigate, amd the scale means humans taking it hard a few times before realizing a big effort makes sense.
It's as if a significant portion of humanity has committed themselves to slow mass suicide, and decided they wanna take everyone else with 'em. Totally 110% agree with your description of it as "surreal". I keep waiting to wake from the nightmare, but it's all turning out to be real.
> It’s surreal.
I would say it’s human nature. We, humans, learn by making mistakes. There may be small differences among countries in the way we address, let’s say, climate change (e.g., Amsterdam is full of people riding bikes while Madrid is not), but at the end we all behave the same, whether in NY, Athens, or Santiago: we, as a world-wide society, only care about our immediate future, about our needs right now. The future? Well, let’s talk about that tomorrow. Countless of civilizations have disappeared (or transformed) due to this very short-term thinking way of doing things. We may disappear (or transform) as well.
I would say it’s human nature. We, humans, learn by making mistakes. There may be small differences among countries in the way we address, let’s say, climate change (e.g., Amsterdam is full of people riding bikes while Madrid is not), but at the end we all behave the same, whether in NY, Athens, or Santiago: we, as a world-wide society, only care about our immediate future, about our needs right now. The future? Well, let’s talk about that tomorrow. Countless of civilizations have disappeared (or transformed) due to this very short-term thinking way of doing things. We may disappear (or transform) as well.
> We, humans, learn by making mistakes.
I don’t think that’s true, although you address a similar point of mine later. We often make the same mistakes over and over again. There’s a reason why we say history repeats itself.
What humans really do is react to mistakes and other events based on consequences of our actions. This reactiveness has gotten us into this mess. We often view intelligence as being able to predict things, but as a society and species, we’re absolutely awful at prevention and conservation. We’re excellent at consumption.
I don’t think that’s true, although you address a similar point of mine later. We often make the same mistakes over and over again. There’s a reason why we say history repeats itself.
What humans really do is react to mistakes and other events based on consequences of our actions. This reactiveness has gotten us into this mess. We often view intelligence as being able to predict things, but as a society and species, we’re absolutely awful at prevention and conservation. We’re excellent at consumption.
Climate change as a crisis is perfectly threading the needle between human apathy, inability to invest in long term changes, and happening too slowly to provoke a reactionary response.
We build social infrastructure that is incredibly resistant to change by design to protect ourselves and provide stability - but climate change is demanding massive changes which we are ill equipped to deal with politically.
Traditionally we solve these moments in history with revolution to demand change - but climate change is happening too slowly for complacent human mindsets to react that way at a scale that it requires as a crisis.
It is quite horrifying watching it play out in slow motion. This will not end well.
We build social infrastructure that is incredibly resistant to change by design to protect ourselves and provide stability - but climate change is demanding massive changes which we are ill equipped to deal with politically.
Traditionally we solve these moments in history with revolution to demand change - but climate change is happening too slowly for complacent human mindsets to react that way at a scale that it requires as a crisis.
It is quite horrifying watching it play out in slow motion. This will not end well.
The numbers don't work out. Let's say in USA we cut meat consumption, car usage and air travel in half. That is quite a lot, congratulations to our eco-conscious citizens!
Alas, let's not pat ourselves on the back just yet. USA accounts for 15% of global emissions. Agriculture and transportation make 14% and 24%, together 48%. Half of that is 24%. 24% of 15% is 3.6% of global emissions. On the flip side:
* 96.4 of the emissions continue.
* Global emissions increased 10% since 2010, 3x more than what we saved with great (relative) sacrifice.
We may push the looming horizon a decade or two, but we won't stop the process, forget about reverting it. As the so called third world countries are moving out of poverty, aka undergoing a rapid industrialization process, emissions are bound to raise irrespective of what the so called first world countries do, due to sheer population mass. Consider the fundamental emissions equation:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Edit: The estimated range for global emissions to maintain only a 1.5C growth has a range of 22-31 GtCO2e. Assuming emissions at the rate of France of about 5tCO2 / capita, the globally industrialized world of 2050 with 10B people will have global emissions of 50GtCO2, or 75GtCO2e. That is 3x more than Earth can sustain. Going down the list of emissions per capita by country, we find Albania, Morocco or Colombia. What we need to make the numbers is a 10x decrease in income/wealth of US residents, not minor lifestyle adjustments.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/...
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
Alas, let's not pat ourselves on the back just yet. USA accounts for 15% of global emissions. Agriculture and transportation make 14% and 24%, together 48%. Half of that is 24%. 24% of 15% is 3.6% of global emissions. On the flip side:
* 96.4 of the emissions continue.
* Global emissions increased 10% since 2010, 3x more than what we saved with great (relative) sacrifice.
We may push the looming horizon a decade or two, but we won't stop the process, forget about reverting it. As the so called third world countries are moving out of poverty, aka undergoing a rapid industrialization process, emissions are bound to raise irrespective of what the so called first world countries do, due to sheer population mass. Consider the fundamental emissions equation:
TotalEmissions = WorldArea * PopulationDensity * PerCapitaEmissions
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Edit: The estimated range for global emissions to maintain only a 1.5C growth has a range of 22-31 GtCO2e. Assuming emissions at the rate of France of about 5tCO2 / capita, the globally industrialized world of 2050 with 10B people will have global emissions of 50GtCO2, or 75GtCO2e. That is 3x more than Earth can sustain. Going down the list of emissions per capita by country, we find Albania, Morocco or Colombia. What we need to make the numbers is a 10x decrease in income/wealth of US residents, not minor lifestyle adjustments.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/...
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
The PerCapitaEmission thing is something we can curb without returning to to stone age, given today's technology.
We have two major technologies that allow for producing useful energy without producing much or any greenhouse gases: nuclear and solar. Wind and hydro are also on the table, but are more constrained by the environment.
We also have reasonably well developing technologies for meat-like protein production from plants (see e.g. the "impossible burger") and lab-grown meat. They are currently a bit expensive, but it's mostly the matter of investment.
Sadly, all that massive construction requires steel and concrete, which emit CO2 during production. Here comes carbon sequestration: we absolutely have technologies to quickly grow massive amounts of trees, cut them, and put them to use either as a long-term construction material, or just burn the hydrogen out of them to produce energy, and bury the carbon in the empty coal mines, playing back the carboniferous epoch process.
This all does not require colossal amounts of novel science or sci-fi technological breakthroughs. It does require though that petrol cars and trucks get steadily replaced with electric, coal mining all but stopped (we need carbon for steel production), oil pumping severely limited (we still need jet fuel until we can synthesize enough), coal-fired plants demolished or turned into nuclear plants. It requires massive construction of solar, wind, and nuclear (gasp!) electric generation, and massive construction of battery capacity to make solar practical for base load. It requires shutting off most of beef production, and replacing it with fish and shrimp farming, lab-grown meat, and plant-based pseudo-meat; red meat should become a luxury like salmon roe or caviar.
The obvious problem is that most people would totally not cooperate if they'd have to quickly and radically change their way of life, their idea of what prosperity looks like (bye grilling beef over coals!), and their jobs (coal industry? oil industry? bad luck!). Can this be overcome? Either most of the Earth's population, across national, political, and religious divisions would willingly make such a change, or an planet-scale dictatorship would emerge and consistently and efficiently pursue the goals of climate change reversal, while not severely affecting productivity. I see both scenarios utterly unrealistic :(
So, buy that realty next to a major northern river 1000ft above sea level. In a century it will have the best climate Earth can offer.
We have two major technologies that allow for producing useful energy without producing much or any greenhouse gases: nuclear and solar. Wind and hydro are also on the table, but are more constrained by the environment.
We also have reasonably well developing technologies for meat-like protein production from plants (see e.g. the "impossible burger") and lab-grown meat. They are currently a bit expensive, but it's mostly the matter of investment.
Sadly, all that massive construction requires steel and concrete, which emit CO2 during production. Here comes carbon sequestration: we absolutely have technologies to quickly grow massive amounts of trees, cut them, and put them to use either as a long-term construction material, or just burn the hydrogen out of them to produce energy, and bury the carbon in the empty coal mines, playing back the carboniferous epoch process.
This all does not require colossal amounts of novel science or sci-fi technological breakthroughs. It does require though that petrol cars and trucks get steadily replaced with electric, coal mining all but stopped (we need carbon for steel production), oil pumping severely limited (we still need jet fuel until we can synthesize enough), coal-fired plants demolished or turned into nuclear plants. It requires massive construction of solar, wind, and nuclear (gasp!) electric generation, and massive construction of battery capacity to make solar practical for base load. It requires shutting off most of beef production, and replacing it with fish and shrimp farming, lab-grown meat, and plant-based pseudo-meat; red meat should become a luxury like salmon roe or caviar.
The obvious problem is that most people would totally not cooperate if they'd have to quickly and radically change their way of life, their idea of what prosperity looks like (bye grilling beef over coals!), and their jobs (coal industry? oil industry? bad luck!). Can this be overcome? Either most of the Earth's population, across national, political, and religious divisions would willingly make such a change, or an planet-scale dictatorship would emerge and consistently and efficiently pursue the goals of climate change reversal, while not severely affecting productivity. I see both scenarios utterly unrealistic :(
So, buy that realty next to a major northern river 1000ft above sea level. In a century it will have the best climate Earth can offer.
Seems to be missing that the US can cut US emissions, but cannot cut other countries' emissions. So if you can drop (say) 5% global emissions and choose not to - that's just willful ignorance?
A. "serious bicycle or transit prioritization in our major (US) urban areas" will not make a dent in the world global emissions.
B. The level of cuts required to bring the world to sustainable emissions level, combined with global population growth and global equity, would require that everybody to live with under 1.7t/year CO2 emissions by 2050. This is the level of Albania, Colombia or Morocco, complete political dead end on both left and right.
The crux of the problem is that there are no solutions. Even the 'we should do something about it' crowd is utterly incapable in articulating the depth of the cuts needed avert disaster, or articulate the life of the average American after such cuts. Hint: the Great Depression would be 'the good times' in comparison.
B. The level of cuts required to bring the world to sustainable emissions level, combined with global population growth and global equity, would require that everybody to live with under 1.7t/year CO2 emissions by 2050. This is the level of Albania, Colombia or Morocco, complete political dead end on both left and right.
The crux of the problem is that there are no solutions. Even the 'we should do something about it' crowd is utterly incapable in articulating the depth of the cuts needed avert disaster, or articulate the life of the average American after such cuts. Hint: the Great Depression would be 'the good times' in comparison.
Cool, low-hanging fruit is just, woe is me, too much trouble! No problem, let's do nothing then. Should be a fun ride. Going to be Great Depression either way!
I'm not saying we can fix it, I'm a nihilist at this point, I'm saying we could have fixed it 15 years ago.
I'm not saying we can fix it, I'm a nihilist at this point, I'm saying we could have fixed it 15 years ago.
The US should figure out ways to cut emissions in half. Unfortunately:
A. That will not fix the global problem, as US population is too small. Even if we were to completely shut down energy production in the US, the rest of the world would build enough power plants to cover for it and then some in less than 20 years. Industrialization of 10 billion people (3% in the US) is not pretty.
B. It is unclear what to concretely do in the US to significantly cut emissions. To simplify, the right doesn't want to hear about it, and the left is content with promoting minor inconsequential Potemkiniads.
We never had a chance to fix the problem, not with 10 billion people yearning an escape from poverty.
A. That will not fix the global problem, as US population is too small. Even if we were to completely shut down energy production in the US, the rest of the world would build enough power plants to cover for it and then some in less than 20 years. Industrialization of 10 billion people (3% in the US) is not pretty.
B. It is unclear what to concretely do in the US to significantly cut emissions. To simplify, the right doesn't want to hear about it, and the left is content with promoting minor inconsequential Potemkiniads.
We never had a chance to fix the problem, not with 10 billion people yearning an escape from poverty.
A recent Freakonomics episode about America absolutely blew my mind and cemented this idea I've been trolling friends with that suburbia should be banned.
Americans use 2 trillion gallons of water per year ... for lawns. Nice green lawns. In the desert, in the south, in the north, between highways, friggen' lawns everywhere. No consideration for grasses that naturally enjoy the local environment. Only a perfect British green lawn will do. Nature be damned!
By comparison, America uses only 3 trillion gallons of water for all of agriculture.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-stupid-obsession-lawns/
Americans use 2 trillion gallons of water per year ... for lawns. Nice green lawns. In the desert, in the south, in the north, between highways, friggen' lawns everywhere. No consideration for grasses that naturally enjoy the local environment. Only a perfect British green lawn will do. Nature be damned!
By comparison, America uses only 3 trillion gallons of water for all of agriculture.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-stupid-obsession-lawns/
Worse, quite a lot of people are required to do that and face fines should anything but grass grow in their yard, or nothing grows.
A friend of mine did that sometime back. He just did a stone and ground cover, low maintenance yard. Was kind of awesome. City went full bat shit. Circle the yard that is different and excise the cancer! Needs to be grass, not a garden, not stones, just grass.
It is crazy.
A friend of mine did that sometime back. He just did a stone and ground cover, low maintenance yard. Was kind of awesome. City went full bat shit. Circle the yard that is different and excise the cancer! Needs to be grass, not a garden, not stones, just grass.
It is crazy.
Lake Superior receives about 1 meter of rain per year and covers 82000 sq km. So Lake Superior is using 82 billion cubic meters of water per year, or, in medieval units, 21 trillion gallons. You could catch 10% of the rainfall on Lake Superior in barges and supply the entire friggen lawn consumption you want to ban.
The Mississippi River discharges 16800 cubic meters per second of water, which is 530 billion cubic meters per year. In medieval units, that's 140 trillion gallons of water per year.
You're too easily impressed and have no sense of proportion, making it easy for dishonest people to manipulate your emotions. Humans are doing massive environmental damage, but human water use for lawns is insignificant.
Now get the hell off my friggen lawn.
The Mississippi River discharges 16800 cubic meters per second of water, which is 530 billion cubic meters per year. In medieval units, that's 140 trillion gallons of water per year.
You're too easily impressed and have no sense of proportion, making it easy for dishonest people to manipulate your emotions. Humans are doing massive environmental damage, but human water use for lawns is insignificant.
Now get the hell off my friggen lawn.
It’s not really a critique of someone gawping at a big number to then go and gawp at a bigger one. These two numbers are only related in that they express volumes of water.
The context for the comment was that lawns consume water on a scale comparable to all domestic agricultural irrigation, or half of all the domestic reticulated water supply, and it’s not doing much beyond aesthetics. That is significant use of a precious resource by any measure, and a wasteful one by most people’s. If the amount of water in Lake Superior or the Mississippi were relevant to the relatively small water consumption for domestic use and agriculture, why would anyone be bothered about droughts? Just send in the barges!
Whether lawns are environmentally ruinous by dint of sucking up that much drinking water is a different argument. New builds clearing woodlands in order to have more acreage and monoculture lawns displacing native species / food webs are problems, but there’s certainly worse things you could do with an existing yard.
The context for the comment was that lawns consume water on a scale comparable to all domestic agricultural irrigation, or half of all the domestic reticulated water supply, and it’s not doing much beyond aesthetics. That is significant use of a precious resource by any measure, and a wasteful one by most people’s. If the amount of water in Lake Superior or the Mississippi were relevant to the relatively small water consumption for domestic use and agriculture, why would anyone be bothered about droughts? Just send in the barges!
Whether lawns are environmentally ruinous by dint of sucking up that much drinking water is a different argument. New builds clearing woodlands in order to have more acreage and monoculture lawns displacing native species / food webs are problems, but there’s certainly worse things you could do with an existing yard.
> These two numbers are only related in that they express volumes of water.
No, these three numbers are related in that they express volumes of fresh water consumed per year for particular uses in the United States. The Mississippi River is dumping 16.8 megaliters per second of freshwater into the ocean. In that context, it's totally inconsequential if people in the US spray 0.2 megaliters per second of freshwater onto their lawns.
> That is significant use of a precious resource by any measure
No, it is not.
> aesthetics. ... a wasteful [use] by most people’s [measure].
Beautifying our surroundings is not a wasteful use of resources by most people's measure; if it were, the mandatory lawn ordinances people are (rightly) decrying in this thread wouldn't have been voted in. We have seen what the results look like when people consider aesthetics "wasteful": Pruitt-Igoe, prisons, concentration camps, Soviet housing blocks, American high schools, battleships, the Pentagon, the bulldozing of forests and mountains to build parking lots. Humans do not flourish in these environments.
Instead, let us aspire to consider things wasteful that cannot be aesthetically justified!
The broader cultural context is, I think, that this lamentation of other people watering their lawns stems from the same misguided Judeo-Christian asceticism that led medieval hermits to never bathe and wear hairshirts, equating happiness, enjoyment, and comfort with sin, self-indulgence, and dissolution. Sometimes you see people from Judeo-Christian traditions attempting to justify such concepts by appropriating Buddhism, apparently unaware of the profound attention to aesthetics easily observable in any Buddhist temple or monastery.
This ascetisism has been twisted into a simplistic zero-sum pseudo-environmentalism—sometimes coupled with a feigned charity toward the poor—that equates material wealth with environmental destruction and impoverishment of others, and so seeks to ameliorate California's periodic droughts with showerhead flow restrictors and more restrictive central lawn planning.
> If the amount of water in Lake Superior or the Mississippi were relevant to the relatively small water consumption for domestic use and agriculture, why would anyone be bothered about droughts?
Probably because you're not building enough canals and pipelines to transport freshwater from the Mississippi (and other rivers) to US agricultural lands. Get on it! A lot of those rivers are already full of fertilizer! Also, it's a problem when half of California catches on fire, even if nobody's almonds burn.
No, these three numbers are related in that they express volumes of fresh water consumed per year for particular uses in the United States. The Mississippi River is dumping 16.8 megaliters per second of freshwater into the ocean. In that context, it's totally inconsequential if people in the US spray 0.2 megaliters per second of freshwater onto their lawns.
> That is significant use of a precious resource by any measure
No, it is not.
> aesthetics. ... a wasteful [use] by most people’s [measure].
Beautifying our surroundings is not a wasteful use of resources by most people's measure; if it were, the mandatory lawn ordinances people are (rightly) decrying in this thread wouldn't have been voted in. We have seen what the results look like when people consider aesthetics "wasteful": Pruitt-Igoe, prisons, concentration camps, Soviet housing blocks, American high schools, battleships, the Pentagon, the bulldozing of forests and mountains to build parking lots. Humans do not flourish in these environments.
Instead, let us aspire to consider things wasteful that cannot be aesthetically justified!
The broader cultural context is, I think, that this lamentation of other people watering their lawns stems from the same misguided Judeo-Christian asceticism that led medieval hermits to never bathe and wear hairshirts, equating happiness, enjoyment, and comfort with sin, self-indulgence, and dissolution. Sometimes you see people from Judeo-Christian traditions attempting to justify such concepts by appropriating Buddhism, apparently unaware of the profound attention to aesthetics easily observable in any Buddhist temple or monastery.
This ascetisism has been twisted into a simplistic zero-sum pseudo-environmentalism—sometimes coupled with a feigned charity toward the poor—that equates material wealth with environmental destruction and impoverishment of others, and so seeks to ameliorate California's periodic droughts with showerhead flow restrictors and more restrictive central lawn planning.
> If the amount of water in Lake Superior or the Mississippi were relevant to the relatively small water consumption for domestic use and agriculture, why would anyone be bothered about droughts?
Probably because you're not building enough canals and pipelines to transport freshwater from the Mississippi (and other rivers) to US agricultural lands. Get on it! A lot of those rivers are already full of fertilizer! Also, it's a problem when half of California catches on fire, even if nobody's almonds burn.
*asceticism
We should ban the Mississipi River, too.
Two cubic miles of water. Lake Michigan has 1,180 cubic miles by comparison.
A solution that does not provide for greater energy consumption per capita over time is not a solution. It was never going to work out any other way.
If you want to make a difference, clean energy is the path to follow. That, and carbon capture so we don't spend the rest of our lives in a worsening situation.
If you want to make a difference, clean energy is the path to follow. That, and carbon capture so we don't spend the rest of our lives in a worsening situation.
I've been actively waiting for vapor-ware to save us for a decade and a half. Thorium-candle nuclear plants, carbon-capture, clean coal. Cool... it's been 15 years... not a lot happening in the interim.
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
I hear you and I understand where you're coming from. And it's serious. Very serious.
And while I do think habits both have to change and will be forced to change — I do think it's useful to accept that we have to build our world and our environment to our behavioral tendencies. It's easy to look back cynically and say, I wish we'd never done X, or Y, or Z. The reality now though is this massive economic engine, which has lifted people out of poverty and created opportunity -- polluting in its current form though it may be -- might be the thing that saves us and helps us escape velocity. Technology can help us adapt and solve this. I know it's easy to live the cynicism but I promise you, challenging though it may be, we need each other and to believe in possibility more than ever if we're going to pull this off.
And while I do think habits both have to change and will be forced to change — I do think it's useful to accept that we have to build our world and our environment to our behavioral tendencies. It's easy to look back cynically and say, I wish we'd never done X, or Y, or Z. The reality now though is this massive economic engine, which has lifted people out of poverty and created opportunity -- polluting in its current form though it may be -- might be the thing that saves us and helps us escape velocity. Technology can help us adapt and solve this. I know it's easy to live the cynicism but I promise you, challenging though it may be, we need each other and to believe in possibility more than ever if we're going to pull this off.
Need each other.
Well, yes! I agree. However, when I look around at the movers and shakers capable of the big decisions that lead to big efforts, I do not get the sense I am needed as much as I could potentially be used.
It cost a ton to bootstrap us onto our current technology.
It will cost a ton more to transition to other energy.
For the most part, we have the tech we need. Better will come too, but big costs are not sexy, though the labor to accomplish these things would and could elevate many into a better life. Ordinary people, when presented with a plan, like build this stuff so we can live better this way, leave something livable for our kids... would be in. Large numbers of people need better jobs, and a future that one can look forward to.
What I don't see is the kind of thinking that gets us there. That kicks off the work we could have been doing for years.
Well, yes! I agree. However, when I look around at the movers and shakers capable of the big decisions that lead to big efforts, I do not get the sense I am needed as much as I could potentially be used.
It cost a ton to bootstrap us onto our current technology.
It will cost a ton more to transition to other energy.
For the most part, we have the tech we need. Better will come too, but big costs are not sexy, though the labor to accomplish these things would and could elevate many into a better life. Ordinary people, when presented with a plan, like build this stuff so we can live better this way, leave something livable for our kids... would be in. Large numbers of people need better jobs, and a future that one can look forward to.
What I don't see is the kind of thinking that gets us there. That kicks off the work we could have been doing for years.
Have faith, things can change rapidly in the right way too.
loads of resources available
loads of brains
manpower
when people realize and decide, you can flip a lot in few time
it's just the usual society blur and inertia that made people like you unable to do more.. many people tried but you can't carry the world on your shoulder so most people resign
get ready
ps: in dense cities, whenever possible, use your bike; we should make viral vids for bike rallies or bike days, it's 100+ % benefits for everybody in a week
loads of resources available
loads of brains
manpower
when people realize and decide, you can flip a lot in few time
it's just the usual society blur and inertia that made people like you unable to do more.. many people tried but you can't carry the world on your shoulder so most people resign
get ready
ps: in dense cities, whenever possible, use your bike; we should make viral vids for bike rallies or bike days, it's 100+ % benefits for everybody in a week
We are the lifelong chain-smoker who, when diagnosed with lung cancer, chooses to keep smoking because of a misguided belief that "at least I'll die happy".
Or, they believe the point of no return has been passed, nothing to be done. I gave seen people evaluate the pain they perceive is a part of quitting exceed their perception of value.
Literally, not worth it.
Literally, not worth it.
Après moi, le déluge.[1]
The attitude has been around since before tobacco and is commonly ascribed to Boomers. With justification. (Disclosure: I am one.)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr%C3%A8s_moi,_le_d%C3%A9luge
The attitude has been around since before tobacco and is commonly ascribed to Boomers. With justification. (Disclosure: I am one.)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr%C3%A8s_moi,_le_d%C3%A9luge
There's a lot of concrete and steel in the urban lifestyle, which according to Gates are the biggest contributors to global warming. Not saying urban lifestyle is the worst, but there's a good chance it's just not enough.
My guess is no matter what we do we're over the limit, a reduction in one thing leads to an increase in another, and probably population reduction is the only solution.
My guess is no matter what we do we're over the limit, a reduction in one thing leads to an increase in another, and probably population reduction is the only solution.
“Population reduction” again? It might be the most politically expedient option, but the planet isn't overpopulated. We're just polluting way too much. If you model a back-of-the-envelope sustainable civilisation, you'll find we're nowhere near any sort of fundamental population limit.
As a species, our median per-capita pollution is okay. It's the mean per-capita pollution that's the issue.
As a species, our median per-capita pollution is okay. It's the mean per-capita pollution that's the issue.
> If you model a back-of-the-envelope sustainable civilisation, you'll find we're nowhere near any sort of fundamental population limit.
How did you model it? I'm curious about the assumptions you made and how you came up with your conclusion.
How did you model it? I'm curious about the assumptions you made and how you came up with your conclusion.
I lost the envelope (it was a while ago (and also not a literal envelope)), but I'm pretty sure I just drew a circle somewhere reasonably habitable in Europe, filled it with a decent population density to roughly non-capital city population, placed enough high-density farmland around it to produce double the necessary food (in crops), put in eight radial train tracks and some roads leading to those train tracks, surrounded the whole thing by enough 20%-efficiency solar panels to power the city (peak 300W per person, at 10% electricity losses) then multiplied up to nine billion people.
I assumed all in-city transport was manual or electric (and hence covered by the solar panels), all trains and food transport was diesel (even though electric trains are realistic), that the roofs of the city were covered in 20% efficiency solar panels (at 0% loss, due to proximity), that all long-distance transport was done with cargo ships (no aeroplanes) and there was a tenth the shipping of what we've actually got.
The vast majority of the planet was completely untouched by my hypothetical civilisation. I know I missed out a lot of stuff (e.g. how goods get from ports to people and back), but I don't think my conclusion was that far out – especially since “tile the world with solar panels” isn't an efficient renewables strategy.
I assumed all in-city transport was manual or electric (and hence covered by the solar panels), all trains and food transport was diesel (even though electric trains are realistic), that the roofs of the city were covered in 20% efficiency solar panels (at 0% loss, due to proximity), that all long-distance transport was done with cargo ships (no aeroplanes) and there was a tenth the shipping of what we've actually got.
The vast majority of the planet was completely untouched by my hypothetical civilisation. I know I missed out a lot of stuff (e.g. how goods get from ports to people and back), but I don't think my conclusion was that far out – especially since “tile the world with solar panels” isn't an efficient renewables strategy.
You don't need skyscapers. You need the density levels of Paris. Six-story walkups. The concrete can be put into 5/2 urban buildings, or it can be put in to driveways, pools, and sidewalks no one will ever use.
Pretending that urbanism is somehow remotely equivalent is naive at best.
Pretending that urbanism is somehow remotely equivalent is naive at best.
Exactly -- most "urban" areas in the USA are actually sprawling car-dependent suburbs that use far more resources of all kinds per capita than a true urban area.
What's more, is that we've forgotten that you don't need to build suburbs around cars. You can have pleasant suburbs with offices, shops, schools, and other non-residential buildings mixed into the neighborhood. Where people actually walk and cycle because the streets feel like they were made for it.
There's a massive gap between the population density of 60000 people per square mile you might find in an urban center, and the approximately 1,500 people per square mile you get in a typical suburb.
What's more, is that we've forgotten that you don't need to build suburbs around cars. You can have pleasant suburbs with offices, shops, schools, and other non-residential buildings mixed into the neighborhood. Where people actually walk and cycle because the streets feel like they were made for it.
There's a massive gap between the population density of 60000 people per square mile you might find in an urban center, and the approximately 1,500 people per square mile you get in a typical suburb.
Where do you have in mind? Just anywhere north enough?
100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. This isn't a right/left problem - both parties have let corporations get away with runaway pollution for entirely too long.
Bullshit. 100 companies are responsible for extraction. They are selling us the carbon we are actively buying.
Thank you, I could not agree more. These companies exist because their services and products are being bought by someone else, and in the end the consumers are either actual consumers or governments (who consumers vote for). I place minimal blame on companies, because clearly consumers don't care, and instead want to buy the cheapest products possible.
That'd be great if they didn't BUY politicians to write laws that subsidize their extraction and hamper legislation to actually combat the externalities THEY produced.
Consumers do care, but their choices are between bad and awful because the economics (structured by the extraction companies) stacks the deck against solutions.
Consumers do care, but their choices are between bad and awful because the economics (structured by the extraction companies) stacks the deck against solutions.
What are you talking about. The corporations, man, are not responsible for the zoning apocalypse American cities dealing with. You literally cannot live in a walkable high rise in most of Brooklyn, SF, LA, Austin, etc., not because of BIG AUTO, but because literally the neighbors there don't like tall buildings and want more free street-parking spaces for their cars.
Not to mention quite a few of those 'companies' are state-owned entities...
Would it be better to split those companies up with a series of spinoffs so it's actually 1,000 companies, or 1,000,000 smaller companies releasing 71% of global emissions? Or is the number of companies involved in fact completely arbitrary and meaningless?
This line of thinking allows consumers to pass off their responsibility for their own choices.
Who is really to blame for the emissions for my flight to Turkey to sit on a beach even though I live 4 blocks from another (worse) beach. Under your view it would be Lufthansa or whoever sold them the fuel.
Who is really to blame for the emissions for my flight to Turkey to sit on a beach even though I live 4 blocks from another (worse) beach. Under your view it would be Lufthansa or whoever sold them the fuel.
[deleted]
You're asking people to suffering annoyances and spend lots of money when the average income has been going down for 40 years. I'm surprised you're surprised.
Living more efficiently obviously saves money.
The absurdities of what's happening is literally the Sierra Club opposing density in San Francisco. The environmentalist are literally opposing density across California. Los Angeles, to San Francisco, to Marin County, under the banner of "preservation," we're going to destroy the climate.
I just, i cannot believe this is happening. They same people who would hand wash a peanut butter jar, to recycle it, are the exact same people who are literally creating suburban cities designed for burning carbon.
The absurdities of what's happening is literally the Sierra Club opposing density in San Francisco. The environmentalist are literally opposing density across California. Los Angeles, to San Francisco, to Marin County, under the banner of "preservation," we're going to destroy the climate.
I just, i cannot believe this is happening. They same people who would hand wash a peanut butter jar, to recycle it, are the exact same people who are literally creating suburban cities designed for burning carbon.
>They same people who would hand wash a peanut butter jar, to recycle it, are the exact same people who are literally creating suburban cities designed for burning carbon.
Scoofy, I cannot overstate how much pure, cynical joy I feel after reading your rants here. Thank you for cutting through the bullshit; you're doing God's work.
Scoofy, I cannot overstate how much pure, cynical joy I feel after reading your rants here. Thank you for cutting through the bullshit; you're doing God's work.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -chuckles, "I'm in danger"
> I just, i cannot believe this is happening.
This isn't hard to understand. The Sierra Club is made up of legitimate environmentalists, but they also care about their organization and their livelihoods, and many of the major donors to the Sierra Club are property owners in San Francisco (or Marin, or LA).
Property values are obviously negatively impacted by development / densification, and so to avoid alienating donors, for whom opposing development is the single most important economic issue, the Sierra Club is dutifully NIMBYist.
I can assure you the Sierra Club would be fine with densification in Africa or whatever.
This isn't hard to understand. The Sierra Club is made up of legitimate environmentalists, but they also care about their organization and their livelihoods, and many of the major donors to the Sierra Club are property owners in San Francisco (or Marin, or LA).
Property values are obviously negatively impacted by development / densification, and so to avoid alienating donors, for whom opposing development is the single most important economic issue, the Sierra Club is dutifully NIMBYist.
I can assure you the Sierra Club would be fine with densification in Africa or whatever.
> and complete symbolism without substance on the left.
There's plenty of substance. It's just hypocritical for the Sierra Club to pretend that the motive is environmental.
There isn't any cause for shock. Given the incentives at play this is expected. How much financial suffering would you accept to put a dent in global warming? For most people it's not much.
The good news is, it's easy to predict that the Sierra Club is going to eventually lose on this issue. Property values are so high that many people are totally shut out of the property market and a political storm is gathering. Hopefully, by the time the dam breaks and real urbanization finally arrives on the West Coast, it's not too late to matter.
There isn't any cause for shock. Given the incentives at play this is expected. How much financial suffering would you accept to put a dent in global warming? For most people it's not much.
The good news is, it's easy to predict that the Sierra Club is going to eventually lose on this issue. Property values are so high that many people are totally shut out of the property market and a political storm is gathering. Hopefully, by the time the dam breaks and real urbanization finally arrives on the West Coast, it's not too late to matter.
This isn't about the Sierra Club. It's about the blue cities in general. I've been to transit alternatives infrastructure meetings in Austin, NYC, and SF.
They are all driven by parking spaces and reducing peak traffic. It's absurd to see the very same people who lose their mind at the idea of America dropping out of the Paris Climate Accord, are exactly the same people who think we should impose minimum parking requirements on new buildings, block a bike share and safe bike infrastructure because the bike are ugly and take parking space away, and argue that BRT is terrible and will never work, because they won't use it.
They are all driven by parking spaces and reducing peak traffic. It's absurd to see the very same people who lose their mind at the idea of America dropping out of the Paris Climate Accord, are exactly the same people who think we should impose minimum parking requirements on new buildings, block a bike share and safe bike infrastructure because the bike are ugly and take parking space away, and argue that BRT is terrible and will never work, because they won't use it.
> are literally creating suburban cities designed for burning carbon.
I would imagine they are creating suburban cities designed for alternative means of transportation.
I would imagine they are creating suburban cities designed for alternative means of transportation.
> average income has been going down for 40 years
Not true [1]. This is true across economic strata, with real stagnation being the plague of our most destitute.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI
Not true [1]. This is true across economic strata, with real stagnation being the plague of our most destitute.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI
> We don't even have serious bicycle or transit prioritization in our major urban areas. We don't have any concern for reducing our meat consumption. We don't have any concern for alternatives to airlines.
Sorry, but this stuff is a joke. Population control and non carbon based energy sources are the only things that can really make an impact.
Sorry, but this stuff is a joke. Population control and non carbon based energy sources are the only things that can really make an impact.
Cool, the low hanging fruit is a joke. Let's do nothing then, how about that.
I appreciate your perspective. I’ve always thought climate change should be a higher priority. The amount of resources for the meat industry alone should be enough to make some changes. But oil has insular forces making it a real curse to progress.
The richest 10% of the world population is responsible for almost half of all carbon emissions. The global median age is up and expected to continue rising. The global fertility rate is dropping. Population growth is projected to flatten in the next century.
Why would we waste time on population control, much less prioritize it?
Why would we waste time on population control, much less prioritize it?
I see the population control argument made a lot, and while I don't want to throw this conversation out the window entirely, I personally don't think it's very constructive right now.
What we need is a drastic reduction in emissions FAST. X0% less now buys a lot more time and has a much bigger effect than X0% in say 50 years when most of the damage is done.
Any means of population control that is not straight up genocide will take decades if not generations to make a real impact.
Long term planning should of course be a core part of our strategy, and whether population control is part of that or not is not my call to make. That being said, the next five to ten years are much, much more important, and my experience in these contexts has been that the population control argument tends to interfere with this more important conversation about actions to take right now.
What would help most in a shorter time frame is economic incentives to move away from fossil fuels. Carbon taxes, and most importantly changing where subsidies go in the first place would go a long way. More funding for research in relevant areas would, as well.
Before those and other things aren't well underway, there is really nothing to gain from bringing up population control every time the climate change comes up, in my opinion.
What we need is a drastic reduction in emissions FAST. X0% less now buys a lot more time and has a much bigger effect than X0% in say 50 years when most of the damage is done.
Any means of population control that is not straight up genocide will take decades if not generations to make a real impact.
Long term planning should of course be a core part of our strategy, and whether population control is part of that or not is not my call to make. That being said, the next five to ten years are much, much more important, and my experience in these contexts has been that the population control argument tends to interfere with this more important conversation about actions to take right now.
What would help most in a shorter time frame is economic incentives to move away from fossil fuels. Carbon taxes, and most importantly changing where subsidies go in the first place would go a long way. More funding for research in relevant areas would, as well.
Before those and other things aren't well underway, there is really nothing to gain from bringing up population control every time the climate change comes up, in my opinion.
The same people that can't do a accurate weather forecast more than 5 days into the future are telling you the world is gonna end due to climate change ... and you blame the common man for not freaking out? I mean put your self in peoples shoes.
I can’t predict what my 4-year old will want to eat for dinner tonight or how much, but I can easily predict that he’ll be substantially bigger and heavier a year from now, and predict the change in height and weight within reasonable tolerance.
If some laypeople have not received a basic high school education and have trouble understanding variance, uncertainty, and the difference between short-term fluctuations and long-term trends, that really isn’t the fault of climate scientists.
If some laypeople have not received a basic high school education and have trouble understanding variance, uncertainty, and the difference between short-term fluctuations and long-term trends, that really isn’t the fault of climate scientists.
"Scientists are dumb, and their dumb scientific, totally rational consensus, backed up by tons of data, is dumb"
They are not "the same people", though I suspect most meteorologists have a grasp of climate trends. Those are also two very different kinds of prediction. One is like trying to guess the outcome of an individual chess match, with predictions getting better as the time draws near, the other is like noticing that white has a slightly higher chance of winning over the course of very many games.
I’ll try to help you feel less bitter it may not work. The problem is not your fellow man or the need to burn to keep warm and provide energy… the problem is simple, there are too many of us. I don’t view this as an impossible thing to over come rather I trust we will over come this - you will wake up tomorrow drive or not to work and continue on your merry way. The economy is shifting to more efficient energy sources. And tomorrow will be another day. Earth has the best atmosphere and gravity of any planet in the solar system. Whether we live in domes here or not it’s the best option until we break the light barrier and learn to live forever.
I'm sitting in my air conditioned room, in the USA. Doing computer stuff, naturally.
I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. Meager difference. I can use less water - I already am, with getting showers every other day on average. I can eat less meat - which I do with purchase of the beef CSA. I'm big into the repair movement, and repair household equipment and electronics with my knowledge of circuitry and 3d printing. I recycle, but that's if its not repairable or reusable/repurposable.
I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit. There isn't anything else I can add on to reduce footprint. And in reality, the same goes for many people.
These global climate change issues are the sum of all the work in this world, but the bulk of it is emitted by companies who do the cheapest thing. And if dumping gigatons of CO2 or methane in the air makes more sense, that's done. I can petition my congresscritters, but it's well known they do not listen to the little guy (https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-... ). Your party is irrelevant here.
So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can and hope some rich people pull up the cause, and not try to escape the atmosphere in a penis-shaped rocket.
I've given up hope that this will be solved.
I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. Meager difference. I can use less water - I already am, with getting showers every other day on average. I can eat less meat - which I do with purchase of the beef CSA. I'm big into the repair movement, and repair household equipment and electronics with my knowledge of circuitry and 3d printing. I recycle, but that's if its not repairable or reusable/repurposable.
I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit. There isn't anything else I can add on to reduce footprint. And in reality, the same goes for many people.
These global climate change issues are the sum of all the work in this world, but the bulk of it is emitted by companies who do the cheapest thing. And if dumping gigatons of CO2 or methane in the air makes more sense, that's done. I can petition my congresscritters, but it's well known they do not listen to the little guy (https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-... ). Your party is irrelevant here.
So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can and hope some rich people pull up the cause, and not try to escape the atmosphere in a penis-shaped rocket.
I've given up hope that this will be solved.
Apparently, a reasonably sustainable level of CO2 production is about 3T per person per year. The average in the US is about 17.5T pp/yr.
But ... 5.3T pp/yr of that amount is caused by the existing coal fired power plants in the USA.
So one thing you could do is to write to your elected representatives to specifically petition for the abandonment of this form of power generation and its replacement with renewable systems.
Guaranteed to work? Nope. But if we do get rid of those plants, it will make a HUGE difference at the national and international scale.
[ EDIT: missed the 1 in front of the 7 for the average US CO2 output ... 17 not 7 ]
But ... 5.3T pp/yr of that amount is caused by the existing coal fired power plants in the USA.
So one thing you could do is to write to your elected representatives to specifically petition for the abandonment of this form of power generation and its replacement with renewable systems.
Guaranteed to work? Nope. But if we do get rid of those plants, it will make a HUGE difference at the national and international scale.
[ EDIT: missed the 1 in front of the 7 for the average US CO2 output ... 17 not 7 ]
Nuclear could have already replaced coal by now. Renewables need a lot of battery storage and transmission to scale up to not relying on coal any longer, since a majority of it is relying on the sun and wind.
Nuclear is such a horrible replacement. Let's let future generations deal with the waste from the power that sustained our lifestyle. I hate it. I'd rather live with less.
You would, but realistically, a majority of people are not willing to live with significantly less (which would entail a contraction in the economy and loss of jobs). And that includes all the people in countries still catching up. Nuclear was the alternative decades ago, and we could have witched to it until renewable tech was up to scale.
So we decided a significantly warmer climate was better than dealing with radioactive waste. Now it looks like we made the wrong risk assessment.
So we decided a significantly warmer climate was better than dealing with radioactive waste. Now it looks like we made the wrong risk assessment.
It does not have to mean a loss of jobs.
It would mean different jobs, and it means valuing work differently right along with things.
It would mean different jobs, and it means valuing work differently right along with things.
Realistically, which is all that matters for this issue, you're not going to change how everyone values their work and things. Maybe it changes once we get to 2.5-3 degrees warming.
All that really needs to happen is for enough people to value other kinds of work to make a market. Once that happens, it will compete with existing ones and that is just fine.
Could happen via government action, literally start paying for work and pay at a rate that seeds a market.
Could happen with individuals too. Think gig work without a company making billions at the top. While that is super attractive for some, it is entirely unnecessary, and in my view, a leaner overall model paying more to labor will prove a worthy device to move these sorts of ideas along. A variation on all this could be collectives. Companies owned by everyone in them, lean at the top, robust otherwise.
As for things, maybe we see a return to longevity in service life being more highly valued. I harbor this value now. Absolutely hate things that I know I cannot use for a decade or more. We can do so much better than the current churn of devices and software. A bit different priority and we could see more things as robust as say, Google maps still able to operate with devices made a long time ago.
Could happen via government action, literally start paying for work and pay at a rate that seeds a market.
Could happen with individuals too. Think gig work without a company making billions at the top. While that is super attractive for some, it is entirely unnecessary, and in my view, a leaner overall model paying more to labor will prove a worthy device to move these sorts of ideas along. A variation on all this could be collectives. Companies owned by everyone in them, lean at the top, robust otherwise.
As for things, maybe we see a return to longevity in service life being more highly valued. I harbor this value now. Absolutely hate things that I know I cannot use for a decade or more. We can do so much better than the current churn of devices and software. A bit different priority and we could see more things as robust as say, Google maps still able to operate with devices made a long time ago.
Every time I mention this here on HN I am down-voted. But I really think that in a next few decades sending (dangerous) cargo to (deep) space will become cheap and reliable. Space tourism just started this month and that will fund thousands of engineers working on that goal.
Looks like I got the downvotes too. Sometimes the unpopular opinion is the correct one.
nucelear is the only realistic option to even get to the future.
Nah, we can do pretty well with just wind and solar.
The practical difficulty with using renewables effectively is that you need to be able to either store large amounts of energy for later use, or trade power across long distances. We (by which I mean "in the U.S." but for other developed countries it's pretty much the same) could buy solar power from Kenya, Australia, Algeria, or similar places to get us through the night if we had high-capacity transcontinental HVDC lines running to those places. That's a major infrastructure project that would cost a lot of money, but I expect it's probably worth it.
(We can even mitigate the risk of the power lines being temporarily disabled by keeping the fossil fuel plants on standby and just not using them except as an emergency backup.)
Another option is to just build batteries on an unheard-of scale. Lithium iron phosphate cells might do the job -- being free of cobalt an nickel, the only other major bottleneck resource would be lithium. I'm not sure how practical it is to build the kinds of gigantic battery packs that would be needed to provide, say, an 18-hour backup power supply for the entire U.S., but it's probably less cells in total than we'd need to electrify our current fleet of gas-powered cars.
edit: to clarify, I'm not particularly opposed to nuclear. I just don't think it's the only option at this point.
The practical difficulty with using renewables effectively is that you need to be able to either store large amounts of energy for later use, or trade power across long distances. We (by which I mean "in the U.S." but for other developed countries it's pretty much the same) could buy solar power from Kenya, Australia, Algeria, or similar places to get us through the night if we had high-capacity transcontinental HVDC lines running to those places. That's a major infrastructure project that would cost a lot of money, but I expect it's probably worth it.
(We can even mitigate the risk of the power lines being temporarily disabled by keeping the fossil fuel plants on standby and just not using them except as an emergency backup.)
Another option is to just build batteries on an unheard-of scale. Lithium iron phosphate cells might do the job -- being free of cobalt an nickel, the only other major bottleneck resource would be lithium. I'm not sure how practical it is to build the kinds of gigantic battery packs that would be needed to provide, say, an 18-hour backup power supply for the entire U.S., but it's probably less cells in total than we'd need to electrify our current fleet of gas-powered cars.
edit: to clarify, I'm not particularly opposed to nuclear. I just don't think it's the only option at this point.
> That's a major infrastructure project that would cost a lot of money, but I expect it's probably worth it.
So, we'll just keep burning coal.
> I just don't think it's the only option at this point.
It needs to be viable economically and politically, which could be years from now.
So, we'll just keep burning coal.
> I just don't think it's the only option at this point.
It needs to be viable economically and politically, which could be years from now.
Nuclear waste is very easy to deal with. It’s physically small, and easy to transport.
It has a long half life, but a deep shaft filled with cement in a remote area does the trick.
There’s no kicking the can down the road.
It has a long half life, but a deep shaft filled with cement in a remote area does the trick.
There’s no kicking the can down the road.
Oddly, it seems that finding that deep shaft that is known to be geologically stable for at least a couple of half lives is fairly difficult, to say nothing of the issue of transporting the material from the reactor to said shaft.
The obstacles aren’t scientific or engineering. Plenty of safe places to put it. The problem is NIMBYism.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-radioactive-problem-...
https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-radioactive-problem-...
I don't think those figures are right - 5.3T/7.5T would mean 70% of CO2 in the US is caused by coal-fired power plants. According to the EPA data for 2019 [1], power generation accounted for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 62% of that was fossil fuels ("mostly coal and natural gas") - so that means fossil fuels for electricity accounted for 16% of the greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA report shows transportation as the largest source, at 29%
Their figures also suggest CO2 emissions were 20T pp in the US in 2019! (6558MT of CO2, 328.2M population)
1: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Their figures also suggest CO2 emissions were 20T pp in the US in 2019! (6558MT of CO2, 328.2M population)
1: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Just edited it. I missed the 1 from the 17.
My source was
http://www.ecocivilization.info/three-tons-carbon-dioxide-pe...
which I think is from about 2017 (and has several citations at the end).
My source was
http://www.ecocivilization.info/three-tons-carbon-dioxide-pe...
which I think is from about 2017 (and has several citations at the end).
> The EPA report shows transportation as the largest source, at 29%
The reason I'm so struck by the coal-fired electricity production numbers are that this seems VASTLY easier to fix than the transportation numbers. Even if the latter would have more impact, I think we're still a long way from being able to dramatically affect that, whereas ramping up renewable electricity generation and ramping down fossil fuels seems like a (relatively) simple challenge.
The reason I'm so struck by the coal-fired electricity production numbers are that this seems VASTLY easier to fix than the transportation numbers. Even if the latter would have more impact, I think we're still a long way from being able to dramatically affect that, whereas ramping up renewable electricity generation and ramping down fossil fuels seems like a (relatively) simple challenge.
Yeah, add it to the long list of things we're just not doing :-( nuclear could have made a significant dent in CO2 from base load generation, but we didn't fund work into safer nuclear generation so we're stuck with fairly limited options for base load now
Even replacing coal with natural gas generation would eliminate about 2.5T PP/yr. Obviously we can do better than that, but it probably makes sense to some extent as an interim measure. What I mean is some highly beneficial changes don’t even need to be particularly drastic or costly.
Source? Genuinely curious to read more about this.
I've given up hope that this will be solved.
The buried lede is that, if the prophets of climate doom are correct, you need to substantially reduce your standard of living. And all those third-worlders that are trying to improve their standard of living? They need to stop doing so, yesterday, and learn to accept their impoverished standard of living. But do it cleaner!
But they won't want to do that, predictably. And to get them to do so will require enforcement. And enforcement will require coercive power - so violence. And that will result in war that has the potential to be more destructive than the doom being predicted.
If the problem is as significant as alarmists predict, the only palatable solution is technological. So if you feel so motivated, concentrate your effort there. Because the data says everything else you can do is inconsequential and is mostly virtue signaling.
I'm not making any claim about the legitimacy or seriousness of global climate change. Just pointing out that the medicine we choose can destroy as much or more than the disease.
The buried lede is that, if the prophets of climate doom are correct, you need to substantially reduce your standard of living. And all those third-worlders that are trying to improve their standard of living? They need to stop doing so, yesterday, and learn to accept their impoverished standard of living. But do it cleaner!
But they won't want to do that, predictably. And to get them to do so will require enforcement. And enforcement will require coercive power - so violence. And that will result in war that has the potential to be more destructive than the doom being predicted.
If the problem is as significant as alarmists predict, the only palatable solution is technological. So if you feel so motivated, concentrate your effort there. Because the data says everything else you can do is inconsequential and is mostly virtue signaling.
I'm not making any claim about the legitimacy or seriousness of global climate change. Just pointing out that the medicine we choose can destroy as much or more than the disease.
> you need to substantially reduce your standard of living
California's per capita electricity consumption has stayed flat since 1970. That's in part due to strict energy efficiency standards. By contrast, per capita electricity consumption in the rest of the country has increased 50%, and that's despite California's standards indirectly improving efficiency elsewhere.
Today per capita consumption in California is nearly half that of the rest of the country, but the standard of living (modern conveniences, etc) is hardly less than elsewhere. Note that California's temperate climate does not explain this away. Home heating is still largely fossil fuel based in most of the U.S., including in California. And most of the population growth in California since the 1970s has been in the Central Valley and Southern California, places where air conditioning is as ubiquitous as anywhere else. Shifts in industrial makeup helped some, but the same industrial sectors also became more energy efficient. In general, most of the relative improvements are a product of better energy efficiency. And that was accomplished primarily through non-politicized regulators quietly and steadily mandating marginal efficiency improvements over the decades.
See https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca-success-story-FS... and https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/31/1864690...
Suffice it to say that there's alot of pandering to the environmental lobby among Californian politicians. And lots of tension about the cost and viability of various environmental efforts. But as with politics anywhere, the importance of the objects of these fights is usually blown way out of proportion. The most consequential and productive regulations were quietly working in the background for decades, and didn't come with huge price tags.
EDIT: Apropos HN, one of the key personalities working behind the scenes to improve energy efficiency standards was physicist Arthur Rosenfeld. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_H._Rosenfeld and https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/the-cal.... His research work gave rise to the eponymous Rosenfeld Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenfeld_Effect) and Rosenfeld's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenfeld%27s_law). The latter states that "From 1845 to the present, the amount of energy required to produce the same amount of gross national product has steadily decreased at the rate of about 1 percent per year".
California's per capita electricity consumption has stayed flat since 1970. That's in part due to strict energy efficiency standards. By contrast, per capita electricity consumption in the rest of the country has increased 50%, and that's despite California's standards indirectly improving efficiency elsewhere.
Today per capita consumption in California is nearly half that of the rest of the country, but the standard of living (modern conveniences, etc) is hardly less than elsewhere. Note that California's temperate climate does not explain this away. Home heating is still largely fossil fuel based in most of the U.S., including in California. And most of the population growth in California since the 1970s has been in the Central Valley and Southern California, places where air conditioning is as ubiquitous as anywhere else. Shifts in industrial makeup helped some, but the same industrial sectors also became more energy efficient. In general, most of the relative improvements are a product of better energy efficiency. And that was accomplished primarily through non-politicized regulators quietly and steadily mandating marginal efficiency improvements over the decades.
See https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca-success-story-FS... and https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/31/1864690...
Suffice it to say that there's alot of pandering to the environmental lobby among Californian politicians. And lots of tension about the cost and viability of various environmental efforts. But as with politics anywhere, the importance of the objects of these fights is usually blown way out of proportion. The most consequential and productive regulations were quietly working in the background for decades, and didn't come with huge price tags.
EDIT: Apropos HN, one of the key personalities working behind the scenes to improve energy efficiency standards was physicist Arthur Rosenfeld. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_H._Rosenfeld and https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/the-cal.... His research work gave rise to the eponymous Rosenfeld Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenfeld_Effect) and Rosenfeld's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenfeld%27s_law). The latter states that "From 1845 to the present, the amount of energy required to produce the same amount of gross national product has steadily decreased at the rate of about 1 percent per year".
The problem would be solved if we had cleaner sources of energy. Get rid of coal and you're most of the way there. None of that requires us to change our way of living, it just makes certain rich people less wealthy.
No scientist is arguing that we need to live in poverty, please keep the straw man arguments out of this.
No scientist is arguing that we need to live in poverty, please keep the straw man arguments out of this.
You do not need to reduce your standard of living, you need to alter your lifestyle to achieve the same standard of living in a more energy-efficient way. Many American cities are set up to encourage car use; we can change that. Many Americans live in detached homes that require more energy to heat or cool; we can change that, and in fact we would likely reduce the need to drive a car everywhere in the process, while also reducing the amount of coal being burned to power all those ACs.
Really though, "alarmists?" You might have been able to accuse scientists of being alarmist 30 years ago, but they predicted increasingly frequent extreme weather events, and for the past decade we have watched the trend do exactly what was predicted. Now instead of talking about how we can avoid this outcome we are sitting here talking about how to not make things worse while we learn to live with floods, hurricanes, heat domes, and polar vortexes.
Really though, "alarmists?" You might have been able to accuse scientists of being alarmist 30 years ago, but they predicted increasingly frequent extreme weather events, and for the past decade we have watched the trend do exactly what was predicted. Now instead of talking about how we can avoid this outcome we are sitting here talking about how to not make things worse while we learn to live with floods, hurricanes, heat domes, and polar vortexes.
This has always been nonsense, I’ve seen it get trotted out for 20 years now.
We have technology, we can work on reducing carbon output without sending ourselves back to the Stone Age. We just need the political will to actually drive it.
We have technology, we can work on reducing carbon output without sending ourselves back to the Stone Age. We just need the political will to actually drive it.
Fun fact: the US military is the largest polluter in the world and has held the record for decades. 750,000 tons of toxic waste every year in the form of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuels, pesticides, defoliants, lead and other chemicals.
And hey we got the PRC military adding the equivalent of the German Navy, every year, in ships to their roster. No they don't run on solar panels in case you were wondering.
So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there.
And I haven't even started on the companies that PRODUCE equipment for these large forces.
And hey we got the PRC military adding the equivalent of the German Navy, every year, in ships to their roster. No they don't run on solar panels in case you were wondering.
So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there.
And I haven't even started on the companies that PRODUCE equipment for these large forces.
>Fun fact: the US military is the largest polluter in the world and has held the record for decades
Source?
> So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there.
Your footprint is a drop in the ocean because you're one of 8 billion people on earth. Just from that figure alone it's obvious that a you can't do much by regulating your own consumption. However, telling people to do whatever they want and it doesn't matter because they're 1 in 8 billion is the wrong message to send, because if all 8 billion people follow your example that would lead to a massive increase in pollution.
Source?
> So take your three showers a day. Keep your car idling at stop lights. Burn your garbage. I'm not trolling. Your 'foot print' is a drop in the ocean compared to the real behemoths out there.
Your footprint is a drop in the ocean because you're one of 8 billion people on earth. Just from that figure alone it's obvious that a you can't do much by regulating your own consumption. However, telling people to do whatever they want and it doesn't matter because they're 1 in 8 billion is the wrong message to send, because if all 8 billion people follow your example that would lead to a massive increase in pollution.
https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-240876060...
https://weaversway.coop/shuttle-online/2020/04/us-military-w...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.h...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
https://weaversway.coop/shuttle-online/2020/04/us-military-w...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.h...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
>https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-240876060...
The headline does not seem to be supported by the article, which mainly consists of various pollution figures for the US military but lacks comparison to other entities. The closest it gets to that is saying the US military produces "more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined". Overall it makes a convincing case that the US military is a large polluter, but not that it's "World’s Biggest Polluter".
>https://weaversway.coop/shuttle-online/2020/04/us-military-w...
It's a blog for a coop chain. A skim of the article reveals the same problem as the previous: lots of facts and figures about how much the US military pollutes, but not many comparisons required to make the claim that they're the largest.
>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.h...
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
Both seem to focus on the US military producing more co2 than many countries. I'm not sure how this is supposed to support the claim that they're the biggest polluter. The bay area probably produces more co2 than "many countries" (eg. Liechtenstein and Tonga), but that doesn't mean they're the biggest polluter in the world.
The headline does not seem to be supported by the article, which mainly consists of various pollution figures for the US military but lacks comparison to other entities. The closest it gets to that is saying the US military produces "more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined". Overall it makes a convincing case that the US military is a large polluter, but not that it's "World’s Biggest Polluter".
>https://weaversway.coop/shuttle-online/2020/04/us-military-w...
It's a blog for a coop chain. A skim of the article reveals the same problem as the previous: lots of facts and figures about how much the US military pollutes, but not many comparisons required to make the claim that they're the largest.
>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100005.h...
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
Both seem to focus on the US military producing more co2 than many countries. I'm not sure how this is supposed to support the claim that they're the biggest polluter. The bay area probably produces more co2 than "many countries" (eg. Liechtenstein and Tonga), but that doesn't mean they're the biggest polluter in the world.
try this (PDF d/l):
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/Pe...
"...the DOD is the world’s largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly, the single largest institutional producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world. From FY1975 to FY2018, total DOD greenhouse gas emissions were more than 3,685 Million Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent."
"World's largest institutional user of petroleum" is both more precise and pretty damning.
"...the DOD is the world’s largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly, the single largest institutional producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world. From FY1975 to FY2018, total DOD greenhouse gas emissions were more than 3,685 Million Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent."
"World's largest institutional user of petroleum" is both more precise and pretty damning.
it is far too late for individual action. it is major manufacturers and producers that need to act, because there are only tens of thousands of them (which can be regulated, with enough will) and not billions of individuals, who cannot.
holding individuals accountable for ignored environmental externaities of producers is a dead end. people will buy/consume the cheapest thing made available to them.
holding individuals accountable for ignored environmental externaities of producers is a dead end. people will buy/consume the cheapest thing made available to them.
> if all 8 billion people follow your example that would lead to a massive increase in pollution
Most people don't follow GP's example because they can't, not because "they're getting the right message". And you bet that as soon as they can, they will. Why? Because most people don't care about the "message", whatever you believe it is. The ones who actually do something about it are the ones who would regardless of any mass-targeted "message". Going one step further, I'd say that it would be better if everyone realized that they can't do anything on their own because that might actually get people to work together, and that's the very reason why the common message is that "everyone should do their part": because that's how you keep people from working together.
Most people don't follow GP's example because they can't, not because "they're getting the right message". And you bet that as soon as they can, they will. Why? Because most people don't care about the "message", whatever you believe it is. The ones who actually do something about it are the ones who would regardless of any mass-targeted "message". Going one step further, I'd say that it would be better if everyone realized that they can't do anything on their own because that might actually get people to work together, and that's the very reason why the common message is that "everyone should do their part": because that's how you keep people from working together.
>Going one step further, I'd say that it would be better if everyone realized that they can't do anything on their own because that might actually get people to work together,
Do people actually believe this? ie. "everyone will just buy a tesla on their own, so we don't need government intervention"?
>that's the very reason why the common message is that "everyone should do their part": because that's how you keep people from working together.
That's awfully cynical. During the pandemic there were multiple PSAs telling people to "do their part" by staying home, wearing masks, etc. Was that also some sort of conspiracy to keep people from working together?
Do people actually believe this? ie. "everyone will just buy a tesla on their own, so we don't need government intervention"?
>that's the very reason why the common message is that "everyone should do their part": because that's how you keep people from working together.
That's awfully cynical. During the pandemic there were multiple PSAs telling people to "do their part" by staying home, wearing masks, etc. Was that also some sort of conspiracy to keep people from working together?
> I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house.
> So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can
Everything you do is inconsequential in the face of living in a detached single family home on a quarter acre lot.
That very simple fact has exponential knock on effects requiring so much more mass to move so much further and hence consuming so much more energy, that everything else you do is meaningless.
The only solution was reducing total consumption, either per capita or capitas itself, but the former is not going to happen if people live in insufficiently dense manners that preclude public transport or walking and bicycling, and necessitate large roads, parking lots, and personal vehicles.
And of course, once you own or benefit from detached single family house lifestyles, you are not going to vote for anything that inconveniences you or causes you to reduce consumption, such as increased taxes on fossil fuels.
> So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can
Everything you do is inconsequential in the face of living in a detached single family home on a quarter acre lot.
That very simple fact has exponential knock on effects requiring so much more mass to move so much further and hence consuming so much more energy, that everything else you do is meaningless.
The only solution was reducing total consumption, either per capita or capitas itself, but the former is not going to happen if people live in insufficiently dense manners that preclude public transport or walking and bicycling, and necessitate large roads, parking lots, and personal vehicles.
And of course, once you own or benefit from detached single family house lifestyles, you are not going to vote for anything that inconveniences you or causes you to reduce consumption, such as increased taxes on fossil fuels.
If we could wave a magic wand & cut global energy consumption in half via more public transit & denser living, but still burning fossil fuels... we would have the exact same crisis, perhaps delayed a few years.
I'm naturally inclined towards austerity, but this problem cannot be fixed with cutbacks & efficiency alone.
I'm naturally inclined towards austerity, but this problem cannot be fixed with cutbacks & efficiency alone.
Not at all, reducing global energy consumption by half would massively reduce, as well as delay the total long term impact. It’s true a lot of impact is baked in due to past emissions, but that’s no reason for complacency or fatalism. There still a lot we can do to reduce total impact and mitigate the impact we will suffer.
I don't advocate complacency or fatalism, instead I've come to hold the opinion that rapidly shifting to low/zero carbon technology is our best shot. Just look at how quickly natural gas felled king coal - a matter of years - once it became significantly cheaper. (We can't stop at natural gas, but it does produce half the CO2 as coal)
Similarly, there is a huge market-driven surge in renewables: https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/25/solar-energy-colorado-uni...
A key part of this viewpoint is that strong demand in the market can actually be an accelerator.
Turning back to austerity - even if a 50% drop in demand could save us, it's just never going to happen. Even the global COVID lockdowns made less than a 10% cut in energy consumption. You'd be stunningly successful if you cut even 1% through austerity campaign.
Similarly, there is a huge market-driven surge in renewables: https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/25/solar-energy-colorado-uni...
A key part of this viewpoint is that strong demand in the market can actually be an accelerator.
Turning back to austerity - even if a 50% drop in demand could save us, it's just never going to happen. Even the global COVID lockdowns made less than a 10% cut in energy consumption. You'd be stunningly successful if you cut even 1% through austerity campaign.
> if people live in insufficiently dense manners
Dense living is associated with poorer mental health and a variety of diseases, and that not taking into account people with autism, introversion etc, some of whom find urban density neurologically intolerable.
Humans didn’t evolve to live densely.
Dense living is associated with poorer mental health and a variety of diseases, and that not taking into account people with autism, introversion etc, some of whom find urban density neurologically intolerable.
Humans didn’t evolve to live densely.
The American development pattern is the problem that we can actually solve. If you genuinely care, and this isn't pandering, read the book Strong Towns. Our cities are designed as inefficiently as possible, on purpose, and things like zoning and automobile infrastructure literally ban climate conscious living spaces.
We should also at least have a carbon tax for things like normalizing beef as an alternative rather than a primary food source.
We should also at least have a carbon tax for things like normalizing beef as an alternative rather than a primary food source.
Other than world war, what mechanisms do you propose to get China, India, and the entire 3rd world on to an effective carbon tax plan?
I mean, if the answer is world war, I’ll at least give you credit for an honest answer. I just rarely see that come up. The truth is yes we can and should do better, but also realize that other nations will take any advantage they can, including ignoring climate concerns.
So if it’s a global problem, it needs a global solution, so what is that mechanism to apply one?
I mean, if the answer is world war, I’ll at least give you credit for an honest answer. I just rarely see that come up. The truth is yes we can and should do better, but also realize that other nations will take any advantage they can, including ignoring climate concerns.
So if it’s a global problem, it needs a global solution, so what is that mechanism to apply one?
You impose tariffs on their exported goods to compensate for their failure to impose carbon taxes, and maybe even impose an export tax on goods shipped to them. China needs trade with other countries and will get on board with a carbon tax if enough of the world is on board with such a plan, no war needed.
Of course if things are truly implemented fairly, the US will also likely be subject to such taxes due to our own apparent inability to reduce our per capita carbon emissions...
Of course if things are truly implemented fairly, the US will also likely be subject to such taxes due to our own apparent inability to reduce our per capita carbon emissions...
The EU already have a solution for this - they tax imports from nations that don't have an ETA themselves.
Yes. Taxing our way to a better climate is one consideration.
But what happens when you need something more than they need to sell it? As in the case of China… steel, aluminum, titanium, food, machinery, computers, plastics, vehicles, or clothing… you know… those “couple of things” that we have collectively allowed China to make for us while pretending we’re all so green and the slave labor isn’t a problem.
India, maybe you can tax into compliance. Third world, maybe, but someone will scream it isn’t “fair”. But China? I’m skeptical we tax ourselves greatly and them effectively without them becoming the number one superpower and then doing as they please anyhow.
But what happens when you need something more than they need to sell it? As in the case of China… steel, aluminum, titanium, food, machinery, computers, plastics, vehicles, or clothing… you know… those “couple of things” that we have collectively allowed China to make for us while pretending we’re all so green and the slave labor isn’t a problem.
India, maybe you can tax into compliance. Third world, maybe, but someone will scream it isn’t “fair”. But China? I’m skeptical we tax ourselves greatly and them effectively without them becoming the number one superpower and then doing as they please anyhow.
>But what happens when you need something more than they need to sell it?
The CCP's entire domestic legitimacy comes from the economic growth that has come about since Deng took over. They need to keep the wheels spinning as much as the West does.
The CCP's entire domestic legitimacy comes from the economic growth that has come about since Deng took over. They need to keep the wheels spinning as much as the West does.
help them.
Civil disobedience? But even then it’s crazy that people have to glue themselves to objects in the middle of highways to be heard and even then nothing really changes.
We had the technology to solve these problems years ago. This isn’t a technological problem, this is a problem about values. Do we value money or our environment more?
The climate catastrophe unfolding will be the biggest wake up humanity has ever had. That is the only silver lining to this existential predicament
We had the technology to solve these problems years ago. This isn’t a technological problem, this is a problem about values. Do we value money or our environment more?
The climate catastrophe unfolding will be the biggest wake up humanity has ever had. That is the only silver lining to this existential predicament
> I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit.
Smaller house, solar panels, don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't have kids. And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense.
> I've given up hope that this will be solved.
Oh, me too. Now it is about managing your personal guilt, which you realize at some level, judging from your comments. For me, I am likely past my lifetime CO2 budget, due to just 5 years of transatlantic flights for work (plus 15 years of driving in the US). I can't undo the damage that I have done, and now I have both eyes open staring into the abyss.
I guess you gotta find low-impact ways of enjoying life. I can recommend slacklining.
Smaller house, solar panels, don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't have kids. And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense.
> I've given up hope that this will be solved.
Oh, me too. Now it is about managing your personal guilt, which you realize at some level, judging from your comments. For me, I am likely past my lifetime CO2 budget, due to just 5 years of transatlantic flights for work (plus 15 years of driving in the US). I can't undo the damage that I have done, and now I have both eyes open staring into the abyss.
I guess you gotta find low-impact ways of enjoying life. I can recommend slacklining.
> Smaller house, solar panels, don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't have kids. And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense.
I already live in a trailer. Solar wouldn't make sense since we have 2 big trees over our trailer providing us shade. Cuts down on AC in the hotter months (now veering on March).
Not driving has been easy with WfH since last early March. I'm happy with that. I don't like driving anyways.
My SO and I are a DINK - double income no kids. This is one of the largest climate change decisions that can be made at a human level.
> And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense.
Oh, I don't. Nor do I have any preconceived notions that my opinion does matter either. I'll do my civic part, and vote when its due, do jury duty, etc. But my opinions do not matter at any scale other than household.
I guess for me, it's not as much guilt, but foreboding. I know what the science says, and it'll be worse than what they say. I know I've done my share of pollution of many sorts, simply by using a vehicle, or flying.
But this problem isn't solvable by me. Or my politicians.. Or even by the USA. This needs a worldwide drastic response at every level. And do I see that happening? Not in a hundred years - until it's catastrophically too late.
I already live in a trailer. Solar wouldn't make sense since we have 2 big trees over our trailer providing us shade. Cuts down on AC in the hotter months (now veering on March).
Not driving has been easy with WfH since last early March. I'm happy with that. I don't like driving anyways.
My SO and I are a DINK - double income no kids. This is one of the largest climate change decisions that can be made at a human level.
> And don't vote for politicians who are busy spreading nonsense.
Oh, I don't. Nor do I have any preconceived notions that my opinion does matter either. I'll do my civic part, and vote when its due, do jury duty, etc. But my opinions do not matter at any scale other than household.
I guess for me, it's not as much guilt, but foreboding. I know what the science says, and it'll be worse than what they say. I know I've done my share of pollution of many sorts, simply by using a vehicle, or flying.
But this problem isn't solvable by me. Or my politicians.. Or even by the USA. This needs a worldwide drastic response at every level. And do I see that happening? Not in a hundred years - until it's catastrophically too late.
The kids thing is curious. Maybe I'm just selfish, but I have no kids and my thinking is, well, I'm not that worried about how the earth will be after I die. Meanwhile the folks with kids are the ones who produced giant resource consumers and ironically -- because they want to ensure their kids' wellbeing -- are the ones most worried about the planet's survival.
Obviously the answer is for me to care about society (on a global level), but it's hard to do so without skin in the game. And considering it feels like others don't care or are still very wasteful... why should I be pious?
Obviously the answer is for me to care about society (on a global level), but it's hard to do so without skin in the game. And considering it feels like others don't care or are still very wasteful... why should I be pious?
Also don't own a dog [0]
I find the whole "don't have kids" thing sad and short-sighted. Having kids was the single greatest thing that's ever happened to me, and yes there's a CO2 footprint as a result but ultimately humans need kids to have a future. Please have children, and teach them the importance of the planet.
[0] https://phys.org/news/2009-11-dogs-larger-carbon-footprint-s...
I find the whole "don't have kids" thing sad and short-sighted. Having kids was the single greatest thing that's ever happened to me, and yes there's a CO2 footprint as a result but ultimately humans need kids to have a future. Please have children, and teach them the importance of the planet.
[0] https://phys.org/news/2009-11-dogs-larger-carbon-footprint-s...
[deleted]
> I can eat less meat
It's something I keep quiet about in day-to-day life since it seems to invite reprisal, but if we're soul-searching for what we as individuals can do, I beg you to try eating no meat at all. There seems to be an increasing awareness that animal farming as currently practised is an environmental catastrophe on many levels, including emissions[1]—I dimly recall the IPCC report being quite clear that it's incompatible with a world that isn't ever-worsening, and suspect the obvious conclusion of "stop entirely" has been watered down to "try to eat less" because they fear people will just assume the former is too onerous and not bother.
I have found it to be the opposite—simple steps, fun, healthy—and sort of want to launch into a full tale, but it has been a long week and I was just heading to bed. Still, I'm more than happy later to suggest recommendations and recipes and/or generally chat if you (or anyone) would like.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-cha...
It's something I keep quiet about in day-to-day life since it seems to invite reprisal, but if we're soul-searching for what we as individuals can do, I beg you to try eating no meat at all. There seems to be an increasing awareness that animal farming as currently practised is an environmental catastrophe on many levels, including emissions[1]—I dimly recall the IPCC report being quite clear that it's incompatible with a world that isn't ever-worsening, and suspect the obvious conclusion of "stop entirely" has been watered down to "try to eat less" because they fear people will just assume the former is too onerous and not bother.
I have found it to be the opposite—simple steps, fun, healthy—and sort of want to launch into a full tale, but it has been a long week and I was just heading to bed. Still, I'm more than happy later to suggest recommendations and recipes and/or generally chat if you (or anyone) would like.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-cha...
Absolutism ("eat no meat") really does turn people off (because they can't envision a lifestyle without meat). I have cut down my meat intake by about 90% and it's great. I still eat a burger every quarter or so.
I think 90% is better than 0%.
I think 90% is better than 0%.
Transportation and energy production make up a majority of CO2 emissions in the U.S. and probably most industrialized countries. As an individual person, you can get rid of gas-burning cars (perhaps replace with an EV if you need a car) and put solar panels on your roof if that's an option.
At the state and national level, though, a lot more could be done. Ground transportation could be fully electrified. (I think the quickest way to get there is not to wait for battery technology to get better but rather just electrify the major freeways so that cars and trucks can charge while they're moving, and people won't need huge, heavy, expensive batteries to get anywhere.)
We could also expand solar and wind investments. To even out power production and consumption, we could finance the construction of intercontinental high-voltage DC lines, so we can buy solar power from the Sahara in the middle of the night and sell to Europe or wherever in the daytime.
We could invest in battery manufacturing. Most U.S. made electric vehicles are basically luxury supercars that use expensive batteries that require large amounts of nickel and cobalt. What we need to get away from burning gas is mass-production of lithium iron phosphate cells (or whatever technology that replaces it) which have somewhat lower energy density but use cheaper, more readily available raw materials and are much safer and much more durable. This is the kind of technology we need to make cheap cars for ordinary middle-class people with low environmental footprint.
For that matter, it would be great if EV tax credits applied to conversions as well as new vehicles. Hardly anyone converts vehicles now because it's expensive and high-effort, but if there was a simple kit to convert, say, a semi-recent Honda Civic to electric that can be installed easily by a mechanic and doesn't require any custom fabrication, maybe we'd have a lot more people going that route. Especially if it was subsidized to the point where the out-of-pocket expense is low.
More nuclear plants might be a good thing too, but it's not absolutely essential.
At the state and national level, though, a lot more could be done. Ground transportation could be fully electrified. (I think the quickest way to get there is not to wait for battery technology to get better but rather just electrify the major freeways so that cars and trucks can charge while they're moving, and people won't need huge, heavy, expensive batteries to get anywhere.)
We could also expand solar and wind investments. To even out power production and consumption, we could finance the construction of intercontinental high-voltage DC lines, so we can buy solar power from the Sahara in the middle of the night and sell to Europe or wherever in the daytime.
We could invest in battery manufacturing. Most U.S. made electric vehicles are basically luxury supercars that use expensive batteries that require large amounts of nickel and cobalt. What we need to get away from burning gas is mass-production of lithium iron phosphate cells (or whatever technology that replaces it) which have somewhat lower energy density but use cheaper, more readily available raw materials and are much safer and much more durable. This is the kind of technology we need to make cheap cars for ordinary middle-class people with low environmental footprint.
For that matter, it would be great if EV tax credits applied to conversions as well as new vehicles. Hardly anyone converts vehicles now because it's expensive and high-effort, but if there was a simple kit to convert, say, a semi-recent Honda Civic to electric that can be installed easily by a mechanic and doesn't require any custom fabrication, maybe we'd have a lot more people going that route. Especially if it was subsidized to the point where the out-of-pocket expense is low.
More nuclear plants might be a good thing too, but it's not absolutely essential.
> I look at what I can do about this. I can turn up the temp in my room, and the house. Meager difference. I can use less water - I already am, with getting showers every other day on average.
Depending where you live, it might not even make a difference.
I'd say the biggest contribution one can make is to aggressively vote for parties that support green power generation. Project like these [0] are stalled by lobbyist but offer a real chance to curb emissions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_%E2%80%93_New_England_T...
Depending where you live, it might not even make a difference.
I'd say the biggest contribution one can make is to aggressively vote for parties that support green power generation. Project like these [0] are stalled by lobbyist but offer a real chance to curb emissions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_%E2%80%93_New_England_T...
Up until now, I think it's been too hard to direct your money away from the companies emitting loads of carbon. But I wonder, now that Europe is talking about a border tax for imported carbon, and the US has introduced legislation for a border tax, could that change, even before other places institute the same? To be eligible for import to Europe, would producers elsewhere need to tally and report the carbon associated with goods, such that non-European consumers could also finally have the information to choose lower-emission options?
Most of the companies on the various “top polluters” lists are energy companies. We can direct our money away from them by walking, biking, transiting or buying an EV.
A lot of energy goes into manufacturing products such as steel, plastic, aluminum, servers etc.
The energy sources for these items are at the discretion of the large buyers. A steel plant can absolutely make the switch from coal to solar/wind at its own discretion.
The energy sources for these items are at the discretion of the large buyers. A steel plant can absolutely make the switch from coal to solar/wind at its own discretion.
... but also shipping goods, right? The 3000 mile caesar salad, spread-out global supply chains, etc?
Yes, green transportation (or just less) is good. But if I sit at home and order goods to be delivered to me, it's actually quite difficult to pick which have the smallest footprints.
Yes, green transportation (or just less) is good. But if I sit at home and order goods to be delivered to me, it's actually quite difficult to pick which have the smallest footprints.
> So what do I do? know what we're doing is what we can and hope some rich people pull up the cause
What we do is unionize, and in a way where we can then withdraw our industrial contributions to climate change.
> I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit.
I am willing to bet you've not yet tried to "manage up."
It's not our fellow consumers who are causing climate change, it is supply-side; it is management. Only industrial and trade unions have the leverage "stop the line," and demand a less-profitable, albeit life-saving economy.
What we do is unionize, and in a way where we can then withdraw our industrial contributions to climate change.
> I look at what I'm actually doing, and I'm at my limit.
I am willing to bet you've not yet tried to "manage up."
It's not our fellow consumers who are causing climate change, it is supply-side; it is management. Only industrial and trade unions have the leverage "stop the line," and demand a less-profitable, albeit life-saving economy.
Bezos and his phallic rocket is just a distraction: considering how much money he can burn, it's to him what a trip to Maui is to plebs like me. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
I think we just have to keep pushing the society (and each other) in the right direction. Hang on, I believe it will eventually get better, though it will get a lot worse before it starts to get better.
I think we just have to keep pushing the society (and each other) in the right direction. Hang on, I believe it will eventually get better, though it will get a lot worse before it starts to get better.
You could live in 200 square feet. You could bathe with one bucket of room temperature water. You could use no air conditioning whatsoever. You could eat only vegetarian food. Etc etc.
You won’t, (and I won’t either) but if it comes down to human survival, forces will find a way to make you do it.
You won’t, (and I won’t either) but if it comes down to human survival, forces will find a way to make you do it.
This comment has gone grey but I think it is an important point. Our basic expectancies for what makes a comfortable life are higher than ever. Is that an ethical problem or just a result of more/better technology? I'm not really sure.
I would argue we have the technology to sustainably live as we do, for the most part. What we don't have is the manpower and resources to go through and replace all the old tech with the new tech that would allow us to mostly maintain our standard of living.
> Our basic expectancies for what makes a comfortable life are higher than ever.
Not with regard to density, which has been going up, not down.
Not with regard to density, which has been going up, not down.
Not sure why you're being down voted-- This is the right answer. I see people getting mad at suppliers but they have yet to realize they would still please like their consumption supplied...
AWS and GCP are both suppliers, one of them is carbon neutral, the other is still polluting. The end consumer hets the same product.
This idea of consumer fault is deplorable, its not lile i gey accurate information about carbon footprint when i shop
This idea of consumer fault is deplorable, its not lile i gey accurate information about carbon footprint when i shop
"You could live in 200 square feet."
The house is already a sunk cost, so I am not sure how much point there is
The house is already a sunk cost, so I am not sure how much point there is
You could confine yourself to one or two rooms and open the rest of the house to communal occupation.
Like most problems in the world today, your money can do more good that your individual actions.
The Effective Altruism movement has found some charities that either have proven advocacy records or offer legitimate carbon offsets, and which have a need for more funding.
The Clean Air Task Force seems widely approved of by a variety of EA researcher organizations, with one estimating that they prevent a ton of emissions for less than a dollar.
The offset programs are probably less effective in EV, but more certain. $10 per ton, I believe? Still highly affordable.
https://www.givinggreen.earth
The Effective Altruism movement has found some charities that either have proven advocacy records or offer legitimate carbon offsets, and which have a need for more funding.
The Clean Air Task Force seems widely approved of by a variety of EA researcher organizations, with one estimating that they prevent a ton of emissions for less than a dollar.
The offset programs are probably less effective in EV, but more certain. $10 per ton, I believe? Still highly affordable.
https://www.givinggreen.earth
You can also:
* Switch to using 100% renewable energy from your electric company.
* Live in an apartment where shared walls, floors and ceilings means lower energy usage
* Move to a city where you can walk, bicycle or transit (or at least have a short drive to most things).
But the most important is to become involved in climate politics, especially state and local politics. Even in California (the largest state in the union) all you need is a dozen or so people to get a meeting with a state representative.
* Switch to using 100% renewable energy from your electric company.
* Live in an apartment where shared walls, floors and ceilings means lower energy usage
* Move to a city where you can walk, bicycle or transit (or at least have a short drive to most things).
But the most important is to become involved in climate politics, especially state and local politics. Even in California (the largest state in the union) all you need is a dozen or so people to get a meeting with a state representative.
[deleted]
You can try to come up with or attempt to improve an existing technical solution - whether it be a green alternative to reduce emissions or carbon capture/terraforming. If you want a place to start, alternative power sources for freighters would have a huge impact.
I agree and I know that climate engineering is a terrifyingly fraught endeavor, but I worry it's our only hope at this point.
Hope is what we share when we don't know what to do because someone else might just have the solution. Never give up hope :)
IMO individual action is nearly worthless beyond making you feel better. I did all the right things for decades and someone else just consumed the resources I saved by building golf courses and taking international vacations.
The world needs more Elon Musk types to think big and bring a lower carbon footprint to modern living. Thinking people will voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage for the greater good goes against much of what we know of human nature.
The world needs more Elon Musk types to think big and bring a lower carbon footprint to modern living. Thinking people will voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage for the greater good goes against much of what we know of human nature.
Its like a little kid making a mess of his room. He or she will never prevent the mess. But the mess will always be fixed. I have good faith that the human species will fix it. One day the entire biosphere will be controlled.
I think this is overly optimistic. While I think I agree, you make it sound like there will be no consequences. I think things will get much worse before the human race decides to do something about it.
[deleted]
The mess will not "always be fixed," because we have no parents in this analogy. We are the leaders in this world. You are simply taking on the role of an adolescent shirking responsibility.
> You are simply taking on the role of an adolescent shirking responsibility.
Perhaps ironically, the actual adolescents are (among) the ones who aren't.
Perhaps ironically, the actual adolescents are (among) the ones who aren't.
> These global climate change issues are the sum of all the work in this world, but the bulk of it is emitted by companies who do the cheapest thing.
Who you are giving money to.
Do you own a car?? Then you are destroying the planet.
Who you are giving money to.
Do you own a car?? Then you are destroying the planet.
Your comment reminds me of this comic: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
Keep in mind that it's 3C average, over the entire globe, over a year. The locale, variance, seasonality all matter. Like, suppose that you are "lucky" in that your region gets only the average of 3C, so your year is 3C warmer on average, but that only happens during 3 months of the year, so you get 12C hotter in summer--basically, el fuego--or you get 12C in winter--basically, no more winter.
A warmer winter can be catastrophic for forests in cold climates that depend on freezing temperatures to kill off invasive bugs. So an entire forest can be absolutely ruined by a damn beetle.
A warmer winter can be catastrophic for forests in cold climates that depend on freezing temperatures to kill off invasive bugs. So an entire forest can be absolutely ruined by a damn beetle.
learning that the ice age had an average temp difference of 5-6c from the gates book was what really made it sink in for me.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2617-x
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2617-x
Wouldn't it take a short amount of time to kill the beetles? Certainly it doesn't take a whole winter?
My understanding, from whatever nature TV show when I was younger, is that the beetles don't actually die. They literally freeze in ice. I also remember reading that certain countries are releasing tens of thousands of birds (possibly hummingbirds?) to deal with them as well. I don't have links so possibly grain of salt here.
If you look at California as an example, you can see hundreds of acres of trees that are dying year over year. I remember going camping in lush green forests that are all gone now. I'm in the PNW now and from what I've seen and heard from others the summers are getting longer and hotter so it's only a matter of time before what's happening to California comes here.
EDIT: From what I remember as well, every tree comes with defenses to keep beetles away. This is why trees are sappy. In order to produce sap the trees need water, and they produce their own sugars through photosynthesis (sap being a mix of water and sugar). Trees in certain areas are adapted to the length of their winters. A longer winter means more time without dealing with beetles but might also mean less time spent in dry soil.
EDIT: From what I remember as well, every tree comes with defenses to keep beetles away. This is why trees are sappy. In order to produce sap the trees need water, and they produce their own sugars through photosynthesis (sap being a mix of water and sugar). Trees in certain areas are adapted to the length of their winters. A longer winter means more time without dealing with beetles but might also mean less time spent in dry soil.
It's somewhat complicated - timing of cold weather is important to kill off the beetles:
https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/fo...
> For example, an under-bark temperature of –37°C will kill 50 per cent of a mountain pine beetle population, even in mid-winter; however, a low temperature of –20°C in the fall, be- fore the beetles are prepared for winter, or in the spring, when beetles are start- ing to become more active, will also kill beetles if it is preceded by temperatures above 0°C. The relatively warmer temper- ature causes the larvae to start to lose its natural antifreeze.
https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/fo...
> For example, an under-bark temperature of –37°C will kill 50 per cent of a mountain pine beetle population, even in mid-winter; however, a low temperature of –20°C in the fall, be- fore the beetles are prepared for winter, or in the spring, when beetles are start- ing to become more active, will also kill beetles if it is preceded by temperatures above 0°C. The relatively warmer temper- ature causes the larvae to start to lose its natural antifreeze.
I fear the one-two punch of disproportionate use of energy coupled with rampant world-wide inequality (in both resources and income) result in those who caused the issues having little reason to care about the result.
In a democratic country, how will a leader convince the population to care about this if the country is rich and currently is unaffected? Well, we're about to see how successful or unsuccessful they might be- so far, it's not looking great.
Furthermore - in the classic phrase: reduce, reuse and recycle. The most important of the three is reduction - how can we reduce consumption in a capitalist world that values mindless consumption and advertising to promote more mindless consumption?
How many of us work for companies that directly or indirectly promote mindless waste of resources and endless consumption?
This is not a TV show - a happy ending is not guaranteed.
In a democratic country, how will a leader convince the population to care about this if the country is rich and currently is unaffected? Well, we're about to see how successful or unsuccessful they might be- so far, it's not looking great.
Furthermore - in the classic phrase: reduce, reuse and recycle. The most important of the three is reduction - how can we reduce consumption in a capitalist world that values mindless consumption and advertising to promote more mindless consumption?
How many of us work for companies that directly or indirectly promote mindless waste of resources and endless consumption?
This is not a TV show - a happy ending is not guaranteed.
> In a democratic country, how will a leader convince the population to care about this if the country is rich and currently is unaffected
Depends on the definition of "unaffected". I'm not sure that the Pacific Northwest, nor the Southwest nor the West would necessarily accept the "unaffected" label. Can they afford to smooth over the impact by using more energy & money? To some extent, certainly, but not entirely.
Depends on the definition of "unaffected". I'm not sure that the Pacific Northwest, nor the Southwest nor the West would necessarily accept the "unaffected" label. Can they afford to smooth over the impact by using more energy & money? To some extent, certainly, but not entirely.
Just look at Covid response. The rich countries are thinking "Us first" and are just doing symbolic gestures to help the poorer ones.
Just like humans would try to save themselves first, even countries in unions like the EU shut down borders between each other when the virus first came there.
On the topic of waste, I had a realization that even as developers we're contributing to a lot of waste. We want conveniences, like inefficient frameworks so you can just write HTML and CSS instead of native UI, and we get to have these conveniences because processors are getting faster, but on the consumer side, it means top of the line hardware from 10 years ago might now be too slow to render a webpage, and is ending up as e-waste...
Just like humans would try to save themselves first, even countries in unions like the EU shut down borders between each other when the virus first came there.
On the topic of waste, I had a realization that even as developers we're contributing to a lot of waste. We want conveniences, like inefficient frameworks so you can just write HTML and CSS instead of native UI, and we get to have these conveniences because processors are getting faster, but on the consumer side, it means top of the line hardware from 10 years ago might now be too slow to render a webpage, and is ending up as e-waste...
Transportation accounts for around 30% of carbon emissions in the US. We could do a lot worse than rethinking our 'suburban experiment' where many people are forced to use an automobile for things our ancestors could walk to in 5 minutes, to paraphrase Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns.
Having started bike commute (20km round trip), I basically don't want to anything by car. With bike-day people could realize how cool it is to glide at 11 mph without traffic. Things are way closer than they appear if you remove congestion, lights and the obligation to do more distance to reach larger roads people use for fast cars.
free workout, free health, gas savings, pollution free .. it's really something to push
free workout, free health, gas savings, pollution free .. it's really something to push
Canada and northern part of the US will be fine (north of the mason dixon line). Places like Albany, NY, or Minesota, or most of Canada, appart from the occasional crazy swings, are going to be more lovely places to live, with slightly milder winters.
The southern part is toast, both from water level rises, and lack of fresh water.
In this country, the ones that are going to be the most affected by global warming, seem like to care the less.
PS: Canada has a target goal to reach 100mil by 2100. They know they are going to be a more milder place to live overall (with the crazy swing), and there will be much more areas open for human habitation. That's why they are increasing their immigration quotas.
https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/
The southern part is toast, both from water level rises, and lack of fresh water.
In this country, the ones that are going to be the most affected by global warming, seem like to care the less.
PS: Canada has a target goal to reach 100mil by 2100. They know they are going to be a more milder place to live overall (with the crazy swing), and there will be much more areas open for human habitation. That's why they are increasing their immigration quotas.
https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/
No, because climate is a chaotic system and nothing, nowhere, will be 'slightly milder'. You are mistaken. It ain't about a minor shift in baseline plus sea-level changing, though sea-level changing is still a thing.
I'm IN the Northeast, not far from Albany. The crazy swings are less and less occasional and that's a trend that continues to escalate. I consider the location pretty much optimal. That's a far cry from 'fine', and the distinction is important.
I'm IN the Northeast, not far from Albany. The crazy swings are less and less occasional and that's a trend that continues to escalate. I consider the location pretty much optimal. That's a far cry from 'fine', and the distinction is important.
Seattle is sometimes pointed to as a “climate sanctuary”. A couple of weeks ago it was 108° here in Seattle. Let me repeat that: a hundred and eight degrees. In Seattle.
Our reaction as a city: air conditioning installation is booked out for months.
Our reaction as a city: air conditioning installation is booked out for months.
To be fair, Seattle's electric grid has been on all sustainable energy for a while now. Seattle is one of the greenest city in the U.S. On top of that, any person living in King County is able to pay a little bit extra to opt into 100% sustainable energy.
The reaction from Seattle isn't terribly illogical.
EDIT: Should mention the city is NOT carbon neutral by any means. We still have buses running on gas.
The reaction from Seattle isn't terribly illogical.
EDIT: Should mention the city is NOT carbon neutral by any means. We still have buses running on gas.
True, we are fortunate we can avoid hard choices on power source up here (lots of hydro). But what I meant to highlight was that our focus tends to be on solving our local short-term climate problems, just like everybody else.
FWIW, most of the weather modeling people (e.g. Cliff Mass) are asserting that the PNW heat wave was more of a Black Swan event caused by a near perfect storm of ordinary weather factors that had little to do with climate change. The contribution of climate change to this specific event was marginal at best, this type of heat wave has always been possible in principle.
Listen to yourself. Black swan event, possible in principle, near perfect storm of ordinary weather factors…
Read up on what chaos theory and chaotic behavior of systems is. Investigate the principle of 'period three implies chaos' and observe what happens when you have stably chaotic behaviors, with known excursions, and then you slightly increase the energy in the system.
What WE are saying (which in no way contradicts what Cliff Mass is also saying) is that the increase of energy, even by seemingly little amounts, radically increases the possible range of outcomes… and the 'black swan' events become commonplace, and then you get NEW 'black swan' events that are truly the exception rather than the new norm.
And that is what we are concerned about, and why 'A 3°C world has no safe place'. Cliff is not necessarily wrong that black swan events happen. He may be fatally wrong about recent behavior constituting a 'black swan'. This is more like the new normal: not sustained heat domes in a predictable way, but this type of event.
You'll know the real black swan when it comes, because it will be demonstrating the impossible and unsurvivable. We just don't know the exact form of it, or where it'll be, but there will be no mistaking it. I don't believe the heat dome was the real black swan.
Read up on what chaos theory and chaotic behavior of systems is. Investigate the principle of 'period three implies chaos' and observe what happens when you have stably chaotic behaviors, with known excursions, and then you slightly increase the energy in the system.
What WE are saying (which in no way contradicts what Cliff Mass is also saying) is that the increase of energy, even by seemingly little amounts, radically increases the possible range of outcomes… and the 'black swan' events become commonplace, and then you get NEW 'black swan' events that are truly the exception rather than the new norm.
And that is what we are concerned about, and why 'A 3°C world has no safe place'. Cliff is not necessarily wrong that black swan events happen. He may be fatally wrong about recent behavior constituting a 'black swan'. This is more like the new normal: not sustained heat domes in a predictable way, but this type of event.
You'll know the real black swan when it comes, because it will be demonstrating the impossible and unsurvivable. We just don't know the exact form of it, or where it'll be, but there will be no mistaking it. I don't believe the heat dome was the real black swan.
I don't think the climate change will be solved by laypeople having shorter showers, sitting in tiny condos without air conditioning and buying groceries with the big word "SUSTAINABLE" all over the packaging.
Much more realistically, just like COVID-19 made mRNA commercially viable, actual decrease in quality of life from the climate change will pave the road to engineered carbon-capturing plants, or some smart sun-reflecting particles, or something else.
So if you want to help solve climate change, go study biotechnology and get serious about it. Making your own life arbitrarily uncomfortable and finding a meaning of life in pressuring peers to follow suit won't move the needle in a statistically significant way.
Much more realistically, just like COVID-19 made mRNA commercially viable, actual decrease in quality of life from the climate change will pave the road to engineered carbon-capturing plants, or some smart sun-reflecting particles, or something else.
So if you want to help solve climate change, go study biotechnology and get serious about it. Making your own life arbitrarily uncomfortable and finding a meaning of life in pressuring peers to follow suit won't move the needle in a statistically significant way.
> In this country, the ones that are going to be the most affected by global warming, seem like to care the less.
This is ignoring the fact that if the southern coastal US is toast the northern areas are going to have a climate refugee crisis on their hands.
This is ignoring the fact that if the southern coastal US is toast the northern areas are going to have a climate refugee crisis on their hands.
That's true. We have already been dealing with it (the last central american immigrant surge), and NYC had a huge influx of comers from Porto Rico after the last two hurricanes.
Dealing with it is still easier than having your place underwater like 1/3 of Florida might be one day. Places like NYC have to shore up low land areas, but it is still in much better shape than either Florida, Arizona, Southern CA (lack of fresh water, and fires).
Global warming is really going to hit places differently. There is a huge difference between having to deal with the occasional heat wave, or flood, and with having to deal with your whole area being permanently under-water, or complete lack of drinking water.
Dealing with it is still easier than having your place underwater like 1/3 of Florida might be one day. Places like NYC have to shore up low land areas, but it is still in much better shape than either Florida, Arizona, Southern CA (lack of fresh water, and fires).
Global warming is really going to hit places differently. There is a huge difference between having to deal with the occasional heat wave, or flood, and with having to deal with your whole area being permanently under-water, or complete lack of drinking water.
> Places like Albany, NY, or Minesota, or most of Canada, appart from the occasional crazy swings, are going to be more lovely places to live
This may have been true a few hundred years ago, but not now. Where do their families live? What do they they do for work, food, resources and recreation? Who will they trade with? Where will they get consumer goods?
This may have been true a few hundred years ago, but not now. Where do their families live? What do they they do for work, food, resources and recreation? Who will they trade with? Where will they get consumer goods?
Tell that to the residents of Lytton.
Right? It hit 116°F in Portland, Oregon last month, hotter than the record highs in such places as Dallas, Miami, New Orleans, and downtown LA.
The notion that there's a climate change safe zone is an optimistic one, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of supporting evidence.
The notion that there's a climate change safe zone is an optimistic one, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of supporting evidence.
Agree on that part. If you are on a heat bowl area, you will have to deal with it, and getting the short end of the stick.
Lack of fresh water in the US is a solvable issue. We have oceans all around us and the US has the know-how to ship fresh, desalinated water from the coast to middle america.
Not for agricultural use in the Midwest, that the current issue. I mean, this is an issue right now, not in 20 years.
BTW, this issue is solvable if everyone agree that meat should be rationned: no corn and some GMO wheat to produce carbs for human consumption only, a lot more vegetables and more forestry could do the trick.
BTW, this issue is solvable if everyone agree that meat should be rationned: no corn and some GMO wheat to produce carbs for human consumption only, a lot more vegetables and more forestry could do the trick.
US uses 118B gallons of water/day in agricultural usage.
Desal costs about 2k/acre-foot (325,851 gallons).
That's ~724MM/day in water costs or 264B/year for water. US GDP is 21 Trillion.
As cost of water increases, conservation becomes more economical. Say all agriculture switches to hydroponics as a result. Hydroponics uses 1/10th the water of traditional methods...so we're talking now just 26B/year of water costs.
In 2017 US farms spent 359B on operations.
Food will become more expensive, but overall we'll be fine.
That's ~724MM/day in water costs or 264B/year for water. US GDP is 21 Trillion.
As cost of water increases, conservation becomes more economical. Say all agriculture switches to hydroponics as a result. Hydroponics uses 1/10th the water of traditional methods...so we're talking now just 26B/year of water costs.
In 2017 US farms spent 359B on operations.
Food will become more expensive, but overall we'll be fine.
Which is irrelevant. Increasing crop failures will mean that even if you migrate to somewhere that is currently cool, there won't be enough food to feed everyone.
Dude, it’s been about three months since my part of Canada received rain. We have been above 30°C for over a month. For a week, we were hitting 45°C and it looks like it’ll happen again next month. We are in drought conditions and there are ungodly huge wildfires all around us. We’ve got crop failures. We are NOT fine. Good gods, no, we are not fine at all.
Parts of Canada, sure. I imagine places like Newfoundland not changing much.
The north will see big changes from permafrost melting, the west will see more smoke, more floods, and water shortages as the glacier melt is replaced by rain.
BC will be on fire more, and the forests will die off / need to be replanted with different species of trees
The north will see big changes from permafrost melting, the west will see more smoke, more floods, and water shortages as the glacier melt is replaced by rain.
BC will be on fire more, and the forests will die off / need to be replanted with different species of trees
I imagine places like Newfoundland not changing much.
Alaska, at least, is allegedly one of the most rapidly warming places on the planet.
Alaska, at least, is allegedly one of the most rapidly warming places on the planet.
[deleted]
Climate change is more than just how mild the winters will become. It is also different weather patterns like heavy rainstorms and the resulting floods.
Cologne Germany is about 50 degrees north and the surrounding areas were hit hard. Zhengzhou China is about 34 degrees north and was also hit hard by flooding. That further south than the Mason Dixon line... more like the latitude of Raleigh, North Carolina.
So sure, lovely to live if you guard against constant potential storms and floods, omni-present ground water, the possibility of several days in a row of 100+ F temps, etc.
Cologne Germany is about 50 degrees north and the surrounding areas were hit hard. Zhengzhou China is about 34 degrees north and was also hit hard by flooding. That further south than the Mason Dixon line... more like the latitude of Raleigh, North Carolina.
So sure, lovely to live if you guard against constant potential storms and floods, omni-present ground water, the possibility of several days in a row of 100+ F temps, etc.
> Canada and northern part of the US will be fine (north of the mason dixon line).
I highly doubt that, given the heat we saw in the PNW and Canada this past month, but even if true, the 3C is average over the planet. So other places in the world will have to be even more than 3C for that to be the average. They aren't gonna like that one bit.
I highly doubt that, given the heat we saw in the PNW and Canada this past month, but even if true, the 3C is average over the planet. So other places in the world will have to be even more than 3C for that to be the average. They aren't gonna like that one bit.
Based on current climate models and global average temperatures (1.2C above pre-industrial baseline), the recent PNW heat wave was judged to be a 1-in-1000 year event. The same models suggest a further 0.8C increase would make such a heat wave a 1-in-10 year event or greater.
Source: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/prelimin...
Source: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/prelimin...
I'm not sure that they care less or they are just too terrified to actually think about it.
Even if that would apply, the people won’t stay in the south for very long if it becomes impossible to live there. I don’t think there will be a secret enclave that can just ignore the impact of global warming.
Just wait for all migrants from places that will be becoming uninhabitable.
When is this projected to happen, realistically? 100 years from now?
It is already happening. Just searching a bit…
Katrina displaced 1-1.5m immediately and about 200k never returned.
The upper estimates for 2050 is 1.2 billion displaced world wide.
Katrina displaced 1-1.5m immediately and about 200k never returned.
The upper estimates for 2050 is 1.2 billion displaced world wide.
Drought -> Farmers unable to farm in Syrian countryside -> they move to the cities to try to earn money -> social and political instability -> civil war -> European refugee crisis
Also, 2010 Russian forest fires[1] -> grain prices went up -> food prices went up -> hunger for the poor in Middle East -> Arab Spring (ah, remember when Twitter was saving the world?) -> European refugee crisis
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.htm...
Also, 2010 Russian forest fires[1] -> grain prices went up -> food prices went up -> hunger for the poor in Middle East -> Arab Spring (ah, remember when Twitter was saving the world?) -> European refugee crisis
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.htm...
Realistically? 2011. As get global instability every time food prices spike from drought and commodities price spikes. That time it kicked off the Arab spring & Syrian civil war. Look at immigration into Europe across the Med. from North Africa.
Global food prices are spiking now and we're also seeing protests around the globe. The quote is "Society sits 2 meals and 24 hours from anarchy." So any place there's drought or crop failure we'll see a lot of choas.
Global food prices are spiking now and we're also seeing protests around the globe. The quote is "Society sits 2 meals and 24 hours from anarchy." So any place there's drought or crop failure we'll see a lot of choas.
Huh, curious that there hasn't been nationwide Covid-economic-slowdown-related anarchies yet, or maybe I'm not paying attention? In places like India and Indonesia there's currently severe economic slowdown and not enough government intervention.
A lot of Covid skeptics call it a plandemic, i.e. manufactured crisis, I don't believe it myself, but if I were running a government I would be asking if we should have a permanent state of emergency (like in the book 1984) to prevent societal collapse...
A lot of Covid skeptics call it a plandemic, i.e. manufactured crisis, I don't believe it myself, but if I were running a government I would be asking if we should have a permanent state of emergency (like in the book 1984) to prevent societal collapse...
I actually work with one guy who moved with family from Chennai because he says it is unbearably there and he prefers polish climate much more.
Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but I wish that the Fahrenheit increase would have been more prominently used over these years. I think that most Americans don't realize that 1°C is more than 1°F so it doesn't sound as bad when it's "only a few degrees"
Honestly both of them are small, and I think citing the degrees is just terrible messaging altogether. I think people would gladly accept & adapt to even a 5°F increase; I know I would. The problem is that doesn't capture anything about the local variation (and impacts like hurricanes, fires, etc.), and that even beyond that, we're absolutely destroying everything about our planet as we know it, and a single-degree change in average temperatures is just icing on the cake.
Try to sit in a bath of 36°C. You can sit there for hours. Now switch to a bath of 38°C. After a while you'll be sweaty, sluggish, tired, breath harder etc.
They have this at the St. Gellert baths in Budapest:
https://afar-production.imgix.net/uploads/images/post_images...
They have this at the St. Gellert baths in Budapest:
https://afar-production.imgix.net/uploads/images/post_images...
People live in extremely hot weather. And air conditioning is a thing. A few degrees in temperature change is quite manageable.
(And btw, not everyone lives in 36°C. Try to get those who live in a 20°C weather to care about a 2°C change even without air conditioning.)
(And btw, not everyone lives in 36°C. Try to get those who live in a 20°C weather to care about a 2°C change even without air conditioning.)
That's not a good analogy. Water transfers heat 24 times as fast as air.
The larger issue is that measuring the problem in degrees, doesn't convey the gravity or the urgency of the situation. Most will associate it with seasonal changes, or sea rise or extreme weather. But that is just the surface level.
What happens when millions are displaced because India, Pakistan and much of Africa can no longer support human life? What happens when food and water output is reduced? What happens when droughts stops being weather events, but become permanent? What happens if ocean accidification gets to levels where a sudden massive extinction happens? People are greatly underestimating the dangers of climate change. If what is described in the IPCC reports comes to pass and if we really are already at 2C as some reports indicate https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-26.... Then we will see massive destabilization of global society. Most current societies are simply not equipped to deal with all the problems that will happen at the same time.
I do hope we can still do something to prevent this. But at this point we really need to go to negative emissions and fast, yet the best we can muster is 10 years of increasing emissions followed by another 20-30 of decreasing, and this is assuming the governments can stick to those targets. Assuming we are at 2C, then 4C by 2100 seems probable. Interesting times ahead.
What happens when millions are displaced because India, Pakistan and much of Africa can no longer support human life? What happens when food and water output is reduced? What happens when droughts stops being weather events, but become permanent? What happens if ocean accidification gets to levels where a sudden massive extinction happens? People are greatly underestimating the dangers of climate change. If what is described in the IPCC reports comes to pass and if we really are already at 2C as some reports indicate https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-26.... Then we will see massive destabilization of global society. Most current societies are simply not equipped to deal with all the problems that will happen at the same time.
I do hope we can still do something to prevent this. But at this point we really need to go to negative emissions and fast, yet the best we can muster is 10 years of increasing emissions followed by another 20-30 of decreasing, and this is assuming the governments can stick to those targets. Assuming we are at 2C, then 4C by 2100 seems probable. Interesting times ahead.
Humans have trouble detecting less than a 2°C change in temperature. The truth is changes on global averages seem tiny because we use temperature as the metric. The temperature change is tiny. The heat energy is huge. We should use energy as the metric.
I equally wish that more Americans used SI -- Farenheit is about as familiar to me as Rankine; I have been bitten by the US use of 'mil' to mean thousandths of an inch whilst remaining how some en-gb engineers use it as inaccurate slang for mm. But this is a big distraction. Alas, I know that the whole reason we're in this pickle is that scientific literacy is low, and most people prefer short term gains over longer ones. In many ways the increased rate of increase in temperature might be a good thing, as it makes more people intuitively get that something is very, very wrong.
As an aside, most professional oceanographers or climate scientists I know are depressed, furious, or grant writing -- or a linear superposition of all three.
As an aside, most professional oceanographers or climate scientists I know are depressed, furious, or grant writing -- or a linear superposition of all three.
> I have been bitten by the US use of 'mil' to mean thousandths of an inch
Huh, I live in the US and I've only ever heard that called a thou but wikipedia backs you up. I'd think a mil would be a millionth of an inch.
Huh, I live in the US and I've only ever heard that called a thou but wikipedia backs you up. I'd think a mil would be a millionth of an inch.
I've always been under the impression it's pronounced "thou" but written "mil" - like how "pound" is "lb."
You see mil in small scale CAD all the time, circuit boards and chips and footprints are close to 50% mils vs mm in my experience if not more.
I use mm, but it’s often a pain when premade parts and libraries are in mils.
I use mm, but it’s often a pain when premade parts and libraries are in mils.
Comes from mille, means thousand.
Mil is used in circuit board design, not sure about other fields. I find it very confusing
I don't think it would make any difference, TBH. A difference of 3°C is "only" 5.4°F. That still doesn't seem too bad, at first thought, until you realize that it's 5.4°F difference forever (or, at least well into the foreseeable future).
Perhaps. But I suspect the bigger issue is that even 5.4°F still doesn't sound like much. It's hard to communicate that the average temperature implies much higher highs and many
"unusually hot" days.
OK 3C is 5.4F for anyone who is wondering.
I don’t think that’s the straw that would’ve broken the climate change camel’s back in America.
I don’t think that’s the straw that would’ve broken the climate change camel’s back in America.
Different units of measurement will not make it any less of a hoax or inconvenient truth preferably ignored.
Shoulda used microkelvins!
Ok but even 1°C is pretty bad? Even 1°F is bad.
If we were going for emotional effect shouldn't it be expressed in Kelvin, or a temperature scale that is designed specifically to scare the public? Something where 3°C is 20°Scare?
E: Kelvin doesn't work for scaring the public unless it is reported as an absolute temperature. TIL.
If we were going for emotional effect shouldn't it be expressed in Kelvin, or a temperature scale that is designed specifically to scare the public? Something where 3°C is 20°Scare?
E: Kelvin doesn't work for scaring the public unless it is reported as an absolute temperature. TIL.
> If we were going for emotional effect shouldn't it be expressed in Kelvin
A difference in 1K is equivalent to 1C difference. The thing is, when Celsius scale was invented, they didn't have a concept of "absolute zero" yet.
Once "absolute zero" was known, then Kelvin units were invented, which were equivalent to C except that 0 means absolute zero.
A difference in 1K is equivalent to 1C difference. The thing is, when Celsius scale was invented, they didn't have a concept of "absolute zero" yet.
Once "absolute zero" was known, then Kelvin units were invented, which were equivalent to C except that 0 means absolute zero.
Whoops. Well, my point remains. 1, 3 and 5 all seem like pretty small numbers. I don't think C to F would change public perception.
If you want to feel some level of empowerment around this but don't feel like you have much time or direction, I'd recommend joining the Citizen's Climate Lobby. It's quite influential in the U.S., and is gaining influence globally.
I'm Canadian, and I joined a year ago. Since then I've been able to join several lobby meetings with politicians and gotten involved in many other local issues that I never would have learned about otherwise. It's quite organized, I get to see the impacts of lobbying, and I meet many other groups that I could choose to join if I am so inclined.
I've found it to be productive. If you feel helpless and are thrashing when it comes to figuring out how to make a difference, I think this is a great first step.
I'm Canadian, and I joined a year ago. Since then I've been able to join several lobby meetings with politicians and gotten involved in many other local issues that I never would have learned about otherwise. It's quite organized, I get to see the impacts of lobbying, and I meet many other groups that I could choose to join if I am so inclined.
I've found it to be productive. If you feel helpless and are thrashing when it comes to figuring out how to make a difference, I think this is a great first step.
I whole-heartedly agree.
I found out about the Citizen's Climate Lobby two weeks ago. I jumped into a few zoom calls with members of the organization and they immediately came up with various ways I could help with. For a person who has been extremely worried about climate change for years, it felt good to feel that I could do something about it and meet people sharing the same goal.
Pricing carbon in a revenu neutral way is probably the most impactful thing we can push for. There is more and more political will to implement or double down on it depending on the country. Grass-root lobbying might be the nudge those policies needs to become a reality.
Try spreading the word, educate your friends and family about it. Like many legislations, implementing it the right way will be difficult but the more people are informed about it, the more chances we have.
I found out about the Citizen's Climate Lobby two weeks ago. I jumped into a few zoom calls with members of the organization and they immediately came up with various ways I could help with. For a person who has been extremely worried about climate change for years, it felt good to feel that I could do something about it and meet people sharing the same goal.
Pricing carbon in a revenu neutral way is probably the most impactful thing we can push for. There is more and more political will to implement or double down on it depending on the country. Grass-root lobbying might be the nudge those policies needs to become a reality.
Try spreading the word, educate your friends and family about it. Like many legislations, implementing it the right way will be difficult but the more people are informed about it, the more chances we have.
The symptom of global warming is not the sole long term concern of climate change. We already have the tools to reverse global warming. I wager that a poor country with most of its GDP within 5 feet of 2021 sea level will unilaterally decide to stop global warming in the next 50 years. Maybe it's not a logical move, maybe it's already too late to save their cities, maybe it won't stop millions from dying of heat or famine, but it will be the politically savvy move of the leaders of desperate people. The decision won't be made by a bunch of rich people sitting around a nice clean table in an air conditioned room in the US or EU. The political backlash of not asking permission weighs far less than not doing it.
What does this pandora's box prospect really mean for the future? If not handled carefully then we may face even more serious ecological collapse (a la Snowpiercer). I don't think that's very likely. I think we'll see a more tempered implementation that will take a while to cool the planet. That meets the political demands of the desperate people while trying to appease the angry neighbors. The ice caps will still melt, the sea level will still rise 10 feet, and we'll still likely face ecological collapse from half a dozen different directions.
Which directions we care about most will start to matter. Should we not even bother talking about them today since us, as rich air conditioned folks wouldn't even consider the option of reflective particles in the atmosphere? Or should we face the real possibility and begin planning contingencies for it?
What does this pandora's box prospect really mean for the future? If not handled carefully then we may face even more serious ecological collapse (a la Snowpiercer). I don't think that's very likely. I think we'll see a more tempered implementation that will take a while to cool the planet. That meets the political demands of the desperate people while trying to appease the angry neighbors. The ice caps will still melt, the sea level will still rise 10 feet, and we'll still likely face ecological collapse from half a dozen different directions.
Which directions we care about most will start to matter. Should we not even bother talking about them today since us, as rich air conditioned folks wouldn't even consider the option of reflective particles in the atmosphere? Or should we face the real possibility and begin planning contingencies for it?
From a game theoretic perspective - fossil fuels will be depleted. Even if the US reduced its consumption to zero, other countries, as independent players that want to maximize their benefit will be glad to take over and enjoy the effects of reduced demand and price.
This means that there are two ways to deal with it:
1. Force all countries to reduce use. To make this really worldwide, this can only worked by force, economical or military (i.e. a world cop). Unfortunately, even if we had that, it is not a stable solution since the short term benefits of using these fuels create constant political pressure.
2. Mitigate the emissions, for example by carbon sequestration. I'm a strong believer in technological progress and our ability to reduce the cost exponentially, the tricky part is to make profitable at any cost.
3. Direct the limited fossil fuel supplies towards economical uses that do not have the same negative impact. For example, by encouraging consumption of more plastics. Plastics essentially trap the carbon in the oil into a very stable form, essentially sequestering the carbon in the oil without first going into the atmosphere.
This means that there are two ways to deal with it:
1. Force all countries to reduce use. To make this really worldwide, this can only worked by force, economical or military (i.e. a world cop). Unfortunately, even if we had that, it is not a stable solution since the short term benefits of using these fuels create constant political pressure.
2. Mitigate the emissions, for example by carbon sequestration. I'm a strong believer in technological progress and our ability to reduce the cost exponentially, the tricky part is to make profitable at any cost.
3. Direct the limited fossil fuel supplies towards economical uses that do not have the same negative impact. For example, by encouraging consumption of more plastics. Plastics essentially trap the carbon in the oil into a very stable form, essentially sequestering the carbon in the oil without first going into the atmosphere.
Silicon valley is safe climate wise (it's like artificial weather here), we just need to build a damn or some kind of lock system under the golden gate bridge, then a series of walls and mine fields to keep out the rifraf. </s>
James Burke's After the Warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw
Circa 1989.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw
Circa 1989.
No human civilisation has lasted very long. I guess that ours has been going on since the Renaissance, but eventually it will fall. And then maybe another will come along, or maybe not - if we make the world too hard to exist in.
> It's surreal.
It's also most certainly not the only example of such behaviour.
My personal favourite to use on people with an IT background is IPv4 exhaustion.
Global warming is related to the finite capacity of the atmosphere to absorb an excess pollutant, which is growing exponentially thanks to a burgeoning human population. Address exhaustion is due to a finite resource being exhausted due to an increasing population of people with networked devices.
Both are slow-motion, global-scale disasters.
Both have no clear deadline or dramatic event.
Neither has any immediacy, it's all just graphs trending the wrong way.
Just like how no individual or enterprise profits from fixing global warming, nobody profits from fixing IPv4. If you make a personal sacrifice to give up IPv4, nobody will reward you.
In both cases, the incumbents are hoarding resources, and trying to stave of the inevitable change that will devalue their accumulated capital. IPv4 has become a commodity resource traded on markets, to be hoovered up by mega-corporations to fend off smaller players from competing head to head with them. Do you think Saudi Aramco will just let go of their trillion dollars of unexploited oil fields? Do you think Azure or AWS will just give up on their millions of accumulated addresses?
There is one key difference however:
Global warming has some legitimate debate about its exact course: what specific path the curve will follow, and which model is accurate.
IPv4 exhaustion had no debate whatsoever. The exhaustion of each regional pool was predicted to the week, years ahead. Each one occurred exactly on schedule.
What have YOU done to "save the world"? What have you sacrificed, personally to enable IPv6-only networking?
You have no excuses, you can't even say you didn't see it coming!
So:
Have you forced your company to upgrade to IPv6?
Have you written your software to work flawlessly in an IPv6-only network?
Have you made it a hard requirement for all networked products you purchase or use to be IPv6 native?
No, no you haven't.
Azure doesn't support IPv6 in any meaningful way. Neither does any other major cloud provider. It's an add on. An optional extra, that may or may not work.
Kubernetes, the "future", does not support IPv6 right now, 21 years after it became widely available, and years after several regions dropped below their last /8 of available address space.
"It would be a lot of work to add IPv6 support" I hear people complaining.
Oh... oh wow. Gee. Golly. I didn't know! I take it all back. Let's just stay on IPv4 forever and use NAT five layers deep. I hear Global Warming is going to take a lot of work to fix also. Let's just all buy air conditioners and never venture outside again.
It's also most certainly not the only example of such behaviour.
My personal favourite to use on people with an IT background is IPv4 exhaustion.
Global warming is related to the finite capacity of the atmosphere to absorb an excess pollutant, which is growing exponentially thanks to a burgeoning human population. Address exhaustion is due to a finite resource being exhausted due to an increasing population of people with networked devices.
Both are slow-motion, global-scale disasters.
Both have no clear deadline or dramatic event.
Neither has any immediacy, it's all just graphs trending the wrong way.
Just like how no individual or enterprise profits from fixing global warming, nobody profits from fixing IPv4. If you make a personal sacrifice to give up IPv4, nobody will reward you.
In both cases, the incumbents are hoarding resources, and trying to stave of the inevitable change that will devalue their accumulated capital. IPv4 has become a commodity resource traded on markets, to be hoovered up by mega-corporations to fend off smaller players from competing head to head with them. Do you think Saudi Aramco will just let go of their trillion dollars of unexploited oil fields? Do you think Azure or AWS will just give up on their millions of accumulated addresses?
There is one key difference however:
Global warming has some legitimate debate about its exact course: what specific path the curve will follow, and which model is accurate.
IPv4 exhaustion had no debate whatsoever. The exhaustion of each regional pool was predicted to the week, years ahead. Each one occurred exactly on schedule.
What have YOU done to "save the world"? What have you sacrificed, personally to enable IPv6-only networking?
You have no excuses, you can't even say you didn't see it coming!
So:
Have you forced your company to upgrade to IPv6?
Have you written your software to work flawlessly in an IPv6-only network?
Have you made it a hard requirement for all networked products you purchase or use to be IPv6 native?
No, no you haven't.
Azure doesn't support IPv6 in any meaningful way. Neither does any other major cloud provider. It's an add on. An optional extra, that may or may not work.
Kubernetes, the "future", does not support IPv6 right now, 21 years after it became widely available, and years after several regions dropped below their last /8 of available address space.
"It would be a lot of work to add IPv6 support" I hear people complaining.
Oh... oh wow. Gee. Golly. I didn't know! I take it all back. Let's just stay on IPv4 forever and use NAT five layers deep. I hear Global Warming is going to take a lot of work to fix also. Let's just all buy air conditioners and never venture outside again.
Fascinating.
I always enjoy the apocalypse articles being paywalled
We're about to go into a mini ice age and there is no stopping it.
This article smells more like religious eschatology than rational economic discussion about the costs and benefits of climate change. This sort of sensationalist and opinionated reporting hardly advances the credibility of its cause.
"It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it that I have a problem with."
This doesn't change the underlying reality, and I have a strong suspicion there is no means of discussing this issue that would meet with your approval, or your recognition that this is a crisis requiring significant action.
This doesn't change the underlying reality, and I have a strong suspicion there is no means of discussing this issue that would meet with your approval, or your recognition that this is a crisis requiring significant action.
I can't speak for the original commenter, but I'm thoroughly on board with every concrete action item proposed in the article. By all means, let's cut emissions, let's invest in prevention and mitigation for natural disasters, and let's understand how we could geoengineer temperatures back down if needed.
I don't like the crisis framing because I think it leads people to hyperfocus on stopping climate change - on cutting emissions - to the exclusion of the rest. If I proposed a huge subsidy to put HVAC systems in more homes, that would be a huge help in fighting the actual human impact of climate change, but quite a lot of people would see it as irrelevant to climate change because it doesn't reduce emissions.
I don't like the crisis framing because I think it leads people to hyperfocus on stopping climate change - on cutting emissions - to the exclusion of the rest. If I proposed a huge subsidy to put HVAC systems in more homes, that would be a huge help in fighting the actual human impact of climate change, but quite a lot of people would see it as irrelevant to climate change because it doesn't reduce emissions.
Your suspicion is unfounded. There are plenty of people who discuss the issue on rational terms. However, their writing is less entertainingly alarmist, so it doesn’t get as much traction. Same as any political-economic issue.
Daily reminder that all the emission reduced by the complete "western" world (the rest doesn't care about the green move) in the last years was all reversed by the additional emission of a single Asian country (China) and this does not even include the grows in emissions in other fast growing places like India.
The whole green move is a lie. There is no evidence that any of that has any relevant positive effect. And no, "we tried" or "a little bit is better than nothing", is not a valid argument all the efforts combined effects are within the margin of error for our predictions so we dont even know if or how much it makes a different.
The only way forward that makes sense is the one humans always did - technological progress. fusion reactors for example. Imagine what we could have by now if all that effort (financial) would have been used to actually find better ways to do the things that cause the pollution rather than making people feel bad for doing what they have to do survive.
But instead our politics puts money into nonsensical "progress" like for example replacing a certain % or fuel with biofuel which is know to be energy-negative. It needs more energy to produce than it gives back (not true if made form waste biomass but true if its made from crops planted for this.)
The whole green move is a lie. There is no evidence that any of that has any relevant positive effect. And no, "we tried" or "a little bit is better than nothing", is not a valid argument all the efforts combined effects are within the margin of error for our predictions so we dont even know if or how much it makes a different.
The only way forward that makes sense is the one humans always did - technological progress. fusion reactors for example. Imagine what we could have by now if all that effort (financial) would have been used to actually find better ways to do the things that cause the pollution rather than making people feel bad for doing what they have to do survive.
But instead our politics puts money into nonsensical "progress" like for example replacing a certain % or fuel with biofuel which is know to be energy-negative. It needs more energy to produce than it gives back (not true if made form waste biomass but true if its made from crops planted for this.)
What are they talking about?
In the US this will mean more rain in many regions and longer growing seasons. A lot of plants will quickly adapt.
Historically, our planet for most of its history was warmer. It’s all going to be fine, while we will need to adjust the world will continue on.
Note: I’m not saying it won’t be hard, but this will be a gradual change and will actually assist some places, while others get more harsh. I’m just so tired of the negativity.
There’s also a lot of common errors people make. For instance, is this avg temp? Where are we taking measurements? Everyone realizes year to year there’s average drifts that are pretty substantial around the earth... etc etc
In the US this will mean more rain in many regions and longer growing seasons. A lot of plants will quickly adapt.
Historically, our planet for most of its history was warmer. It’s all going to be fine, while we will need to adjust the world will continue on.
Note: I’m not saying it won’t be hard, but this will be a gradual change and will actually assist some places, while others get more harsh. I’m just so tired of the negativity.
There’s also a lot of common errors people make. For instance, is this avg temp? Where are we taking measurements? Everyone realizes year to year there’s average drifts that are pretty substantial around the earth... etc etc
The geopolitical reality of, say, a billion people in India becoming climate refugees is likely to have worldwide implications.
India is a big and diverse place. I don't see any realistic scenario where 1 billion Indians become climate refugees.
Ok, several hundred million?
The ballistics industry should be rubbing their hands.
You're far more optimistic than I about
1) how quickly agriculture can adapt to large shifts in rain and wind patterns -- for instance, what if "more rain" includes torrential downpours with massive flooding, at unpredictable intervals? 2) how quickly the world economy can adapt to most of its major cities becoming uninhabitable (even where temps stay reasonable, sea levels won't) 3) how adaptable political systems will be to unprecedented climate-driven mass migrations, both within and between states, and in the face of collapsing states?
I don't think it'll be a gradual change at all -- more a series of rolling crises, where places spared a particular crisis either are at risk of being hit directly by the next one, or have to deal with the social, political, and economic upheaval as people die or flee areas directly impacted.
1) how quickly agriculture can adapt to large shifts in rain and wind patterns -- for instance, what if "more rain" includes torrential downpours with massive flooding, at unpredictable intervals? 2) how quickly the world economy can adapt to most of its major cities becoming uninhabitable (even where temps stay reasonable, sea levels won't) 3) how adaptable political systems will be to unprecedented climate-driven mass migrations, both within and between states, and in the face of collapsing states?
I don't think it'll be a gradual change at all -- more a series of rolling crises, where places spared a particular crisis either are at risk of being hit directly by the next one, or have to deal with the social, political, and economic upheaval as people die or flee areas directly impacted.
With "more rain" also comes more floods and hurricanes.
Also, gradual changes are definitely not guaranteed. Weather and chaos theory have a lot in common; Small perturbations can cause massively different outcomes. Adding 3°C to the entire planet is not a small perturbation.
Also, gradual changes are definitely not guaranteed. Weather and chaos theory have a lot in common; Small perturbations can cause massively different outcomes. Adding 3°C to the entire planet is not a small perturbation.
Will they adapt to the raging wildfires that ~1.2C has already induced across much of the west coast? That's some adaptin'!
Wildfires on the west coast are far less common than they were 80 years ago. Humans are going to be a-ok
The northern US and Canada were barren mud and rock 12000 years ago. They'll adapt.
Like the wooly mammoths did!
Adaptation by extinction, the best one.
Except people can adapt to living in very warm areas and will adapt even more by using science. e.g. better (GMO) crop, bioreactors, solar powered desalinators, huge water pipes (why not? when we can have huge oil pipes) and so on
Except people can adapt to living in very warm areas and will adapt even more by using science. e.g. better (GMO) crop, bioreactors, solar powered desalinators, huge water pipes (why not? when we can have huge oil pipes) and so on
Oh the world will be absolutely fine, it will be we that suffer.
Gradual? On earth timescales? There have been tons of articles showing that's not happening, read one today about the great heat wave 'die off' from the last weeks. plants/animals can't adapt on near the timescale of decades from what I've read.
But maybe we can assist finding survivors, I remember reading an article a while ago about assisted coral evolution found a bunch of google scholar on it.
https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=climate+change+coral+evo...
But maybe we can assist finding survivors, I remember reading an article a while ago about assisted coral evolution found a bunch of google scholar on it.
https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=climate+change+coral+evo...
[deleted]
That is profoundly myopic. Sure, the "planet will adapt" or whatever. But how well do you think it's gonna go when a bunch of nuclear weapon armed nations decide that the land they live on is no longer hospitable?
Nuclear weapons cause more stability, not less. Nuclear armed countries will never fight each other directly (MAD). So I presume that no nuclear war will ensue. Non-nuclear armed countries might get subsumed
"Gradual" ... Ob. xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
https://xkcd.com/1732/
I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished and more cynical.
I honestly don't know how to deal with the level nihilism and genuine bitterness I feel toward my fellow man regarding climate change. This was never a political divide. The american culture was full of anti-scientific absurdity on the the right, and complete symbolism without substance on the left.
We don't even have serious bicycle or transit prioritization in our major urban areas. We don't have any concern for reducing our meat consumption. We don't have any concern for alternatives to airlines. We're to the point where only geoengineering can help, which is honestly nuts. I just, I mean, I know where I'm planning on settling down literally based on real estate in relation to climate change. It's surreal.