White House is pushing ahead research to cool Earth by reflecting back sunlight(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
White House is pushing ahead research to cool Earth by reflecting back sunlight
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering-sunlight-reflection-risks-and-benefits.html
632 comments
I think people are understandably cautious about large scale interventions in complex systems. It's not like we've got a test Earth ready to do a dummy run on. We're making changes directly to production here.
(I do think we'll ultimately need to do something like this simply because the cost of not doing it is too high but I understand why people are scared by it, and it's not just down to belief in wood spirits).
(I do think we'll ultimately need to do something like this simply because the cost of not doing it is too high but I understand why people are scared by it, and it's not just down to belief in wood spirits).
Also it means we won't actually solve the core problem that is greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead we'll just continually pump up some aerosols to ensure the heating doesn't get too bad. And if we ever fail to do so then we'll face incredible heating.
Instead we'll just continually pump up some aerosols to ensure the heating doesn't get too bad. And if we ever fail to do so then we'll face incredible heating.
We can't address the GHG issue fast enough, so that pretty much means we'd have to try other stuff. They could certainly be worked in parallel.
We had conversations about going to the moon and we got there in 10 years.
Talk about producing less disposable crap, driving less, flying less, and cutting military budgets, everyone gets “exercise their 2A rights” in the US.
Talk about producing less disposable crap, driving less, flying less, and cutting military budgets, everyone gets “exercise their 2A rights” in the US.
> Talk about producing less disposable crap, driving less, flying less, and cutting military budgets
That comment illustrates the problem pretty well. We could do all those things and we'd still be way, way behind on what climate scientists say we actually need to do, to avoid disaster.
What we need to do is reduce emissions to zero in less than thirty years, with steep declines starting now. That's not just electric grids, it's all transportation, industry, direct emissions from steel and concrete production, agriculture, everything. And then we need to start pulling massive amounts of excess CO2 back out of the atmosphere. Going to the moon was trivial by comparison; without a breakthrough in cheap fusion or something we're not likely to achieve all this.
SRM isn't a solution but it could buy us a little time, before higher temperatures get the planet releasing gigatons of CO2 and methane without any further help from us.
That comment illustrates the problem pretty well. We could do all those things and we'd still be way, way behind on what climate scientists say we actually need to do, to avoid disaster.
What we need to do is reduce emissions to zero in less than thirty years, with steep declines starting now. That's not just electric grids, it's all transportation, industry, direct emissions from steel and concrete production, agriculture, everything. And then we need to start pulling massive amounts of excess CO2 back out of the atmosphere. Going to the moon was trivial by comparison; without a breakthrough in cheap fusion or something we're not likely to achieve all this.
SRM isn't a solution but it could buy us a little time, before higher temperatures get the planet releasing gigatons of CO2 and methane without any further help from us.
The US is just one of many countries. Not every country agrees that global warming exists. Some countries think global warming will be beneficial.
You could cut the US military budget to $0 and it would be less than a rounding error to what’s needed globally.
You could cut the US military budget to $0 and it would be less than a rounding error to what’s needed globally.
Cost. The "cost" of all of those things is "too high" for the average American, as evidenced by the reaction to such proposals. So, we gotta do something else.
If the US drastically cut its military budget the world will go to war fast. China will take anything it wants.
Our huge over bloated military keeps a lot of countries in check.
WW1 we went home and ignored the world. 20 years everyone was back at it. We didn’t leave after WW2. Longest period of peace in history.
Our huge over bloated military keeps a lot of countries in check.
WW1 we went home and ignored the world. 20 years everyone was back at it. We didn’t leave after WW2. Longest period of peace in history.
No, it's been a period of near-constant American-led war.
We couldn't get people to wear a simple mask.
Drying less? You have politicians that would attack you for even suggesting that.
We've been trying to talk about climate for a long time.
Clearly, a good portion of the country doesn't care.
Drying less? You have politicians that would attack you for even suggesting that.
We've been trying to talk about climate for a long time.
Clearly, a good portion of the country doesn't care.
Because even if every American stopped driving _tomorrow_, we are still going to have the effects of climate change anyway. We can't stop India and China from developing, so instead of trying to limit the rights of Americans to do something which might not even help, it's better to develop a solution such as in TFA.
We can just produce more greenhouse gasses to make the aerosols we pump into the atmosphere to undo just one of the many effects of the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere.
otoh, greenhouse gas emissions will eventually drop anyways, from running out of fuel. Even our best somewhat realistic plans of stopping emissions aren't that much better than what we should be doing in preparation of impeding scarcity anyways... Mitigation is no substitute for prevention, we'll need both anyways (unless we fast-track ourselves into oblivion using the nuclear arsenal cheat code)
We don't seem to need to emit much more greenhouse gases, the amount present in the atmosphere is going to keep Earth heated for a long enough time.
But if we wanted more, think about all the methane that thawing Siberian and Canadian permafrost will release.
But if we wanted more, think about all the methane that thawing Siberian and Canadian permafrost will release.
It absolutely does not mean we can't solve the core problem. You can work on two things at once. You can take medicine to treat disease while you work to fix the underlying root cause
Just put a giant ice cube in the ocean every now and then
No one wants to tell us fatties to not eat farmed animals, and not drive cars okay? /s
Fossil fuel companies knew about climate change and deliberately spent decades obfuscating the issue and warping discourse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696
Etc, etc, etc.
So, blaming people for having stupid opinions that various companies spent billions injecting into the discourse seems misguided. At best.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696
Etc, etc, etc.
So, blaming people for having stupid opinions that various companies spent billions injecting into the discourse seems misguided. At best.
we're we supposed to all stop driving cars?
We can definitely switch to driving electric cars. Especially when most people drive just 20 miles to reach their job, and a significant amount of that is in traffic.
Destroying the air we breath and the planet for an average 20 mile drive, that takes an average 25 minutes, is plain insanity. It's well within the capability of electric cars to get the average person to and from work, and most of any form of driving they usually do.
Destroying the air we breath and the planet for an average 20 mile drive, that takes an average 25 minutes, is plain insanity. It's well within the capability of electric cars to get the average person to and from work, and most of any form of driving they usually do.
We are supposed to stop designing cities around cars, yes.
It's pretty universally accepted that investing in public transport and trains 40 years ago would have led to an awesome economic boon, while dramatically lowering emissions. As mentioned, planning could have been much better. And every poor decision there has some car or oil corporation's fingerprints on it.
We could have spent much more on solar, nuclear, and other cleaner power.
We could have punished media and politicians that helped sell out our planets future for some slimy oil dollars.
There's a lot we could have done. But instead we have takes like yours; a direct result of 40 years of FUD and misinformation. Do you have the faintest idea what those cars, those cows, those oil spills and methane leaks cost us?
And they're going to cost much much more.
We could have spent much more on solar, nuclear, and other cleaner power.
We could have punished media and politicians that helped sell out our planets future for some slimy oil dollars.
There's a lot we could have done. But instead we have takes like yours; a direct result of 40 years of FUD and misinformation. Do you have the faintest idea what those cars, those cows, those oil spills and methane leaks cost us?
And they're going to cost much much more.
I guess not everyone realizes that /s means sarcasm?
I don’t disagree that oil and use of oil has caused a negative impact on Earth lol.
I don’t think we could’ve done anything in the last fourty years nor do I think we can do anything to stop. It’s too late.
There’s no way we can stop the use of oil and cars now. Sure we can switch to electric, but I don’t think that will stop the snowball.
It’s too entrenched and part of our life now. Sure we can be altruistic and ban the sale of non-EVs but what about all the millions of cars that are already in the streets?
The oil pockets are too deep for government to just ban existing vehicles. In fact the governments have caused wars to protect their oil assets…
I don’t disagree that oil and use of oil has caused a negative impact on Earth lol.
I don’t think we could’ve done anything in the last fourty years nor do I think we can do anything to stop. It’s too late.
There’s no way we can stop the use of oil and cars now. Sure we can switch to electric, but I don’t think that will stop the snowball.
It’s too entrenched and part of our life now. Sure we can be altruistic and ban the sale of non-EVs but what about all the millions of cars that are already in the streets?
The oil pockets are too deep for government to just ban existing vehicles. In fact the governments have caused wars to protect their oil assets…
Which makes sense, but we are already doing very large scale interventions with releasing a lot of greenhouse gases (and also other stuff).
Yes, I am confused how an intentional intervention is so frowned upon when unintentional interventions are done on a continuous basis: mass deforestation, mass greenhouse emissions, mass oceanic acidification, satellite deorbiting, mass air transit, massive water redistribution projects etc
Maybe the key to not face the scrutiny of non-interventionists is to mask the intervention as an unrelated commercial venture, in which case it should be pretty much good to go.
Maybe the key to not face the scrutiny of non-interventionists is to mask the intervention as an unrelated commercial venture, in which case it should be pretty much good to go.
> Yes, I am confused how an intentional intervention is so frowned upon when unintentional interventions are done on a continuous basis...?
What's so confusing? By the nature of being intentional, an intentional intervention can be stopped before it does harm.
It's weird logic to think caution should be thrown to the wind because some bad unintentional things weren't prevented.
What's so confusing? By the nature of being intentional, an intentional intervention can be stopped before it does harm.
It's weird logic to think caution should be thrown to the wind because some bad unintentional things weren't prevented.
But a lot of people freak out about attempting geoengineering at all, even at a small scale. There's a UN treaty prohibiting it.
No treaty prohibiting the emission of 36 billion tons of CO2 every year though.
No treaty prohibiting the emission of 36 billion tons of CO2 every year though.
Most of the things you mention (e.g. deforestation, water redistribution) are things people worry about. In fact, the people worried about large scale interventions are usually also the people most worried about emissions, deforestation, ocean acidification, etc. So I don't think there's much hypocrisy here.
We'd be wise to ask, "What could go wrong?"
It's the question we didn't ask about burning fossil fuels. We got our answer the hard way. Have we learned from that?
The cost of not doing might be high. The cost of trying to further manipulate the atmospheric "market" might be worse. Then what?
It's the question we didn't ask about burning fossil fuels. We got our answer the hard way. Have we learned from that?
The cost of not doing might be high. The cost of trying to further manipulate the atmospheric "market" might be worse. Then what?
We got the answer to that 80 years ago. It's not that we fail to imagine what could go wrong. It's that we don't act on our knowledge. If we had course-corrected when we became aware of global warming we wouldn't have a problem.
Or the cost of not doing geoengineering might be higher. You can't just look at one side of the risks.
Yes, definitely this is part of it for me. The other reason I’m concerned (although, agree it’s probably necessary) is that I’m wary of any solution that we can’t undo if it goes awry.
Further to your point, our history is littered with examples of, to steal the Jurassic Park bit, being "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should". Things like moving horrible invasive ecologically devastating species around to "solve a problem" or "it looks pretty" (Cane Toads, Rabbits, and Kudzu, for example) have had dire results.
Cloud seeding is definitely a well practiced thing by now, but it's unclear what the short and long term effects are if we do it at a significant (continent or hemispheric) scale.
I'd love for it to work out and for humanity to actually deflect the looming impacts of climate change.
Cloud seeding is definitely a well practiced thing by now, but it's unclear what the short and long term effects are if we do it at a significant (continent or hemispheric) scale.
I'd love for it to work out and for humanity to actually deflect the looming impacts of climate change.
>> It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility.
It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflexively ignore the potential unknown side effects that can occour when messing with a complex system.
Have you ever thought that perhaps it's people like you who have it wrong? Are you capable of predicting ALL the side effects of such an extreme intervention?
Are you capable of reversing unwanted side effects like a global winter due to this intervation?
How can you know if you even can reverse it IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE UNWANTED SIDE EFFECTS WILL EVENT BE?
It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflexively ignore the potential unknown side effects that can occour when messing with a complex system.
Have you ever thought that perhaps it's people like you who have it wrong? Are you capable of predicting ALL the side effects of such an extreme intervention?
Are you capable of reversing unwanted side effects like a global winter due to this intervation?
How can you know if you even can reverse it IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE UNWANTED SIDE EFFECTS WILL EVENT BE?
"People like me" want research into the methods and don't call for not reducing the emissions. Both of this I explicitly said and both are largely ignored by people who are responding.
As to the main point, as sibling has said, at this point regardless of what we do the climate will be anthropogenic (unless you believe people who say we don't influence it much). There is no return to being naive and innocent about it. The notion that there is some privileged way to act "in harmony with nature" is fictitious and purely human cultural psychology. The current mainstream solutions are also based on thinking that we understand some things and can predict what would happen if we do X or Y.
If I wanted to be cheeky I would say we know very well now how to heat the atmosphere if need be, but actually I defer to climatology research and modeling to resolve any of this.
As to the main point, as sibling has said, at this point regardless of what we do the climate will be anthropogenic (unless you believe people who say we don't influence it much). There is no return to being naive and innocent about it. The notion that there is some privileged way to act "in harmony with nature" is fictitious and purely human cultural psychology. The current mainstream solutions are also based on thinking that we understand some things and can predict what would happen if we do X or Y.
If I wanted to be cheeky I would say we know very well now how to heat the atmosphere if need be, but actually I defer to climatology research and modeling to resolve any of this.
> People can suspect that if the activists are so choosy about the methods, this cannot be that serious and this is not how truly desperate people act.
This is a standard climate denier talking point. It doesn't make any sense unless you believe in a massive conspiracy on the topic.
Yet, ironically, you seem appalled that anyone might doubt your noble motives for attacking the people who would prefer the widely accepted and known solutions to climate change be used first.
This is a standard climate denier talking point. It doesn't make any sense unless you believe in a massive conspiracy on the topic.
Yet, ironically, you seem appalled that anyone might doubt your noble motives for attacking the people who would prefer the widely accepted and known solutions to climate change be used first.
First, I related this as a perception problem for random members of the public who cannot be expected to go deep into the science of the problem. Second, no conspiracy would be needed, just hypocrisy of individuals. If someone tells you you'll go blind if you rub your privates, it doesn't necessarily mean they truly believe that, they may just want to influence your behavior by scaring you. It could be the case (or might seem so) with some climate activists, who predicate action on also realizing their social projects that might even be noble in themselves. This has nothing to do with legitimacy of the whole climate issue.
My initial comment probably appears harsh because I was surprised by the fairly uniform tone of comments back then. I'm not appalled by anything, I know one can expect no quarter in this kind of hot button discussions :)
My initial comment probably appears harsh because I was surprised by the fairly uniform tone of comments back then. I'm not appalled by anything, I know one can expect no quarter in this kind of hot button discussions :)
> Second, no conspiracy would be needed, just hypocrisy of individuals.
To quote your first sentence:
> It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility.
Which is definitely conspiratorial. It's not just that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions, no, they have been trained.
Second, the hypocrisy of people benefiting from the status quo, defending a stupid idea to squeeze a few years of carbon emission, and accusing the other side of being ideologically driven is quite striking.
You insult the other side by summoning the idea that they are simple peoples believing in gods and wood spirits, dismiss their opinion by projecting your own ideologically-driven hypocrisy, engage in conspiratorial-adjacent thinking by considering that their opinion is the result of propaganda.
Note how close this is all to the usual climate skeptics rhetorical toolbox. After having to finally conceded that there is an issue, they are trying to justify their insane beliefs by saying that "people were not nice enough when explaining the problem and agreeing with my politics".
Don't claim to advocate for science-based approach by using such rhetorical devices.
To quote your first sentence:
> It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility.
Which is definitely conspiratorial. It's not just that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions, no, they have been trained.
Second, the hypocrisy of people benefiting from the status quo, defending a stupid idea to squeeze a few years of carbon emission, and accusing the other side of being ideologically driven is quite striking.
You insult the other side by summoning the idea that they are simple peoples believing in gods and wood spirits, dismiss their opinion by projecting your own ideologically-driven hypocrisy, engage in conspiratorial-adjacent thinking by considering that their opinion is the result of propaganda.
Note how close this is all to the usual climate skeptics rhetorical toolbox. After having to finally conceded that there is an issue, they are trying to justify their insane beliefs by saying that "people were not nice enough when explaining the problem and agreeing with my politics".
Don't claim to advocate for science-based approach by using such rhetorical devices.
I doubt I should really continue discussion on these increasingly personal terms, but you're reading my first sentence in a very uncharitable way. (I mean fine, it was combative.) I could maybe accept your formulation "that they might have incomplete or lacking science training, or are defaulting to incorrect common-sense intuitions", except I'd feel that it would sound (even more?) patronizing, as we are no doubt all trained into some opinions in some way. Just by participating in culture. To be honest, I doubt that many people deeply engage with outright propaganda in any direction, I think bigger factors are inertia and not engaging with world affairs that much.
If I tried to be milder and more specific, I could have said: I'd like people to have circa null prior for any technology (i.e. also not blindly enthusiastic), and what I was seeing was, I think, reacting with disaster movie tropes and vaguely mythological worldview. The rest of your post is unclear on whether you accusing me of stuff and/or people you lump me with because of your discourse analysis. I won't be addressing that anyway.
If I tried to be milder and more specific, I could have said: I'd like people to have circa null prior for any technology (i.e. also not blindly enthusiastic), and what I was seeing was, I think, reacting with disaster movie tropes and vaguely mythological worldview. The rest of your post is unclear on whether you accusing me of stuff and/or people you lump me with because of your discourse analysis. I won't be addressing that anyway.
> widely accepted and known solutions to climate change
No such solutions exist. Cutting back CO2 emissions by a few percent is not enough. Anything else is ignoring significant economic and political realities. There are no widely-accepted and known solutions to climate change that don't involve major ecological devastation and the destruction of all our coastal cities.
That's why we're looking at options like this.
No such solutions exist. Cutting back CO2 emissions by a few percent is not enough. Anything else is ignoring significant economic and political realities. There are no widely-accepted and known solutions to climate change that don't involve major ecological devastation and the destruction of all our coastal cities.
That's why we're looking at options like this.
The IPCC has looked into this in some detail and regularly updated their summaries of the latest science for years. They consider solar radiation management a high risk option compared with all the other options they have documented in detail:
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/
Literally this is about research to figure out more about how to control these things. It isn't a plan to ignorantly execute the actual idea. If you are correct, the research should enable us to be informed and NOT build this out. You should be against not doing research.
We are intervening with the complex system by injecting gases into it already.
When stopping the gas injections proved nearly inposs, trying a counter-intervention seems only logical.
When stopping the gas injections proved nearly inposs, trying a counter-intervention seems only logical.
> stopping the gas injections proved nearly inposs
Aka we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas :/
Seriously. To this day we're letting fossil fuel companies get away with literal murder. Acting like change is impossible is a view those companies actively promote. Don't fall for it.
Aka we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas :/
Seriously. To this day we're letting fossil fuel companies get away with literal murder. Acting like change is impossible is a view those companies actively promote. Don't fall for it.
Oh please, reducing emissions is super slow and painful and anyone could see that.
Every car switches to electric -> this is happening, but it takes 5-10 years to phase out a car. If 100% of new car sales are electric, we’ll have to wait until 2030. But we’re not at 100% yet. So we’ll probably only get there around 2040-2050.
Every house switches to non-gas water heating and climate control -> this one takes even longer, 10-20 years to phase out. It’s probably easier to get to 100% clean new sales
Every industrial process switches -> I don’t know enough to even speculate but this sounds like an even longer CAPEX cycle
Every plane & ship switches -> we don’t have the tech for this figured out yet. Ships are probably one of the biggest things we should switch over ASAP.
Every powerplant switches to nuclear/solar/wind/hydro: another multi-decade project.
I want all of the above, if only for cleaner air for health reasons, and because I’m an engineer and nuclear + electric seems more elegant. But it will take a very long time.
Every car switches to electric -> this is happening, but it takes 5-10 years to phase out a car. If 100% of new car sales are electric, we’ll have to wait until 2030. But we’re not at 100% yet. So we’ll probably only get there around 2040-2050.
Every house switches to non-gas water heating and climate control -> this one takes even longer, 10-20 years to phase out. It’s probably easier to get to 100% clean new sales
Every industrial process switches -> I don’t know enough to even speculate but this sounds like an even longer CAPEX cycle
Every plane & ship switches -> we don’t have the tech for this figured out yet. Ships are probably one of the biggest things we should switch over ASAP.
Every powerplant switches to nuclear/solar/wind/hydro: another multi-decade project.
I want all of the above, if only for cleaner air for health reasons, and because I’m an engineer and nuclear + electric seems more elegant. But it will take a very long time.
We could have started the switch to cleaner power and better planning and quality trains and public transport etc. forty years ago, but we were knowingly lied to.
Fossil fuel companies knew about climate change and deliberately spent decades obfuscating the issue and warping discourse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696
Fossil fuel companies knew about climate change and deliberately spent decades obfuscating the issue and warping discourse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696
Well OK, but now that we are where we are, we have to take the most rational next step. I’m not poking myself in the eye to get back at the oil companies.
Power plants need to come first. Make electric so cheap that electric cars are a no brainer. Not California nonsense of electric shortages while demanding everyone uses electricity.
[deleted]
Because you can implement a solution gradually and measure the gradient. The gradient strongly informs the final outcome.
It's not foolproof, but it's better than what you're implying.
It's not foolproof, but it's better than what you're implying.
We're already making massive interventions to a complex system. It's way too late to get all precious about not messing with it; now we have to muddle through and make our best guess about what set of interventions will do the least harm.
Practically, the planet is very big and injecting reflective material into the stratosphere would be a ridiculously expensive proposition, with little or no immediate economic reward for those carrying it out.
Now, when Pinatubo blew in the early 1990s, it produced about a decade-long cooling effect relative to what otherwise would have happened, but that effect faded. So, you'd have to have a plan to inject a Pinatubo-scale amount of material into the atmosphere at least once a decade, and underneath that, the fossil CO2 and CH4 emissions would steadily be increasing in the atmosphere, so if the project was ever paused, you'd have a rapid heating period which would probably be worse in immediate effect than if you'd just allow the warming to progress more steadily.
Those are the practical reasons I think it's a nonsensical proposal, along the lines of parking a sunshade in space (getting that much material out to Lagrange 1 would be so costly as to be unimaginable). It's far cheaper just to replace, say, 1-3% of fossil fuel production per year with equivalent wind/solar/storage.
Now, when Pinatubo blew in the early 1990s, it produced about a decade-long cooling effect relative to what otherwise would have happened, but that effect faded. So, you'd have to have a plan to inject a Pinatubo-scale amount of material into the atmosphere at least once a decade, and underneath that, the fossil CO2 and CH4 emissions would steadily be increasing in the atmosphere, so if the project was ever paused, you'd have a rapid heating period which would probably be worse in immediate effect than if you'd just allow the warming to progress more steadily.
Those are the practical reasons I think it's a nonsensical proposal, along the lines of parking a sunshade in space (getting that much material out to Lagrange 1 would be so costly as to be unimaginable). It's far cheaper just to replace, say, 1-3% of fossil fuel production per year with equivalent wind/solar/storage.
Without having actually done the research the White House is now funding, we can't just draw these conclusions and dismiss the ideas as impractical. Funding the research is good. Maybe there is a relatively cheap (can be funded by one nation) and reversible way to do this, don't we have to at least try to find it?
There is no rational reason to be against gathering more information.
> It's far cheaper just to replace, say, 1-3% of fossil fuel production per year with equivalent wind/solar/storage.
But this isn't going to happen, and even if it were, it's too little too late to stop climate change, a lot of which is already locked in due to past emissions.
There is no rational reason to be against gathering more information.
> It's far cheaper just to replace, say, 1-3% of fossil fuel production per year with equivalent wind/solar/storage.
But this isn't going to happen, and even if it were, it's too little too late to stop climate change, a lot of which is already locked in due to past emissions.
Kurzgesagt covered this in one of their videos, it is not as hard as you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/dSu5sXmsur4
Cheaper, and insufficient. We've got less than 30 years to reduce our emissions to zero. Replace a little more than 3% of fossil plants annually and you decarbonize the grid in that time, but there's also transportation. You'll need way more electricity for electric cars, and then there's ships and airplanes, for which we'll need some kind of carbon-neutral liquid fuel. We have to replace all the steel plants, and figure out some kind of carbon-neutral cement, and somehow stop all the emissions from agriculture, and do something about all the high-temperature industrial processes that burn their own fossil. Meanwhile, our energy usage is increasing by a couple percent a year, which is why with all the wind/solar/storage we've built so far, we haven't made a dent in decreasing emissions.
I imagine the "inject a Pinatubo-scale amount of material" idea gets many folks excited around the possibility of bringing back Project Plowshare.
> Those are the practical reasons I think it's a nonsensical proposal, along the lines of parking a sunshade in space (getting that much material out to Lagrange 1 would be so costly as to be unimaginable).
But it's sci-fi nonsense, so full speed ahead because I believe in science!
But it's sci-fi nonsense, so full speed ahead because I believe in science!
You'll note it's ironic we want to replace the natural albedo from the ice we are melting instead of trying not to destroy it in the first place. Espacially since said system has been proven to work and be life sustaining for millions of years.
To me it's like startups creating robot bees: finding an inferior expensive potentially dangerous solution to a problem that was already solved for free since forever.
But you can't make money with preserving the health of the patient. Better have it sick and sell him pills.
To me it's like startups creating robot bees: finding an inferior expensive potentially dangerous solution to a problem that was already solved for free since forever.
But you can't make money with preserving the health of the patient. Better have it sick and sell him pills.
It would be nicer in many ways if we could just use the natural ice sheet, but AFAIK by now we cannot rely on it, even if we magically removed all the political problems and suddenly started doing the right thing. Based on available information it's possible, or plausible, that irreversible processes are already under way.
I'd say the priority should be against the threats to the existence of people. Consequences for the main guilty parties is an important but separate issue. I do hope that this whole crisis could contribute to curbing corporate power (by gaining widespread popularity and push for this, among young people especially). But the priority is keeping the patient alive, because without this the question of also making them a good person is moot.
edit: I also think based on the descriptions that some of the ideas could be straightforward enough to just be executed by government services (akin to firefighters or coastal guard) without any contractors, but this more of a question of how the governments function, possible corruption etc.
I'd say the priority should be against the threats to the existence of people. Consequences for the main guilty parties is an important but separate issue. I do hope that this whole crisis could contribute to curbing corporate power (by gaining widespread popularity and push for this, among young people especially). But the priority is keeping the patient alive, because without this the question of also making them a good person is moot.
edit: I also think based on the descriptions that some of the ideas could be straightforward enough to just be executed by government services (akin to firefighters or coastal guard) without any contractors, but this more of a question of how the governments function, possible corruption etc.
> has been proven to work and be life sustaining for millions of years
This statement is wrong for a few reasons. Firstly, this is a system that repeatedly produces minor ice ages that transform large portions of continents into barren ice deserts for tens of thousands of years. It is also capable of producing major ice ages that last millions of years and cover large portions of the entire Earth in ice and this happens if there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Not exactly life sustaining. Secondly, ice, the climate that produces it and the Earth at large have no concern for the life that lives upon or within them. They are decidedly unforgiving and will kill any lifeform that doesn't fight for its life against them. Life exists in spite of the abiotic world and in direct conflict with its perpetual slide towards entropy. Given a long enough timeline this system will change into a state that is largely hostile towards human life. It is a massive misnomer to call it life sustaining.
This statement is wrong for a few reasons. Firstly, this is a system that repeatedly produces minor ice ages that transform large portions of continents into barren ice deserts for tens of thousands of years. It is also capable of producing major ice ages that last millions of years and cover large portions of the entire Earth in ice and this happens if there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Not exactly life sustaining. Secondly, ice, the climate that produces it and the Earth at large have no concern for the life that lives upon or within them. They are decidedly unforgiving and will kill any lifeform that doesn't fight for its life against them. Life exists in spite of the abiotic world and in direct conflict with its perpetual slide towards entropy. Given a long enough timeline this system will change into a state that is largely hostile towards human life. It is a massive misnomer to call it life sustaining.
> But you can't make money with preserving the health of the patient.
Have you not seen the cost of a gym membership?
There's money to be made everywhere. And in our society, it will be made regardless of the cost.
Have you not seen the cost of a gym membership?
There's money to be made everywhere. And in our society, it will be made regardless of the cost.
The ice is a reason for SRM. There are proposals to use aerosols specifically to protect arctic ice. Otherwise it's very likely to melt away before we're able to reduce emissions to zero, much less draw CO2 back down to safe levels.
The making robot bees analogy is good but I think you might be overlooking an important angle on the problem.
This is like inventing robot bee replacements, if bees were going extinct (which some people were worried about for a while, and some still are) … and while Bee populations may be collapsing but they don’t seem destined for extinction, just massive population losses that can in time recover like humans did from the Black Death… and it’s not even universally bad among all bee species.
However unlike Bees, of one species or another, which have a very clear path to repopulation and recovery overall if we don’t keep dumping pesticides on them (or at least keep looking for ones that don’t hurt them as much which has absolutely been an active area of research) … the climate may not be able to return to normal.
We’re not even sure that if we had a magic wand, and could change all human experience and industry across the whole planet so it was net carbon neutral (so neutral across co2, methane and all the other greenhouse gasses combined) starting right this very second. We might still have passed the tipping point and just be waiting for the current warmer climate based on current co2 levels to melt enough permafrost that we expose unaccounted for clathrates or deeply buried rotting bogs that will start putting out methane and continue the slide into all the predicted outcomes of uncontrolled climate change.
This system is so big and complex that we’re frantically trying to analyse it while simultaneously trying to frantically map the scope of the known unknowns meanwhile there are all the unknown unknowns that exist across the planet and every single major study acknowledges whenever they talk about the uncertainty in their measurements or their models or their survey data.
It’s one thing to invent something useless. It’s another thing to not have a plan B. Inventing robot bees is a plan B to help prevent mass starvation if bees were to go extinct, not very likely and even if they did not all crops need bees, plenty of other insects pollinate plants as well, which is why the robot bees is a little silly in practice but not in principle.
Studying geo-engineering is the Plan B for if we can’t turn back the clock due to either collective failure to change our ways enough, or fast enough, or soon enough… and when soon enough may have been yesterday and we may not even know it was yesterday until years from now when something else happens we didn’t fully understand or predict… it’s just stupid to not have been researching some plans B, C, and D. We shouldn’t necessarily give any of these more money than the current effort to actually fix the problem at its root cause but we should still be starting the research now before it’s too late for any possible plan to help. As to how much money, that’s a political issue thats too complicated for a simple HN comment that’s already getting quite long.
This is like inventing robot bee replacements, if bees were going extinct (which some people were worried about for a while, and some still are) … and while Bee populations may be collapsing but they don’t seem destined for extinction, just massive population losses that can in time recover like humans did from the Black Death… and it’s not even universally bad among all bee species.
However unlike Bees, of one species or another, which have a very clear path to repopulation and recovery overall if we don’t keep dumping pesticides on them (or at least keep looking for ones that don’t hurt them as much which has absolutely been an active area of research) … the climate may not be able to return to normal.
We’re not even sure that if we had a magic wand, and could change all human experience and industry across the whole planet so it was net carbon neutral (so neutral across co2, methane and all the other greenhouse gasses combined) starting right this very second. We might still have passed the tipping point and just be waiting for the current warmer climate based on current co2 levels to melt enough permafrost that we expose unaccounted for clathrates or deeply buried rotting bogs that will start putting out methane and continue the slide into all the predicted outcomes of uncontrolled climate change.
This system is so big and complex that we’re frantically trying to analyse it while simultaneously trying to frantically map the scope of the known unknowns meanwhile there are all the unknown unknowns that exist across the planet and every single major study acknowledges whenever they talk about the uncertainty in their measurements or their models or their survey data.
It’s one thing to invent something useless. It’s another thing to not have a plan B. Inventing robot bees is a plan B to help prevent mass starvation if bees were to go extinct, not very likely and even if they did not all crops need bees, plenty of other insects pollinate plants as well, which is why the robot bees is a little silly in practice but not in principle.
Studying geo-engineering is the Plan B for if we can’t turn back the clock due to either collective failure to change our ways enough, or fast enough, or soon enough… and when soon enough may have been yesterday and we may not even know it was yesterday until years from now when something else happens we didn’t fully understand or predict… it’s just stupid to not have been researching some plans B, C, and D. We shouldn’t necessarily give any of these more money than the current effort to actually fix the problem at its root cause but we should still be starting the research now before it’s too late for any possible plan to help. As to how much money, that’s a political issue thats too complicated for a simple HN comment that’s already getting quite long.
I understand where you are coming from and agree that we need to know more about this to do it properly if required. However, I think some of this reflex is jusified by the known side-effects (not even the potential unintended consequences).
Greenhouse gases heat the surface and the atmosphere, but solar radiation management (SRM) mostly cools the surface. If you use SRM to get the surface temperature 'right' that atmoshpere is still warmer that it would have been. This means you get less rain. Many places care more about rain than temperature.
This is a well understood consequence, but the specifics are where it gets very tricky. There is a non-zero chance that using SRM to cool the planet may also kill the Amazon rainforest by reducing rainfall. This obviously makes things a whole lot worse and no longer buys us time. [0]
This is not even an unknown unintendend consquence, it is pretty clear already. Obviously this doesn't mean we shouldn't look into it, but we already know the consequences of geoengineering are ... not good.
[0] - https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/12/10887/2012/acp-12-108...
Greenhouse gases heat the surface and the atmosphere, but solar radiation management (SRM) mostly cools the surface. If you use SRM to get the surface temperature 'right' that atmoshpere is still warmer that it would have been. This means you get less rain. Many places care more about rain than temperature.
This is a well understood consequence, but the specifics are where it gets very tricky. There is a non-zero chance that using SRM to cool the planet may also kill the Amazon rainforest by reducing rainfall. This obviously makes things a whole lot worse and no longer buys us time. [0]
This is not even an unknown unintendend consquence, it is pretty clear already. Obviously this doesn't mean we shouldn't look into it, but we already know the consequences of geoengineering are ... not good.
[0] - https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/12/10887/2012/acp-12-108...
> It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility.
It's good to have skepticism about anything additive, as these decisions affect everybody and can have unexpected outcomes, for example using detergent to break up oil spills can make the effects worse on coral https://www.livescience.com/4567-bad-worse-oil-spills-cleane...
I'm not saying the proposed solution is good or bad, but trying new things on a big scale can have unexpected outcomes, and it's good to be wary.
It's good to have skepticism about anything additive, as these decisions affect everybody and can have unexpected outcomes, for example using detergent to break up oil spills can make the effects worse on coral https://www.livescience.com/4567-bad-worse-oil-spills-cleane...
I'm not saying the proposed solution is good or bad, but trying new things on a big scale can have unexpected outcomes, and it's good to be wary.
I reflex against this because its going to be a ton of money going into research/deployment of this, meanwhile theres still massive pollution and single use plastic production going on. Maybe spend the money to fix that first.
Meanwhile farmers in Brazil are torching one of the planets lungs and no one seems to be doing anything about it.
Meanwhile farmers in Brazil are torching one of the planets lungs and no one seems to be doing anything about it.
Single-use plastic is a serious problem, but it's insignificant compared to crossing the tipping point on climate.
My reflex is to consider edge cases.
For example, what happens if this is launched, works, and then a Krakatoa 2.0 goes off. What's the game plan in that scenario?
Sincere question, these systems are well beyond me.
Then we stop increasing albedo for a bit. Basically PWM-ing the Earth's solar flux. As long as the decay time of the albedo modification is known, it's quite unlikely that we could induce a snowball earth.
Sounds like a Hell of a risk when playing with a complex system that is not yet fully understood.
Don't worry- Russia has a vested interest in warming the earth a bit, so they'll put out CO2 to counteract the cooling.
Climate systems are chaotic. They display sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Changing those conditions will have literally incalculable results.
I understand how people might be a bit shy to trust geo engineering since scientists will tell us we can’t precisely predict the results.
That being said, we’re currently conducting an uncontrolled climate experiment with the warming gasses we’re releasing. Reversing some of that is probably safe and sane.
I understand how people might be a bit shy to trust geo engineering since scientists will tell us we can’t precisely predict the results.
That being said, we’re currently conducting an uncontrolled climate experiment with the warming gasses we’re releasing. Reversing some of that is probably safe and sane.
Problem is that the only reason we don't push ahead with renewables is that governments would rather use existing infrastructure. They want to amortize sunk construction costs. They don't want to upgrade the grid.
Solar panels now cost just 20 cents a Watt and can convert sun into electricity with about 6 times the efficiency of photosynthesis.
If we make it cheap to punt, then the consequences could truly be dire.
Solar panels now cost just 20 cents a Watt and can convert sun into electricity with about 6 times the efficiency of photosynthesis.
If we make it cheap to punt, then the consequences could truly be dire.
The cost to "punt" is zero, and it is what we are doing today. It is what we will continue doing until there is a perfect magical technology solution with no side effects and very low costs. Something like a 100kW power plant that runs 24/7, creates no emissions, requires no fuel or maintenance, and can be set up in your backyard for $99.
There is no crisis coming that will be severe enough (in the developed world) to change this. Politicians don't care, because people don't care. Climate change doesn't even make the top 10 priorities of most US voters. Not even the people in Florida whose houses will be going underwater care.
I wonder how long we will be waiting for easy button-press perfection with no downsides?
I wonder how dire the consequences of our waiting will be?
There is no crisis coming that will be severe enough (in the developed world) to change this. Politicians don't care, because people don't care. Climate change doesn't even make the top 10 priorities of most US voters. Not even the people in Florida whose houses will be going underwater care.
I wonder how long we will be waiting for easy button-press perfection with no downsides?
I wonder how dire the consequences of our waiting will be?
> Politicians don't care, because people don't care.
Maybe(!) it's for a similar reason to why most of these people also don't do calculus, or juggle, etc: they do not know how to, because they were never taught how to.
Maybe(!) it's for a similar reason to why most of these people also don't do calculus, or juggle, etc: they do not know how to, because they were never taught how to.
I'm not sure what effort to teach about climate change has been spared in the past couple decades.
One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain.
I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure.
One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain.
I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure.
My point is rather abstract: if you are not pleased with the behavior of the agents in your simulation, it may be worth actually teaching them skills that are known to be beneficial, rather than just talking about it (and we often don't/can't even get this far).
As one example (and I genuinely don't mean it as an insult):
> One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain.
This is not actually known, and is unknowable (to any substantial degree of accuracy). And yet: consider how often one encounters such claims, including in genuinely intelligent communities like HN.
If I could make a list of just three "stop doing this" rules, "premature formation of epistemically unsound beliefs (and seeding of those viral beliefs into the memeplex)" would definitely be one of them.
> I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure.
This, on the other hand, is not only excellent, but it is also highly anomalous (I propose).
As one example (and I genuinely don't mean it as an insult):
> One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain.
This is not actually known, and is unknowable (to any substantial degree of accuracy). And yet: consider how often one encounters such claims, including in genuinely intelligent communities like HN.
If I could make a list of just three "stop doing this" rules, "premature formation of epistemically unsound beliefs (and seeding of those viral beliefs into the memeplex)" would definitely be one of them.
> I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure.
This, on the other hand, is not only excellent, but it is also highly anomalous (I propose).
I guess it depends on your definition of "taught". Only about 50% of US adults agree on the crux of the issue, that human emissions contribute a great deal to global heating, while 20% say human emissions are not important [1]. Some large percentage of the population, I would guess at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them. And their audiences may at some level understand this. It's not really about what is being said, it's about the way it affirms the coalition and its alignment with truth and goodness.
There is perhaps room for genuine teaching - but I'm not sure what it would take to dig out of where we are today.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-vi...
Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them. And their audiences may at some level understand this. It's not really about what is being said, it's about the way it affirms the coalition and its alignment with truth and goodness.
There is perhaps room for genuine teaching - but I'm not sure what it would take to dig out of where we are today.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-vi...
> I guess it depends on your definition of "taught".
Indeed - there are the labels we apply to things, and then there is what lies underneath. And then there is the question of whether we form a distinction between the two (or, the degree to which we [are able to] form a distinction, and whether this is a constant or varies under different conditions, and the degree to which and ways in which it varies, etc).
> I do think that some large percentage of the population, probably at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
> Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them.
1. Do you believe that it is only conservative sources and conservative people who can be objectively observed engaging in this behavior:
a) on a relative scale?
b) on an absolute scale?
2. Same question, but replace "believe" with "think it is necessarily and comprehensively true (in a formal, Justified True Belief sense)".
Indeed - there are the labels we apply to things, and then there is what lies underneath. And then there is the question of whether we form a distinction between the two (or, the degree to which we [are able to] form a distinction, and whether this is a constant or varies under different conditions, and the degree to which and ways in which it varies, etc).
> I do think that some large percentage of the population, probably at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
> Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them.
1. Do you believe that it is only conservative sources and conservative people who can be objectively observed engaging in this behavior:
a) on a relative scale?
b) on an absolute scale?
2. Same question, but replace "believe" with "think it is necessarily and comprehensively true (in a formal, Justified True Belief sense)".
Re 1 and 2, both sides do it, but I find the whole "false equivalence" and "which side is worse" discussion nauseating and refuse to compare the two on the same scale. I think it suffices to say that neither can be neglected in understanding the current situation.
Stereotypically, right-wing propaganda seems to manipulate through brute force, and left-wing propaganda through selective negligence of cognitive biases. But even this perception is influenced by who does the fact-checking and how.
Stereotypically, right-wing propaganda seems to manipulate through brute force, and left-wing propaganda through selective negligence of cognitive biases. But even this perception is influenced by who does the fact-checking and how.
I can certainly understand your frustration, and I share it...but if we are really serious about climate change and various other issues, shouldn't we not only be willing, but strongly desire to determine with certainty whether the methods we use to govern our behavior (which were designed in relatively archaic times) are adequate to face the challenges of the 21st century?
If this was any other kind of project, the quality of leaders and design of systems of leadership would absolutely be brought into question by most people - does it not seem more than a little weird that the political realm [1] is treated as if it is radioactive, beyond even simple discussion?
Does this seem rational?
[1] Well, ours that is - we seem to be more than happy to overthrow ones we do not like, and even consider it righteous.
If this was any other kind of project, the quality of leaders and design of systems of leadership would absolutely be brought into question by most people - does it not seem more than a little weird that the political realm [1] is treated as if it is radioactive, beyond even simple discussion?
Does this seem rational?
[1] Well, ours that is - we seem to be more than happy to overthrow ones we do not like, and even consider it righteous.
Doomsday fear tactics doesn't move the needle. It's bad messaging and no one will ever fill fulfilled by following it. Change the message you might get more action.
This is great because this is actually a practical solution over "lower all fuel emissions and stop eating beef" which may actually have zero effect over flooding and wildfires which are supposedly due to climate change but no one can say for sure.
It would also reduce the power output from solar installations worldwide. It’s like retroactively taxing those who invested in sustainable energy generation - and without permission, too.
It’s not a trained reflex; it’s being humble enough to recognize one’s own ignorance when confronted with the complexity of the system at end.
Undoubtedly there would be disaster with unintended consequences.
Undoubtedly there would be disaster with unintended consequences.
and undoubtably we are undergoing disasters with wholly unintended consequences.
When the house is on fire, you don't worry about water damage.
When the house is on fire, you don't worry about water damage.
More aptly: if your house is on fire, you don't remove all of the oxygen from the planet.
That's more like, what's happening now with polluters indiscriminately emitting whatever into the atmosphere without any effective rules.
But I guess that's ok somehow? And trying literally anything to reverse it is met with horror and hyperbolic rhetoric like 'remove all the oxygen from the planet'.
But I guess that's ok somehow? And trying literally anything to reverse it is met with horror and hyperbolic rhetoric like 'remove all the oxygen from the planet'.
I was interested to see the relevant term in the IPCC report. If I was reading correctly (not assured) that's a human caused effect which is mitigating climate change.
> People can suspect that if the activists are so choosy about the methods, this cannot be that serious and this is not how truly desperate people act.
That's quite the jump you are making there.
That's quite the jump you are making there.
we are quite primed to believe anything anthropogenic is bad, anthropogenic heating is bad, so antrhopogenic cooling is bad
It reminds me of people that end up on a long list of prescriptions. Each next drug counteracts the negative side effects of the ones before. We all know this is not the best course.
Well, I mean, I'd hope you wouldn't recommend they just take no drugs at all.
I don't think anyone thinks geo-engineering is the preferred solution (in the abstract). The question is what is a practical solution to the problem?
Germany, to me, is a cautionary tale. The shut down nukes and subsidized renewables. But here they are depending on a despot for energy -- with likely severe consequences this winter. And they are increasing coal energy production.
I don't think anyone thinks geo-engineering is the preferred solution (in the abstract). The question is what is a practical solution to the problem?
Germany, to me, is a cautionary tale. The shut down nukes and subsidized renewables. But here they are depending on a despot for energy -- with likely severe consequences this winter. And they are increasing coal energy production.
> It's interesting to me how much people are trained to reflex against this possibility.
Yeah, massively ambitious whiz-bang technology has never had unintended consequences. /s
Yeah, massively ambitious whiz-bang technology has never had unintended consequences. /s
We need a new religion that worships civilization and condemns degrowth as a sin.
Catch me at the alter of neo-liberal globalism next Sunday /s.
The scientific community has a track record for bringing a lot of good in the world but also for being wrong quite a lot. Just think about your typical food pyramids. There’s now research that says cholesterol isn’t dictated by the food you eat.
Around climate change as well, there are now talks about some of the changes we are observing being part of the natural cycle of the earth based on core samples. No doubt we’ve made things worse but maybe not as bad as we think.
Isn’t Florida supposed to be under water now?
Also kind of funny top of Reddits environment Reddit had two top threads recently where one was saying we are losing water around some land mass due to climate change and another saying complete opposite. They were right beside another on the feed.
Scientific communities aren’t in consensus about global warming and climate change. I frankly now (being a hardcore believer in the past) am now on the fence about some aspects of it.
I really don’t think we’re as advance a species as some of our ambitions might lead us to think.
You can’t really test stuff like this in a small scale and it could have drastic impact on us as a single planet species. People would be right to be dubious.
Finally don’t be fooled. Scientific community, just like the Engineering field, does shit for their gain. They all fudge the numbers. They all change the lenses to shed light on what they want. This is why we’ve seen some scientific inaccuracies. For example Sugar studies being quashed in the past… I guess also with the vaccines recently lol
It’s condescending to think that a reasonable amount of dubiousism means people think the “wood spirits” will punish us.
Around climate change as well, there are now talks about some of the changes we are observing being part of the natural cycle of the earth based on core samples. No doubt we’ve made things worse but maybe not as bad as we think.
Isn’t Florida supposed to be under water now?
Also kind of funny top of Reddits environment Reddit had two top threads recently where one was saying we are losing water around some land mass due to climate change and another saying complete opposite. They were right beside another on the feed.
Scientific communities aren’t in consensus about global warming and climate change. I frankly now (being a hardcore believer in the past) am now on the fence about some aspects of it.
I really don’t think we’re as advance a species as some of our ambitions might lead us to think.
You can’t really test stuff like this in a small scale and it could have drastic impact on us as a single planet species. People would be right to be dubious.
Finally don’t be fooled. Scientific community, just like the Engineering field, does shit for their gain. They all fudge the numbers. They all change the lenses to shed light on what they want. This is why we’ve seen some scientific inaccuracies. For example Sugar studies being quashed in the past… I guess also with the vaccines recently lol
It’s condescending to think that a reasonable amount of dubiousism means people think the “wood spirits” will punish us.
> the changes we are observing being part of the natural cycle
I really doubt that is true, but in the end it doesn't matter. We need to climate control the Earth to keep things as static as possible. Even if we discount the doomsday scenarios, the economic and human costs to climate change are staggering.
I really doubt that is true, but in the end it doesn't matter. We need to climate control the Earth to keep things as static as possible. Even if we discount the doomsday scenarios, the economic and human costs to climate change are staggering.
[deleted]
It's remarkable how well the fossil-funded propaganda has worked.
What a clever turnabout! You must have so many reddit points
This whole site is a CJ and hypocrisy. We’re all on our devices, made my minors in third world countries, using electricity powered by non renewable resources.
My original post was criticizing our blind trust in this research in a complex system that we understand very little of. Rather than changing our ways governments would rather gamble on fucking up the earth all together. Ands… criticizing this, let the tribes of YC means we believe in tree spirits…
My original post was criticizing our blind trust in this research in a complex system that we understand very little of. Rather than changing our ways governments would rather gamble on fucking up the earth all together. Ands… criticizing this, let the tribes of YC means we believe in tree spirits…
Actually, some of the propaganda artist died of blood clots and aids like conditions when they took the vaccine. Unfortunately, they did not take five booster shots like we did. /s
"Some of" meaning a tiny fraction of the total population vs those that suffered no ill effects from the vaccination at all.
Yeah we don’t care about some because they aren’t us or our loved ones
As opposed to the other crowd who callously disregarded the dangers of the virus because it was primarily dangerous to the elderly.
I wonder what represents a larger group of people: those at risk from side effects of the vaccination or every human being older than 65?
I wonder what represents a larger group of people: those at risk from side effects of the vaccination or every human being older than 65?
> I guess also with the vaccines recently lol
The only mass fraud uncovered was supporting therapeutics, not vaccines, which work exactly as well as they are claimed to. (Go ahead, link the BMJ report about Pfizer, where shoddy practices were reported at a company operating 3/153 test sites).
> I really don’t think we’re as advance a species as some of our ambitions might lead us to think.
Well…
The only mass fraud uncovered was supporting therapeutics, not vaccines, which work exactly as well as they are claimed to. (Go ahead, link the BMJ report about Pfizer, where shoddy practices were reported at a company operating 3/153 test sites).
> I really don’t think we’re as advance a species as some of our ambitions might lead us to think.
Well…
Erring on the side of skepticism around deploying irreversible global changes is rational. Humans have a track record of deploying techniques and technologies well before the consequences are well understood, so it makes sense to actively attempt to counterbalance that tendency when the consequences of getting it wrong are extreme.
Because humans are apes. Would you trust a bunch of monkeys to tamper with one of the most complex and critical systems in existence? No. Humans are not smart enough and too corrupt to be tampering with such complex and critical systems. The elites can spray as many aerosols into their homes as they like, they can inject whatever substance they want into their bodies and plug their brains into whatever infernal machine they want but don't subject me to these experiments.
But those apes already did tamper. For centuries. Even the worst hobby surgeon should better be allowed to finish the job than leaving the wound open if there isn't someone better qualified at hand.
Yes, and the result of this tampering doesn't inspire much confidence. I doubt humans understand what's actually going on. How can they come up with a solution when they don't even fully understand the problem? The problem of climate change is insanely complex with billions of variables.
Also, how can they possibly understand all the side effects of spraying aerosols into the atmosphere of a massive, highly complex planet which supports an incalculable number of living organisms? They didn't know that burning fossil fuels would lead to climate change when they started doing it, who is to say that spraying massive amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere will not lead to something else which they did not anticipate?
This proposed solution is akin flawed scientific practices of earlier times such as blood-letting or whacking people over the head with a stick to chase out daemons. At every point in history, people with fancy academic certificates have always been certain that they knew what they were doing and they've been proven wrong over and over.
Also, how can they possibly understand all the side effects of spraying aerosols into the atmosphere of a massive, highly complex planet which supports an incalculable number of living organisms? They didn't know that burning fossil fuels would lead to climate change when they started doing it, who is to say that spraying massive amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere will not lead to something else which they did not anticipate?
This proposed solution is akin flawed scientific practices of earlier times such as blood-letting or whacking people over the head with a stick to chase out daemons. At every point in history, people with fancy academic certificates have always been certain that they knew what they were doing and they've been proven wrong over and over.
I feel like stratospheric aerosol injection would have some crazy unintended side effects. The size and complexity of the atmosphere is mind blowing. A mistake here could literally ruin the atmosphere for the entire globe.
Reduction of Carbon Emissions is and always will be the best strategy to slow down global warming. These moon shot initiatives are necessary but should not be taken too seriously given their low probability of success.
Reduction of Carbon Emissions is and always will be the best strategy to slow down global warming. These moon shot initiatives are necessary but should not be taken too seriously given their low probability of success.
> I feel like stratospheric aerosol injection would have some crazy unintended side effects.
Yeah, but the alternative is lower profits for entrenched corporate powers, so ...
In all seriousness, though, I'm glad someone is considering all options, because the political reality of this planet is that the common-sense approach may very well be off the table, meaning a moonshot is all we'll have left.
Yeah, but the alternative is lower profits for entrenched corporate powers, so ...
In all seriousness, though, I'm glad someone is considering all options, because the political reality of this planet is that the common-sense approach may very well be off the table, meaning a moonshot is all we'll have left.
How about everyone in the world consume as less per capita as some of the poorest countries on the planet instead of poisoning everyone?
Any negative consequences, if any, will automatically put more burden on the poorer countries that don’t have the resources to fix things when they go wrong. All options should not be considered imho.
Any negative consequences, if any, will automatically put more burden on the poorer countries that don’t have the resources to fix things when they go wrong. All options should not be considered imho.
Strong suspicion you've never studied game theory, or even Adam Smithian economics. "Everybody just agree to what is best for everyone" pretty much never works.
People don't work like that. Frankly, it is hopelessly naive of the human condition and akin to saying "why don't we all stop wasting money on locks and just all of us agree to stop stealing?" Or "why do we need money? Can't we just all do our part and only take what we need?" Or "why can't we agree to end wars?"
People tend to (mostly) calculate what is best for them. Most people would just say "the only thing I can control is what I do, not what everyone else does. The best outcome for me is to live like I want to live, regardless of what everyone else does." Some people have more awareness of what is good for all than others, but very few will make huge individual sacrifices for the sake of making a hard-to-detect positive impact on the common good.
See "prisoners' dilemma", "tragedy of the commons", "invisible hand", and so on.
A government, on the other hand -- especially one as big as the US government -- is generally the only way to address this sort of thing. I'm not saying this is a great plan, but I suspect things like this are worth looking into.
People don't work like that. Frankly, it is hopelessly naive of the human condition and akin to saying "why don't we all stop wasting money on locks and just all of us agree to stop stealing?" Or "why do we need money? Can't we just all do our part and only take what we need?" Or "why can't we agree to end wars?"
People tend to (mostly) calculate what is best for them. Most people would just say "the only thing I can control is what I do, not what everyone else does. The best outcome for me is to live like I want to live, regardless of what everyone else does." Some people have more awareness of what is good for all than others, but very few will make huge individual sacrifices for the sake of making a hard-to-detect positive impact on the common good.
See "prisoners' dilemma", "tragedy of the commons", "invisible hand", and so on.
A government, on the other hand -- especially one as big as the US government -- is generally the only way to address this sort of thing. I'm not saying this is a great plan, but I suspect things like this are worth looking into.
Hell, we couldn't even get people in individual countries (let alone across the world) to agree on what to do with a global pandemic that was hospitalizing and/or killing people in droves.
Climate change is unfortunately still -- even with all the obvious weather changes that are already happening -- too abstract to get a lot of people to even admit it's a problem, let alone agree on what should be done.
Climate change is unfortunately still -- even with all the obvious weather changes that are already happening -- too abstract to get a lot of people to even admit it's a problem, let alone agree on what should be done.
> Hell, we couldn't even get people in individual countries (let alone across the world) to agree on what to do with a global pandemic that was hospitalizing and/or killing people in droves.
"Why won't this code compile!!?? Computers are stupid!"
"Why won't this code compile!!?? Computers are stupid!"
> all the obvious weather changes that are already happening
All the obvious weather changes that are doing what, exactly? The way that global agricultural output has increased over time[0]? The way that England is a degree or two warmer on average in the past five hundred years[1] (somewhere between the difference in going from London to Paris and London to Bordeaux, quelle horreur)?
The change is there, sure, but in what way is the problem pressing enough that dealing with it is clearly better than the cost of dealing with it? Because remember, every bit of time and resource we spend on climate change could be alternatively spent in other uses that might also benefit humanity.
[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply
[1]: https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11...
All the obvious weather changes that are doing what, exactly? The way that global agricultural output has increased over time[0]? The way that England is a degree or two warmer on average in the past five hundred years[1] (somewhere between the difference in going from London to Paris and London to Bordeaux, quelle horreur)?
The change is there, sure, but in what way is the problem pressing enough that dealing with it is clearly better than the cost of dealing with it? Because remember, every bit of time and resource we spend on climate change could be alternatively spent in other uses that might also benefit humanity.
[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply
[1]: https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11...
Do you want people to explain why climate change is urgent, here in a comment?
Your links don't say "climate change isn't a problem," they just have a tiny bit of data out of context, that very few people here have the ability to fully understand as to how they may or may not relate to climate change. Do you really think the fact that agricultural output has increased over time says much about climate change, vs. technology and population and such? Or that a 2 degree temperature change in England is a) not a problem, just because a 2 degree temperature change seems minor, or b) is really going to give non-scientists a good perspective on something like this? Unless you understand all the things involved, you really need to let the scientists do an analysis on the data, rather than your seat-of-the-pants approach. If you don't want to trust the scientists, great, but just showing a tiny bit of data and extrapolating a conclusion based on intuition probably doesn't cut it.
The below is just pasted from Wikipedia, but it's a great starting point. You can follow the citations if you go to the article. Sure, it's a politicized issue so you'll always find a few on the other side. But the vast majority of scientists agree with this:
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common. Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes. Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct. Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result. The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and warmer, more acidic oceans.
Your links don't say "climate change isn't a problem," they just have a tiny bit of data out of context, that very few people here have the ability to fully understand as to how they may or may not relate to climate change. Do you really think the fact that agricultural output has increased over time says much about climate change, vs. technology and population and such? Or that a 2 degree temperature change in England is a) not a problem, just because a 2 degree temperature change seems minor, or b) is really going to give non-scientists a good perspective on something like this? Unless you understand all the things involved, you really need to let the scientists do an analysis on the data, rather than your seat-of-the-pants approach. If you don't want to trust the scientists, great, but just showing a tiny bit of data and extrapolating a conclusion based on intuition probably doesn't cut it.
The below is just pasted from Wikipedia, but it's a great starting point. You can follow the citations if you go to the article. Sure, it's a politicized issue so you'll always find a few on the other side. But the vast majority of scientists agree with this:
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common. Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes. Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct. Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result. The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and warmer, more acidic oceans.
Not to mention the choice of England as an example, where there was literally a record-breaking heatwave this summer that killed thousands of people. Reminds me of this: https://deadline.com/2022/07/uk-tv-interview-dont-look-up-cl...
The article you linked says:
> Hammond was right, of course, on his primary counts, as well: the temperature topped 40 degrees at London’s Heathrow airport and over 1,500 people died across Europe as a result of the heat wave.
There was 'literally' one day of temperatures over 40, in a couple of places. I didn't see any data on deaths, but it wasn't 'thousands'.
Before anyone jumps, I believe in climate change :) I just think this hyperbole isn't helpful.
> Hammond was right, of course, on his primary counts, as well: the temperature topped 40 degrees at London’s Heathrow airport and over 1,500 people died across Europe as a result of the heat wave.
There was 'literally' one day of temperatures over 40, in a couple of places. I didn't see any data on deaths, but it wasn't 'thousands'.
Before anyone jumps, I believe in climate change :) I just think this hyperbole isn't helpful.
Depends how you count. I believe it was 1500 directly attributed, and about 3000 excess deaths. I don't think I said anything hyperbolic or inaccurate.
The article says 1500 in Europe, I read your message to mean 'in England'.
I was referring to England, and based the "thousands" comment on this report: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
> To date, 3,271 excess deaths have been recorded during heat-periods in 2022 in England and Wales. This is an average of 82 excess deaths per day, and 6.2% higher than the five-year average. The heat-period with the largest number of excess deaths was H2 (10 to 25 July) with 2,227 excess deaths (10.4% above average), an average of 139 excess deaths per day.
And my point was that it is striking to talk about how climate change is no big deal in England in this context.
> To date, 3,271 excess deaths have been recorded during heat-periods in 2022 in England and Wales. This is an average of 82 excess deaths per day, and 6.2% higher than the five-year average. The heat-period with the largest number of excess deaths was H2 (10 to 25 July) with 2,227 excess deaths (10.4% above average), an average of 139 excess deaths per day.
And my point was that it is striking to talk about how climate change is no big deal in England in this context.
Yes, I want people to justify their complex policy positions that have far-reaching consequences, here in a comment. Why else are we on this forum? It's not like I'm asking people to justify that two and two make four.
Heat waves, wildfires, melting permafrost and sea ice, stronger storms -- OK, that's fine, I'm not disputing that these things are happening. But what is the human toll of these things compared against the literal billions of lives uplifted from terrible poverty in the global fossil fuel-based capitalist(ish) economy? That is the question I keep asking and to which I never seem to get a clear answer.
The time, effort, and resources we spend on de-carbonizing the global economy (or whatever other mitigation efforts are being studied and suggested) are time, effort, and resources that have alternative uses that could also benefit humanity. I wish to examine those alternative uses and the marginal cost at each level of mitigation. What I keep getting instead are categorical assertions that we are all doomed (literally, as in civilizational collapse) if we don't repent our ways and not much more than vague handwaving that renewable energy will be cheaper, more abundant, and easier to use.
I want an answer to the question: how do we bring the roughly half of the world living on a few bucks a day to first-world living standards? As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal.
Heat waves, wildfires, melting permafrost and sea ice, stronger storms -- OK, that's fine, I'm not disputing that these things are happening. But what is the human toll of these things compared against the literal billions of lives uplifted from terrible poverty in the global fossil fuel-based capitalist(ish) economy? That is the question I keep asking and to which I never seem to get a clear answer.
The time, effort, and resources we spend on de-carbonizing the global economy (or whatever other mitigation efforts are being studied and suggested) are time, effort, and resources that have alternative uses that could also benefit humanity. I wish to examine those alternative uses and the marginal cost at each level of mitigation. What I keep getting instead are categorical assertions that we are all doomed (literally, as in civilizational collapse) if we don't repent our ways and not much more than vague handwaving that renewable energy will be cheaper, more abundant, and easier to use.
I want an answer to the question: how do we bring the roughly half of the world living on a few bucks a day to first-world living standards? As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal.
> As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal.
Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources. If everyone was living like in developed countries, we would consume the entirety of the resources we are currently capable of extracting from the Earth in a year, in only a few months. And even if we expanded our extraction capabilities, there is only one Earth, of which only finite amount of material will be useful and put to good use for our comfort.
Given that, there is only two possibilities: reduce resource consumption, or expand the amount of available resources.
* Reduce: you can either reduce each individual usage, or reduce the number of individuals. Now you see why everyone is advocating for reduced individual usage, because culling the population is seen as 'not relieving human suffering'.
* Increase: it requires going away from Earth and expanding into at least adjacent bodies with the capability of transforming them into useful stuff. To plan for that, you need to prove first that such solution would be possible before we are all extinct from the ecological collapse of our life support systems.
So now you are back to square one: if 'increasing' the available resources is not available right now, and might not even be available in the future, and reducing the population is frowned upon, then you are forced to find a way to reduce resource consumption.
Which might well mean that for everyone to live like Texans, that means Texans will have to change their lives and live like everyone else.
Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer, then *no one* will live, nevermind with the latest F150 or whathaveyou that Texans might enjoy. If your goal is truly to reduce human suffering, you must also entertain the possibility that we must limit ourselves. Someone living hedonistically, trying to enjoy earthly pleasures as much as possible and dying at age 35 to cardiac and respiratory failure, has not succeeded in enjoying their lives the most.
Another question might be: does everyone want to live like Texans in the first place? Are you planning to burn our Earth on faulty ideological or cultural assumptions? Because believe me, when I see how Americans live, I definitely do not wish to join them. You might be culturally conditioned to believe your way is the best, but don't take extreme opinions such as 'climate change is preferable to modifying the status quo' based on such myopic views.
Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources. If everyone was living like in developed countries, we would consume the entirety of the resources we are currently capable of extracting from the Earth in a year, in only a few months. And even if we expanded our extraction capabilities, there is only one Earth, of which only finite amount of material will be useful and put to good use for our comfort.
Given that, there is only two possibilities: reduce resource consumption, or expand the amount of available resources.
* Reduce: you can either reduce each individual usage, or reduce the number of individuals. Now you see why everyone is advocating for reduced individual usage, because culling the population is seen as 'not relieving human suffering'.
* Increase: it requires going away from Earth and expanding into at least adjacent bodies with the capability of transforming them into useful stuff. To plan for that, you need to prove first that such solution would be possible before we are all extinct from the ecological collapse of our life support systems.
So now you are back to square one: if 'increasing' the available resources is not available right now, and might not even be available in the future, and reducing the population is frowned upon, then you are forced to find a way to reduce resource consumption.
Which might well mean that for everyone to live like Texans, that means Texans will have to change their lives and live like everyone else.
Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer, then *no one* will live, nevermind with the latest F150 or whathaveyou that Texans might enjoy. If your goal is truly to reduce human suffering, you must also entertain the possibility that we must limit ourselves. Someone living hedonistically, trying to enjoy earthly pleasures as much as possible and dying at age 35 to cardiac and respiratory failure, has not succeeded in enjoying their lives the most.
Another question might be: does everyone want to live like Texans in the first place? Are you planning to burn our Earth on faulty ideological or cultural assumptions? Because believe me, when I see how Americans live, I definitely do not wish to join them. You might be culturally conditioned to believe your way is the best, but don't take extreme opinions such as 'climate change is preferable to modifying the status quo' based on such myopic views.
> when I see how Americans live, I definitely do not wish to join them.
Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but more people migrate to the US than any other country in the world, so it's evident that a lot people do wish to join them. And 7-8 of the top 10 recipients of global cross-border migration is to first-world countries, the inhabitants of which consume orders of magnitude more energy (even if that's less than Texans do) than those of the origin countries; so clearly many people other than myself vote with their feet to and go where more energy and resources are consumed per capita than less. Will you call all of those people myopic for pursuing a richer life, as well?
> Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources.
Absolutely! I'm not wishing for sunshine and rainbows to appear magically and raise everyone's living standards. I simply choose to step out of the way of the people who are doing so by any means, including burning fossil fuels. And though it is axiomatically true that we live in a physical universe and therefore our resources are finite, I hope you're equally prepared to hear that in terms of the primary materials that go into producing the things that people consume, we've really just only scratched the surface of the Earth. It's pretty big. We're quite a long ways from where we need to mine other planets for resources.
> Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer
Eh. This gets repeated over and over with little evidence. Flooding in flood plains? Bring in the big earthmoving equipment, run the concrete plans, all powered by fossil fuels, and build dams. Cities with temperate climates experiencing more heat waves? Insulate homes and put in air conditioning. We'll adapt, or at least I will.
Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but more people migrate to the US than any other country in the world, so it's evident that a lot people do wish to join them. And 7-8 of the top 10 recipients of global cross-border migration is to first-world countries, the inhabitants of which consume orders of magnitude more energy (even if that's less than Texans do) than those of the origin countries; so clearly many people other than myself vote with their feet to and go where more energy and resources are consumed per capita than less. Will you call all of those people myopic for pursuing a richer life, as well?
> Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources.
Absolutely! I'm not wishing for sunshine and rainbows to appear magically and raise everyone's living standards. I simply choose to step out of the way of the people who are doing so by any means, including burning fossil fuels. And though it is axiomatically true that we live in a physical universe and therefore our resources are finite, I hope you're equally prepared to hear that in terms of the primary materials that go into producing the things that people consume, we've really just only scratched the surface of the Earth. It's pretty big. We're quite a long ways from where we need to mine other planets for resources.
> Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer
Eh. This gets repeated over and over with little evidence. Flooding in flood plains? Bring in the big earthmoving equipment, run the concrete plans, all powered by fossil fuels, and build dams. Cities with temperate climates experiencing more heat waves? Insulate homes and put in air conditioning. We'll adapt, or at least I will.
> Will you call all of those people myopic for pursuing a richer life, as well?
Definitely. People living in the US are not the most happy on Earth. Life is not the easiest there. Granted, there is a very successful propaganda at work convincing people that they will have a better chance to succeed. But more and more, this ideal is being questioned.
> Bring in the big earthmoving equipment, run the concrete plans, all powered by fossil fuels, and build dams.
To continue speaking in your language, run the cost analysis. Find how much more costly it will be to entertain grandiose project just to continue living the same way as before.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a believer of an idealistic natural world where humans should not life, far from it. But as the current pinnacle of life, the greatest achievement on Earth, I consider that it is our duty to sustain ourselves for as long as possible -- and that means for now understanding as much as possible of the biological systems on Earth before changing anything. We should reduce ecological collapses as much as possible, until we have learned everything we can from the species we are disappearing every days. We must be aware of our impact, in the fullest of sense and decide with total knowledge how to proceed.
> We'll adapt, or at least I will.
You are describing the exact inverse of 'adapting'. You want to modify the environment as much as necessary, at any cost, for it to fit our current cultural zeitgeist. Our biology trumps any current cultural fact. We should not try to preserve a single society or human colony, we should try to preserve as much life and (DNA) diversity as possible, as this is our best chance to learn and understand more, and find better ways to live, to further reduce our suffering.
> Eh. This gets repeated over and over with little evidence.
This is already happening, these last years have already shown a prelude of what is to come.
Rains will be rarer and more intense, leading to periods of drought and floods, as well as reduced retention in our current biomes. I don't know what you watched these last two years but it has already been happening in several regions, I don't know what more evidence you want of what is to come.
It will only become more and more difficult to grow food and keep livestock as the water system become more violent and unstable. Trying to stabilize an increasingly unstable system will prove extremely costly, you will be battling forces that are currently outside our capabilities. You might be optimistic and consider that we will always find solutions to it, but this is unreasonable. No one has shown so far that we will be capable of containing those issues.
Water might be the most problematic issue in the medium term, but wildfires, ocean acidification, tropical storms, ecological collapses have also started to happen, more frequently and more intensely. It will lead to a harder life for everyone. We will be lucky in the US and EU and will live better life for a time, but we will also experience greatly increased migrations, that will completely destroy our current social support systems. Given the latest rise in populism (on the left and right), it is clear to me that in that situation people will vote for any tyrant that will promise to do anything to protect their way of life. That will mean building critical infrastructure to attempt to contain the effects in the best case, but more likely just more self-serving, corrupt assholes and brutal power enforcement, genocide of the millions of people moving. It's only human nature.
Frankly what you describe will only accelerate our downfall. Our best chance of surviving is through knowledge, and your way will make so much of the complexity of life around us disappear, just to fit some myopic conception of how we should live.
Definitely. People living in the US are not the most happy on Earth. Life is not the easiest there. Granted, there is a very successful propaganda at work convincing people that they will have a better chance to succeed. But more and more, this ideal is being questioned.
> Bring in the big earthmoving equipment, run the concrete plans, all powered by fossil fuels, and build dams.
To continue speaking in your language, run the cost analysis. Find how much more costly it will be to entertain grandiose project just to continue living the same way as before.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a believer of an idealistic natural world where humans should not life, far from it. But as the current pinnacle of life, the greatest achievement on Earth, I consider that it is our duty to sustain ourselves for as long as possible -- and that means for now understanding as much as possible of the biological systems on Earth before changing anything. We should reduce ecological collapses as much as possible, until we have learned everything we can from the species we are disappearing every days. We must be aware of our impact, in the fullest of sense and decide with total knowledge how to proceed.
> We'll adapt, or at least I will.
You are describing the exact inverse of 'adapting'. You want to modify the environment as much as necessary, at any cost, for it to fit our current cultural zeitgeist. Our biology trumps any current cultural fact. We should not try to preserve a single society or human colony, we should try to preserve as much life and (DNA) diversity as possible, as this is our best chance to learn and understand more, and find better ways to live, to further reduce our suffering.
> Eh. This gets repeated over and over with little evidence.
This is already happening, these last years have already shown a prelude of what is to come.
Rains will be rarer and more intense, leading to periods of drought and floods, as well as reduced retention in our current biomes. I don't know what you watched these last two years but it has already been happening in several regions, I don't know what more evidence you want of what is to come.
It will only become more and more difficult to grow food and keep livestock as the water system become more violent and unstable. Trying to stabilize an increasingly unstable system will prove extremely costly, you will be battling forces that are currently outside our capabilities. You might be optimistic and consider that we will always find solutions to it, but this is unreasonable. No one has shown so far that we will be capable of containing those issues.
Water might be the most problematic issue in the medium term, but wildfires, ocean acidification, tropical storms, ecological collapses have also started to happen, more frequently and more intensely. It will lead to a harder life for everyone. We will be lucky in the US and EU and will live better life for a time, but we will also experience greatly increased migrations, that will completely destroy our current social support systems. Given the latest rise in populism (on the left and right), it is clear to me that in that situation people will vote for any tyrant that will promise to do anything to protect their way of life. That will mean building critical infrastructure to attempt to contain the effects in the best case, but more likely just more self-serving, corrupt assholes and brutal power enforcement, genocide of the millions of people moving. It's only human nature.
Frankly what you describe will only accelerate our downfall. Our best chance of surviving is through knowledge, and your way will make so much of the complexity of life around us disappear, just to fit some myopic conception of how we should live.
Why would you assume no conflict exists between the goals of all the worlds peoples "living like Texans," and preventing environmental catastrophe? The Earth is facing serious climate change just from a plurality of humans living rampantly consumerist lifestyles, I don't think more of that is in the cards unless the number of humans drastically shrinks.
Let me be clear and say that "living like Texans" is a shorthand for a first-world standard of living, with maybe a touch of extravagance thrown in. I'm not advocating that everyone do in fact live like Texans if they don't want to! People should be free to live like monks if they want.
But actual people on the ground, especially if that ground is in places that aren't as developed, do in fact want higher standards of living. I do not see myself as having the moral authority to tell them that they cannot have it because of environmental reasons. I'd rather leave it up to them to decide whether they want to "drill, baby, drill" now and live with the possibility of facing the music later, or keep living in huts.
But actual people on the ground, especially if that ground is in places that aren't as developed, do in fact want higher standards of living. I do not see myself as having the moral authority to tell them that they cannot have it because of environmental reasons. I'd rather leave it up to them to decide whether they want to "drill, baby, drill" now and live with the possibility of facing the music later, or keep living in huts.
I guess you haven’t heard of the floods in India earlier this year for instance[0]. Or maybe it doesn’t matter because we don’t live there and it’s nice if the winter is a little warmer whenever we go skiing; no need to wear a pesky hat anymore.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_South_Asian_floods
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_South_Asian_floods
" "why don't we all stop wasting money on locks and just all of us agree to stop stealing?" Or "why do we need money? Can't we just all do our part and only take what we need?" Or "why can't we agree to end wars?"
We can and do so - in small societies, like inner family and close friends - where trust exists.
So in thery maybe this trust can grow to eventually connect all humanity, but I really would not count on it.
So wouldn't it be nice, if we are all nice to each other? Yes but we ain't. Not with these existing tensions.
Know what the poor world thinks?
"The west got rich by polluting and now we are supposed to stay poor, because polluting is not allowed anymore? Not fair."
And I think they have a point.
When you are starving, you cannot afford to care if the gasoline and coal you are using is causing more long term problems. You are happy, that you have the coal in the first place, if you are cold or need power.
So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy.
And I rather would distribute low tech solar cookers and high tech solar panels on scale, than mess with the atmosphere.
We can and do so - in small societies, like inner family and close friends - where trust exists.
So in thery maybe this trust can grow to eventually connect all humanity, but I really would not count on it.
So wouldn't it be nice, if we are all nice to each other? Yes but we ain't. Not with these existing tensions.
Know what the poor world thinks?
"The west got rich by polluting and now we are supposed to stay poor, because polluting is not allowed anymore? Not fair."
And I think they have a point.
When you are starving, you cannot afford to care if the gasoline and coal you are using is causing more long term problems. You are happy, that you have the coal in the first place, if you are cold or need power.
So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy.
And I rather would distribute low tech solar cookers and high tech solar panels on scale, than mess with the atmosphere.
Sure that's kind of my point. The larger the scale, the harder it is to solve such problems. People tend to care first about themselves and their kids, then other family, then about people they interact with regularly. The less they are related or interact with you on a regular basis, the less you prioritize their well being. This is human nature, and easily explained by Darwinian evolution.
Climate change is inherently large scale. There's nothing that will change that.
We can change the equation only by large scale "contracts" and the like. That generally means governments. For instance, we can vote for representatives that make laws that limit emissions from factories and vehicles, and make treaties with other countries. Those things are not subject to tragedy of the commons.
I am not advocating for "messing with the atmosphere" in this sense, but I'm also not rejecting it outright. We are already messing with the atmosphere on a large scale, due to billions of individual decisions driven each one of those individuals' self-interest. If you are going to mess with it, I'd rather it done based on a controlled methodology based on science.
Climate change is inherently large scale. There's nothing that will change that.
We can change the equation only by large scale "contracts" and the like. That generally means governments. For instance, we can vote for representatives that make laws that limit emissions from factories and vehicles, and make treaties with other countries. Those things are not subject to tragedy of the commons.
I am not advocating for "messing with the atmosphere" in this sense, but I'm also not rejecting it outright. We are already messing with the atmosphere on a large scale, due to billions of individual decisions driven each one of those individuals' self-interest. If you are going to mess with it, I'd rather it done based on a controlled methodology based on science.
> And I think they have a point.
They may have a point, that won't change the reality of the situation: letting them do exactly what the developed countries did, will kill them. That's not fair, that's life.
> So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy.
No, idealism by definition will produce idealistic solutions that won't amount to anything. You are advocating for controlling a system by considering that with enough ingenuity, trust or whatever, we can do it. No, controlling a complex system is done by understanding its baseline or attractors and tweaking its inputs carefully to bring it and maintaining it there.
It means indeed that injecting aerosols in the atmosphere to control the climate is a foolish errand, and the practical approach is energy sobriety. But don't go advocating this position by talking of ideals and fairness, you won't convince anyone.
They may have a point, that won't change the reality of the situation: letting them do exactly what the developed countries did, will kill them. That's not fair, that's life.
> So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy.
No, idealism by definition will produce idealistic solutions that won't amount to anything. You are advocating for controlling a system by considering that with enough ingenuity, trust or whatever, we can do it. No, controlling a complex system is done by understanding its baseline or attractors and tweaking its inputs carefully to bring it and maintaining it there.
It means indeed that injecting aerosols in the atmosphere to control the climate is a foolish errand, and the practical approach is energy sobriety. But don't go advocating this position by talking of ideals and fairness, you won't convince anyone.
"No, controlling a complex system is done by understanding its baseline or attractors and tweaking its inputs carefully to bring it and maintaining it there."
Idealism is trying to do this, targeting the human motivation attractors.
Doing (subjectivly) good things gives a good feeling.
And if it would not work, there would not be so many vegans for example.
Intrinsic motivation is a strong attractor, you can reach with idealism. But we agree, that in this case on a global scale - it will never be enough. But each person convinced that things must be done, is (ideally) one more person working on the problem.
Idealism is trying to do this, targeting the human motivation attractors.
Doing (subjectivly) good things gives a good feeling.
And if it would not work, there would not be so many vegans for example.
Intrinsic motivation is a strong attractor, you can reach with idealism. But we agree, that in this case on a global scale - it will never be enough. But each person convinced that things must be done, is (ideally) one more person working on the problem.
The existence of tipping in the US contradicts this theory. Why tip 20% as a non-returning customer, when it is in your own best interest to tip 0%? Still, nearly everyone does it. Luckily, empathy and/or social pressures are important for most people, which causes them to make choices that are not 'game theory optimal', but better for society.
I don't think this example translates to global maxima, or at least not without further explanation.
These are all very good ways to handwave the fact that the impact of "cutting back on consumption" is distributed extremely unevenly to the point that a single billionaire living like a middle class person would have a bigger effect than most of the middle class living like paupers.
The prisoners' dilemma arises from the prison. The tragedy of the commons arises from the replacement of mutual social structures with competitve market incentives. These are not neutral facts of life, they're describing emergent properties of the systems they exist in. Those systems are arbitrary and we can change them.
There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes. Few of them understandably want to simply give away their wealth but they're okay with paying a fairer (read: significantly larger) share as long as others in their class have to do so as well. They're trying to lower the ceiling, to literally change the system so the emergent properties of it change for the better.
What you're describing is an extremely individualistic approach favored by Austrian economics. It's not apolitical objective truth. It relies on intentional design choices of the economic system that can be changed. Much like feudal lords before the French revolution, however, those currently benefiting from it are largely disinterested in changing it and too powerful to overrule. We can hope "the government" addresses this, but as long as we accept narratives about individual responsibility and "everyone doing their part" I see no hope for legislators seriously reining in the actual polluters, especially in a country where the second anyone proposes it a skilled orator will insist that this will single-handedly destroy America as we know it.
Of course convincing an economist that the system could be changed in a way that doesn't incentivize the destruction of our habitat would be as outlandish as convincing an aristocrat in 1322 that the system could be changed so the king is continuously elected by the common folk instead of being destined by his bloodline and divine right:
It is hopelessly naive of the human condition to imagine that an ordinary mortal like you or I could assume the power of God to pick a new lordship like we are picking out pigs to slaughter. Even if it wasn't blasphemy, surely it is only right and best for us if our lord is born into his destiny and raised from a young age by experts in his future affairs do be a good lord for us and make his choices we are too ignorant to judge fairly.
The prisoners' dilemma arises from the prison. The tragedy of the commons arises from the replacement of mutual social structures with competitve market incentives. These are not neutral facts of life, they're describing emergent properties of the systems they exist in. Those systems are arbitrary and we can change them.
There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes. Few of them understandably want to simply give away their wealth but they're okay with paying a fairer (read: significantly larger) share as long as others in their class have to do so as well. They're trying to lower the ceiling, to literally change the system so the emergent properties of it change for the better.
What you're describing is an extremely individualistic approach favored by Austrian economics. It's not apolitical objective truth. It relies on intentional design choices of the economic system that can be changed. Much like feudal lords before the French revolution, however, those currently benefiting from it are largely disinterested in changing it and too powerful to overrule. We can hope "the government" addresses this, but as long as we accept narratives about individual responsibility and "everyone doing their part" I see no hope for legislators seriously reining in the actual polluters, especially in a country where the second anyone proposes it a skilled orator will insist that this will single-handedly destroy America as we know it.
Of course convincing an economist that the system could be changed in a way that doesn't incentivize the destruction of our habitat would be as outlandish as convincing an aristocrat in 1322 that the system could be changed so the king is continuously elected by the common folk instead of being destined by his bloodline and divine right:
It is hopelessly naive of the human condition to imagine that an ordinary mortal like you or I could assume the power of God to pick a new lordship like we are picking out pigs to slaughter. Even if it wasn't blasphemy, surely it is only right and best for us if our lord is born into his destiny and raised from a young age by experts in his future affairs do be a good lord for us and make his choices we are too ignorant to judge fairly.
>>There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes.
Complete BS virtue signaling - everyone of those supposed 'multi-billionaires who lobby for raising their own taxes', can already voluntarily pay as much extra taxes as they want - how many are?
Why is it that these people will only do what they believe is morally correct, but only if the law forces them do it? The answer is, because they don't really believe what they say they believe in - they are virtue signaling.
Just like all the celebrities flying around in their private jets, giving speeches about global warming, and collecting their global warming awareness achievement awards.
Complete BS virtue signaling - everyone of those supposed 'multi-billionaires who lobby for raising their own taxes', can already voluntarily pay as much extra taxes as they want - how many are?
Why is it that these people will only do what they believe is morally correct, but only if the law forces them do it? The answer is, because they don't really believe what they say they believe in - they are virtue signaling.
Just like all the celebrities flying around in their private jets, giving speeches about global warming, and collecting their global warming awareness achievement awards.
I disagree with this I think wealthy people can unhyproctitically advocate for higher taxes without necessarily giving up all their money themselves. It's logical to realize one's own small contribution won't do much but the compulsory contribution from everyone will
Do you think Warren Buffet and Bill Gates can only make a 'small contribution' and it won't do much?
I call BS.
You know why they don't voluntarily pay higher taxes, and yet advocate for it? because they know if the tax rates/laws change, they will just pay their lawyers extra money to figure out how not to pay it - they want someone else to do it instead.
Same reason Bezos preaches on GW, and yet drives around in a yacht that burns more fossil fuels than thousands or of typical Americans will use in a year.
It's all virtue signaling, and nothing else.
I call BS.
You know why they don't voluntarily pay higher taxes, and yet advocate for it? because they know if the tax rates/laws change, they will just pay their lawyers extra money to figure out how not to pay it - they want someone else to do it instead.
Same reason Bezos preaches on GW, and yet drives around in a yacht that burns more fossil fuels than thousands or of typical Americans will use in a year.
It's all virtue signaling, and nothing else.
I think I see now why you're being angry and confused. I'm not talking about Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. I'm talking about people like Marlene Engelhorn in Austria, who literally toured TV shows making arguments that border on anti-capitalism. She's a millionaire heiress and advocates not just for a higher maximum income tax rate but also for reinstating the wealth tax and raising inheritance tax.
She's basically advocating for policies that would make it impossible (or extremely difficult) to become and remain as wealthy as she is, let alone a billionaire. And she's directly going against her own financial interests with this because no amount of creative accounting would shield her from all of it if it became actual policy.
For the record, I remembered her being a billionaire heiress but it seems I was off by a digit or two. So I apologize for incorrectly referring to one-percenters when I meant mostly her and other millionaires (afaik) who support her project called Taxmenow. She also criticized philanthropy.
She's basically advocating for policies that would make it impossible (or extremely difficult) to become and remain as wealthy as she is, let alone a billionaire. And she's directly going against her own financial interests with this because no amount of creative accounting would shield her from all of it if it became actual policy.
For the record, I remembered her being a billionaire heiress but it seems I was off by a digit or two. So I apologize for incorrectly referring to one-percenters when I meant mostly her and other millionaires (afaik) who support her project called Taxmenow. She also criticized philanthropy.
They're actively lobbying to raise the taxes of their tax bracket. That's the opposite of empty virtue signalling. Their messaging is "people like us don't pay enough taxes, please raise the taxes people like us have to pay". That's a concrete, actionable demand that directly goes against their supposed interest. Unless you can demonstrate that they're being disingeneous and go behind their own backs to sabotage any actual attempts at tax reform, you have no argument.
I gave this as an example of people asking for a systemic solution that goes against their own self interest but solves a systemic problem that is bad for society as a whole. "Why don't they just give away their money" is an individualistic "solution" that does nothing to fix the systemic problem except going against their self interest.
Of course this assumes you agree with them that them being able to have so much money is a systemic problem worth addressing, i.e. that the system needs to be changed. "The law forcing them" is literally the system being changed. Because, as I said, the system incentivizes harsh competition and maximizing personal financial gain, so without changing the system there is no incentive for any individual to give up their excessive wealth if nobody else will.
If you are desperate to find hypocrisy, you'll have more success looking at "philanthropists" who argue against having to pay higher taxes but instead "give away" their money to their own charities (which just happen to shuffle that money back into their own companies).
EDIT: I see now that you were thinking of the exact billionaire philanthropists I mention as an example for actual hypocrisy, so I guess we agree on the hypocrisy, you just weren't aware of the group of people I was referencing.
I gave this as an example of people asking for a systemic solution that goes against their own self interest but solves a systemic problem that is bad for society as a whole. "Why don't they just give away their money" is an individualistic "solution" that does nothing to fix the systemic problem except going against their self interest.
Of course this assumes you agree with them that them being able to have so much money is a systemic problem worth addressing, i.e. that the system needs to be changed. "The law forcing them" is literally the system being changed. Because, as I said, the system incentivizes harsh competition and maximizing personal financial gain, so without changing the system there is no incentive for any individual to give up their excessive wealth if nobody else will.
If you are desperate to find hypocrisy, you'll have more success looking at "philanthropists" who argue against having to pay higher taxes but instead "give away" their money to their own charities (which just happen to shuffle that money back into their own companies).
EDIT: I see now that you were thinking of the exact billionaire philanthropists I mention as an example for actual hypocrisy, so I guess we agree on the hypocrisy, you just weren't aware of the group of people I was referencing.
> Of course convincing an economist that the system could be changed in a way that doesn't incentivize the destruction of our habitat would be as outlandish as convincing an aristocrat in 1322 that the system could be changed so the king is continuously elected by the common folk instead of being destined by his bloodline and divine right
You do realize that elective monarchy and republics were relatively common and very well known at the time right?
You do realize that elective monarchy and republics were relatively common and very well known at the time right?
Why not everyone have 1 child, until the world's population is down to a few hundred million people and they can all live lives of extreme wealth?
The issue with this sort of thinking - most plans that assume a good outcome, really - is the real question here is how many people will inhabit the world. The default strategy that math (and human instinct) drives towards is just enough people that on average they start starving.
And if people are going to keep going until they starve _anyway_, what is the problem with some living well?
The issue with this sort of thinking - most plans that assume a good outcome, really - is the real question here is how many people will inhabit the world. The default strategy that math (and human instinct) drives towards is just enough people that on average they start starving.
And if people are going to keep going until they starve _anyway_, what is the problem with some living well?
If we all live like billionaires, who does the actual labor affording us this lifestyle?
Starvation poverty is not the result of overpopulation. Quite the contrary: people in extreme conditions are more likely to have more children because high child mortality means any individual child is less likely to surive so if you want a heir (and an income provider since child labor likely also exists), you'll need more of them.
Studies have shown again and again that raising the standard of living (and access to medical care and family planning) reduces population growth. Studies have also shown that extreme wealth disparity directly leads to social instability (read: crime). Not simply poverty but poverty next to oppulence.
If you want a stable society with a stable population size, you need low wealth inequality. If you want to eliminate extreme poverty, you need to eliminate extreme wealth. Changing tax law so billionaires can't exist won't fix poverty but it will seal a constant drain on societal wealth and make it easier to fund public works programmes to empower people to leave poverty and welfare programmes to support those who can't.
Of course that's a much less edgy answer than just letting poor people starve because they're just too dumb to make good choices like not being poor or not being born in a country coerced to optimize their economy for the cheap export of unrefined resources and low-value cash crops wealthier nations can refine and use to create luxury goods to sell back to them at a massive premium.
Starvation poverty is not the result of overpopulation. Quite the contrary: people in extreme conditions are more likely to have more children because high child mortality means any individual child is less likely to surive so if you want a heir (and an income provider since child labor likely also exists), you'll need more of them.
Studies have shown again and again that raising the standard of living (and access to medical care and family planning) reduces population growth. Studies have also shown that extreme wealth disparity directly leads to social instability (read: crime). Not simply poverty but poverty next to oppulence.
If you want a stable society with a stable population size, you need low wealth inequality. If you want to eliminate extreme poverty, you need to eliminate extreme wealth. Changing tax law so billionaires can't exist won't fix poverty but it will seal a constant drain on societal wealth and make it easier to fund public works programmes to empower people to leave poverty and welfare programmes to support those who can't.
Of course that's a much less edgy answer than just letting poor people starve because they're just too dumb to make good choices like not being poor or not being born in a country coerced to optimize their economy for the cheap export of unrefined resources and low-value cash crops wealthier nations can refine and use to create luxury goods to sell back to them at a massive premium.
> If you want to eliminate extreme poverty, you need to eliminate extreme wealth.
That is rather off the mark on a couple of levels. Say there is a billionaire and a society of homeless indigents. We set the billionaire's house on fire and wreck all his stuff. This has no impact whatsoever on the people in extreme poverty.
That silly example has played out in practice in a couple of ways (communism being the most showy). There is a compelling picture that allowing extremely wealthy individuals to flourish is good for the communities they are in. Once people start adopting policies to curtail or confiscate resources from people who create wealth it is easy to lose control and end up in a bad spot.
That is rather off the mark on a couple of levels. Say there is a billionaire and a society of homeless indigents. We set the billionaire's house on fire and wreck all his stuff. This has no impact whatsoever on the people in extreme poverty.
That silly example has played out in practice in a couple of ways (communism being the most showy). There is a compelling picture that allowing extremely wealthy individuals to flourish is good for the communities they are in. Once people start adopting policies to curtail or confiscate resources from people who create wealth it is easy to lose control and end up in a bad spot.
> That is rather off the mark on a couple of levels. Say there is a billionaire and a society of homeless indigents. We set the billionaire's house on fire and wreck all his stuff. This has no impact whatsoever on the people in extreme poverty.
Alternatively, you could just set his pool house on fire, and then ask if he would like to ~voluntarily change his tune or find out what happens next.
Kinda like this, with appropriate modifications:
https://youtu.be/q4PkBCD4mdY
Alternatively, you could just set his pool house on fire, and then ask if he would like to ~voluntarily change his tune or find out what happens next.
Kinda like this, with appropriate modifications:
https://youtu.be/q4PkBCD4mdY
I suspect the technical term for that is a "catastrophic lack of strategic thinking". That approach is the fast path to poverty. It is more likely to lock in generations of families starving to death than any approach except total war.
The plan there is literally to identify the person in the best position to help and then start hindering/antagonising them. You've even managed to envision a scenario worse than just stealing stuff, which is already pretty bad as plans go. Can you come up with a worse path to prosperity if you try?
The plan there is literally to identify the person in the best position to help and then start hindering/antagonising them. You've even managed to envision a scenario worse than just stealing stuff, which is already pretty bad as plans go. Can you come up with a worse path to prosperity if you try?
> I suspect the technical term for that is a "catastrophic lack of strategic thinking".
If I had used the word "should" instead of "could", I may agree with you (or at at least agree with you more).
> That approach is the fast path to poverty. It is more likely to lock in generations of families starving to death than any approach except total war.
There are heuristic predictions of reality ("is", "is more likely", when referencing the future or counterfactual reality), and then there is reality itself (which is unknown, but cloaked and thus not realizable as such). And then there is also a culture unnecessarily stuck in a state where they rarely make a distinction between the two - now that, to my mind, is a real catastrophic lack of strategic/etc thinking.
> The plan there is literally to identify the person in the best position to help and then start hindering/antagonising them.
You're "not wrong", but technically, it should be only a very small part of a well thought out (and thus much more complex) plan.
Not to mention: hindering and antagonism goes both ways.
> You've even managed to envision a scenario worse than just stealing stuff, which is already pretty bad as plans go.
Why is this worse than stealing stuff? Stealing stuff has relatively minor causal effects - it's become normal, "baked into the system", it has been skilfully accommodated as a "cost of doing business". Accommodating random, chaotic, and anomalous events that cannot easily be predicted in advance has much more potential for broad causal influence, at least as I see things (at least: it is plausible). As an example, consider how successful the immensely powerful US military does when fighting vastly under-powered "enemies".
Additionally: explaining on TV why people are stealing stuff is easy - explaining that someone's pool house got burned down and a "Your move." note was left at the scene of the crime is....not so easy. Or desirable, I suspect (the silly masses often have a tendency to get caught up in trends - best for everyone to keep their attention focused on Facebook, TikTok, the political outrage du jour, The Facts, etc).
> Can you come up with a worse path to prosperity if you try?
Easily. And I can also come up with hundreds of better variations - the advantage of this approach though is that it is simple (to understand, and execute), and it (as a singular discrete action) does not require coordination of large numbers of people (subsequent steps would though, of course).
All this is getting a bit beyond the level of colloquial reality we've become "accustomed" to though, so no need to take it very seriously - probably best to just file it under "far right conspiracy theorist" or something like that (choose your preferred meme) for peace of mind, as we do. It's not like the very system we live in deserves the same level of thorough analysis that we devote to the computer systems we work in at our days jobs.
If I had used the word "should" instead of "could", I may agree with you (or at at least agree with you more).
> That approach is the fast path to poverty. It is more likely to lock in generations of families starving to death than any approach except total war.
There are heuristic predictions of reality ("is", "is more likely", when referencing the future or counterfactual reality), and then there is reality itself (which is unknown, but cloaked and thus not realizable as such). And then there is also a culture unnecessarily stuck in a state where they rarely make a distinction between the two - now that, to my mind, is a real catastrophic lack of strategic/etc thinking.
> The plan there is literally to identify the person in the best position to help and then start hindering/antagonising them.
You're "not wrong", but technically, it should be only a very small part of a well thought out (and thus much more complex) plan.
Not to mention: hindering and antagonism goes both ways.
> You've even managed to envision a scenario worse than just stealing stuff, which is already pretty bad as plans go.
Why is this worse than stealing stuff? Stealing stuff has relatively minor causal effects - it's become normal, "baked into the system", it has been skilfully accommodated as a "cost of doing business". Accommodating random, chaotic, and anomalous events that cannot easily be predicted in advance has much more potential for broad causal influence, at least as I see things (at least: it is plausible). As an example, consider how successful the immensely powerful US military does when fighting vastly under-powered "enemies".
Additionally: explaining on TV why people are stealing stuff is easy - explaining that someone's pool house got burned down and a "Your move." note was left at the scene of the crime is....not so easy. Or desirable, I suspect (the silly masses often have a tendency to get caught up in trends - best for everyone to keep their attention focused on Facebook, TikTok, the political outrage du jour, The Facts, etc).
> Can you come up with a worse path to prosperity if you try?
Easily. And I can also come up with hundreds of better variations - the advantage of this approach though is that it is simple (to understand, and execute), and it (as a singular discrete action) does not require coordination of large numbers of people (subsequent steps would though, of course).
All this is getting a bit beyond the level of colloquial reality we've become "accustomed" to though, so no need to take it very seriously - probably best to just file it under "far right conspiracy theorist" or something like that (choose your preferred meme) for peace of mind, as we do. It's not like the very system we live in deserves the same level of thorough analysis that we devote to the computer systems we work in at our days jobs.
It will put very strong pressure during the transition with a few young people supporting a larger aging population (see Japan). It's also opposed by capitalists as it goes against the infinite growth mantra (see for example Musk's comments on the subject). More importantly, it won't do anything in the short term where we need it urgently.
I think your comment is pretty reasonable, but I really can't resist making this observation.
> It will put very strong pressure during the transition...
As opposed to exponential growth? With the number of people we've got wandering around, we're one slightly-worse-than-COVID disaster away from 100s of millions to billions of people starving to death. An outcome like Japan's is significantly better than what is likely to happen in Africa.
> It will put very strong pressure during the transition...
As opposed to exponential growth? With the number of people we've got wandering around, we're one slightly-worse-than-COVID disaster away from 100s of millions to billions of people starving to death. An outcome like Japan's is significantly better than what is likely to happen in Africa.
The human population growth is not rising exponentially, the growth is actually declining since the 1960s and by 2100 we may not even grow anymore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Population_g...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Population_g...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...
No, I agree, it is the sensible thing to be doing, but it looks like we are at a point where radical short term fixes are needed.
the only is to push forward - into space - other no only man but also nature will be stuck here forever.
I think technology is the solution not cave living conditions. Nobody will signup for poverty.
Most of the world lives using far less resources and polluting less than the US. Not all live in poverty, far from it.
Why assume the only alternative to American overconsumption is a a primitive existence?
> Why assume the only alternative to American overconsumption is a a primitive existence?
did I fall asleep in class when they mentioned that it was the American pollution that was particularly bad for the world?
if blame-pointing is the primary concern here, doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US?
did I fall asleep in class when they mentioned that it was the American pollution that was particularly bad for the world?
if blame-pointing is the primary concern here, doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US?
Not per capita.
Plus, the American army alone, which doesn’t need to adhere to any carbon limiting rule and isn’t counted into the US’s carbon emissions, is known to produce more CO2 than many industrialized nations.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
>doesn't China produce something like double the amount of CO2 emissions compared to the US?
Certainly not per capita. And China and other developing countries have been emitting large amounts of co2 for only a very short period relatively speaking. We have gained the benefits of industrialisation but other poorer nations are beating the costs. This is why American and European pollution is different and must be addressed as a priority.
Certainly not per capita. And China and other developing countries have been emitting large amounts of co2 for only a very short period relatively speaking. We have gained the benefits of industrialisation but other poorer nations are beating the costs. This is why American and European pollution is different and must be addressed as a priority.
I don't think that makes sense. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 is emitted. The climate doesn't care about what is fair.
The climate doesn’t care about what is fair, but people do and this needs to be considered if we want to succeed.
Most individuals in China consume way less than most individuals in the US and emit less carbon. That they live under the same totalitarian govt is unlikely to make them sympathetic to the view that their personal sacrifice should be higher as we fight a global challenge.
Most individuals in China consume way less than most individuals in the US and emit less carbon. That they live under the same totalitarian govt is unlikely to make them sympathetic to the view that their personal sacrifice should be higher as we fight a global challenge.
>> is unlikely to make them sympathetic to the view that their personal sacrifice should be higher as we fight a global challenge.
I doubt they are willingly making sacrifices. They are just forced to do that...the poor people consume less because they cannot grab more.
I doubt they are willingly making sacrifices. They are just forced to do that...the poor people consume less because they cannot grab more.
The problem is that everyone plays this game.
The voters blame the politicians. The politicians blame the voters for voting wrong. The communists blame capitalism. Capitalism blames capitalism. The consumers blame the producers for producing the wrong thing. The producers blame the consumers for wanting the wrong thing. The east blames the west. The west blames the east. Cats blame dogs. Dogs blame cats.
In a sense yeah. They are all right, they are all right because we are all to blame. Each and every one of us bear this guilt. We all could have done differently. And if we keep sitting in a circle pointing fingers at each other, if we don't all own up to this responsibility, who is to blame won't matter, because there will hardly be anyone left to point fingers in a few hundred years.
We either fix this together or we all lose alone (although comforted by the thought that surely someone else was more at fault).
The voters blame the politicians. The politicians blame the voters for voting wrong. The communists blame capitalism. Capitalism blames capitalism. The consumers blame the producers for producing the wrong thing. The producers blame the consumers for wanting the wrong thing. The east blames the west. The west blames the east. Cats blame dogs. Dogs blame cats.
In a sense yeah. They are all right, they are all right because we are all to blame. Each and every one of us bear this guilt. We all could have done differently. And if we keep sitting in a circle pointing fingers at each other, if we don't all own up to this responsibility, who is to blame won't matter, because there will hardly be anyone left to point fingers in a few hundred years.
We either fix this together or we all lose alone (although comforted by the thought that surely someone else was more at fault).
Historical emissions are still in the atmosphere, continually heating it up.
And per-capita emissions today are still vastly higher in North America and (most of) Western Europe than the rest of the world.
And per-capita emissions today are still vastly higher in North America and (most of) Western Europe than the rest of the world.
[deleted]
Sure, but history is immutable. The only thing we can change is future emissions.
History can determine who should have the highest remaining allowance.
What you will find is that everyone will have a reason why they aren't as bad as the other group, and forge on as though it's someone else's problem. There is always someone else who is more to blame, more at fault.
Why does China produce so much CO2? Making products for Westerners hugely contributes to that, doesn't it? So yeah, the blame really does need to point to Western consumption habits.
> How about everyone in the world consume as less per capita as some of the poorest countries on the planet
Hmm, live the life of someone from the Congo, or do literally anything else. Not a tough decision.
I think that in practice a lot of countries would choose active genocide over deindustrialization. And it wouldn't even be close. Passive genocide, like that caused by Global Warming... There might be a lot of noise, but absolutely no significant action. So providing choices other than "deindustrialize" and "passive genocide" is critical if you don't want the decision to be "passive genocide".
Hmm, live the life of someone from the Congo, or do literally anything else. Not a tough decision.
I think that in practice a lot of countries would choose active genocide over deindustrialization. And it wouldn't even be close. Passive genocide, like that caused by Global Warming... There might be a lot of noise, but absolutely no significant action. So providing choices other than "deindustrialize" and "passive genocide" is critical if you don't want the decision to be "passive genocide".
To be clear: we can (at least us Americans) consume far less and produce far less pollution per capita than we currently do without meaningfully impacting our quality of life. This is directly evidenced by Northern Europe.
I think "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but I don't think it's at all realistic to expect most Americans to change their attitudes toward consumption. I think the only way to do that would be to tax everything to the point that most people just couldn't afford more than basic consumption. But that's... pretty regressive, and no politicians would survive more than a term (if that!) without repealing those taxes.
Otherwise, what motive do most Americans have to reduce consumption? Even people who believe climate change is real and are worried about it likely barely move the needle. That's before we even consider people who don't believe or don't care.
Now, I think we can reasonably meaningfully reduce the amount of pollution we produce per "unit of consumption" such that consumption levels could remain relatively unchanged, but still allow us to save the world. Whether or not we can get there, with powerful short-term-thinking, status-quo-loving lobbying groups hindering progress every step of the way, is another matter.
Otherwise, what motive do most Americans have to reduce consumption? Even people who believe climate change is real and are worried about it likely barely move the needle. That's before we even consider people who don't believe or don't care.
Now, I think we can reasonably meaningfully reduce the amount of pollution we produce per "unit of consumption" such that consumption levels could remain relatively unchanged, but still allow us to save the world. Whether or not we can get there, with powerful short-term-thinking, status-quo-loving lobbying groups hindering progress every step of the way, is another matter.
It is indeed doing a lot of heavy lifting. But I don't think it's all that infeasible, and doesn't require taxing everything into the ground.
There are lots of things, primarily in the domain of corporate regulation and incentives, that we can do to reduce per-capita pollution. Plugging externalizations, in turn, has a virtuous effect on demand (since businesses will push some of the costs onto consumers, and consumers will respond by maximizing purchase value over longer timeframes).
There are lots of things, primarily in the domain of corporate regulation and incentives, that we can do to reduce per-capita pollution. Plugging externalizations, in turn, has a virtuous effect on demand (since businesses will push some of the costs onto consumers, and consumers will respond by maximizing purchase value over longer timeframes).
I think you are stretching the meaning of 'meaningfully impacting' to near absurdity.
Not really, unless there’s something about the quality of life in most of Europe that you fundamentally wouldn’t find acceptable.
In other words: your perception of your quality of life would have to have unreasonable roots (such as a large, disproportionately wasteful car and needing to consume large amounts of relatively low quality chicken and pork) in order for you to actually experience a decline, rather than just change.
In other words: your perception of your quality of life would have to have unreasonable roots (such as a large, disproportionately wasteful car and needing to consume large amounts of relatively low quality chicken and pork) in order for you to actually experience a decline, rather than just change.
Why would we do that when clean energy + carbon capture is cheaper than fossil fuels were?
Carbon capture largely isn't a thing. Most carbon capture programmes simply buy up temporary guarantees not to chop down trees that weren't at risk in the first place (or at least not in that timeframe).
There is some innovation happening in technologies to extract carbon from air but they're extremely inefficient and mostly exist as greenwashing of plastics while effectively wasting energy that in turn ultimately results in pollution.
There is some innovation happening in technologies to extract carbon from air but they're extremely inefficient and mostly exist as greenwashing of plastics while effectively wasting energy that in turn ultimately results in pollution.
> Yeah, but the alternative is lower profits for entrenched corporate powers, so ...
Can’t we just pay these people enough to go away?
Can’t we just pay these people enough to go away?
> Can’t we just pay these people enough to go away?
“These people” is most of the population. Look at how little people have done to reduce their own meat reduction, transportation usage, etc.
People claim they care about global warming but air travel is back in full force and US citizens are throwing shit fits about petrol prices being a little closer to other western countries.
There is no corporate evil cabal keeping CO2 emissions high. It’s what the population actually wants through revealed preferences despite their expressed preferences.
“These people” is most of the population. Look at how little people have done to reduce their own meat reduction, transportation usage, etc.
People claim they care about global warming but air travel is back in full force and US citizens are throwing shit fits about petrol prices being a little closer to other western countries.
There is no corporate evil cabal keeping CO2 emissions high. It’s what the population actually wants through revealed preferences despite their expressed preferences.
It’s a little bit of both: incentive structures are both established and strengthened by profit interests.
It's not a little bit of both. "Greedy corporations" don't create demand or consumption.
Corporations want your money so they make things you want. They don't just pump CO2 into the atmosphere for fun.
Corporations want your money so they make things you want. They don't just pump CO2 into the atmosphere for fun.
Of course corporations create some demand. Stuff that breaks after a few years instead of lasting generations creates demand.
Google and Facebook are huge thanks to massive corporate advertising budgets. Lots of products would never survive based on need and consumer demand only. They need advertising to sell the product.
And those are just the first obvious examples that come to mind.
Google and Facebook are huge thanks to massive corporate advertising budgets. Lots of products would never survive based on need and consumer demand only. They need advertising to sell the product.
And those are just the first obvious examples that come to mind.
I didn't say "greedy." But yes, corporations do induce demand: that's the entire point of advertising, and so many other mainstays of 21st century capitalism: planned obsolescence, vendor lock-in, and so forth. Consumers do not want to buy a new phone, computer, fridge, &c. every X years; they do it because it's the local maxima between short-term purchasing power and corporate profits.
Nobody pumps CO2 into the atmosphere "for fun," besides a very small group of men with illegally modified trucks. But corporations do pump CO2 into the atmosphere (taken as a general metaphor for pollution) because it's an efficient method of externalization.
Nobody pumps CO2 into the atmosphere "for fun," besides a very small group of men with illegally modified trucks. But corporations do pump CO2 into the atmosphere (taken as a general metaphor for pollution) because it's an efficient method of externalization.
Without advertising, how would you know the things you want exist?
Why do you remove all agency and responsibility from consumers and place it on corporations? Does it have anything to do with which one you're a part of?
Why do you remove all agency and responsibility from consumers and place it on corporations? Does it have anything to do with which one you're a part of?
I haven't "removed all agency." My very first comment explicitly says that responsibility is shared. I also don't want to get rid of advertising; only that it does induce demand, and that's what it exists to do.
I think it would behoove you to read this thread more charitably.
Edit: that being said, I don't need an advertisement to tell me that I want the majority of things in my life.
I think it would behoove you to read this thread more charitably.
Edit: that being said, I don't need an advertisement to tell me that I want the majority of things in my life.
I wish there were like a “we get it. You won at scarce resource creation/allocation. Here’s your $Buckillion award and you never have to worry about bills again.” Maybe we give them a national audience ala a state of the union address once in five years and a bill with a straight up/down.
These people already have more money than they could ever spend in their lifetimes. We could never pay them enough because the problem with them is that they have no concept of "enough". Their greed is insatiable and they don't care who or how many get hurt as long as they get even a little more wealth and power.
[deleted]
[deleted]
And then the solution to global warming is close to just being literally money
https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Cure_for_AIDS
https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Cure_for_AIDS
Last I heard John Galt and Co were making plans to leave for Mars.
pay off the fossil feul industry? i don't know how you intend to do that.
Telling nations to abstain from carbon emissions is like asking teenagers to be celibate.
The natural way to remove carbon is weathering rocks over millions of years, and it's not hard to accelerate that process so it only takes decades: https://vesta.earth
Why wouldn't that be the best strategy? Just like contraception is the best strategy for teenagers, I think natural methods of geoengineering are the best strategy for climate change. (I'm not saying aerosols are natural, that one is a horrible idea)
The natural way to remove carbon is weathering rocks over millions of years, and it's not hard to accelerate that process so it only takes decades: https://vesta.earth
Why wouldn't that be the best strategy? Just like contraception is the best strategy for teenagers, I think natural methods of geoengineering are the best strategy for climate change. (I'm not saying aerosols are natural, that one is a horrible idea)
> Telling nations to abstain from carbon emissions is like asking teenagers to be celibate.
Not all nations are born alike. There are plenty of examples of wealthy nations in Europe and Asia with fractional carbon emissions footprint.
Before anyway throws the "they export their pollution" argument at me, you need to look at the stats on global GHG per capita.
Basically the US, Canada, Australia, and the Gulf Countries are disproportionately wasteful per capita.
This is largely due to how much people buy non-essential goods in those countries and how much energy is generated from Coal/Gas. Both of these can be changed without falling into medieval lifestyles.
To assume that nothing can be done about it is learned helplessness which absolutely plays into the interest of the hydrocarbon industry lobby.
edit: Gulf not Golf!
Not all nations are born alike. There are plenty of examples of wealthy nations in Europe and Asia with fractional carbon emissions footprint.
Before anyway throws the "they export their pollution" argument at me, you need to look at the stats on global GHG per capita.
Basically the US, Canada, Australia, and the Gulf Countries are disproportionately wasteful per capita.
This is largely due to how much people buy non-essential goods in those countries and how much energy is generated from Coal/Gas. Both of these can be changed without falling into medieval lifestyles.
To assume that nothing can be done about it is learned helplessness which absolutely plays into the interest of the hydrocarbon industry lobby.
edit: Gulf not Golf!
"Before anyway throws the "they export their pollution" argument at me, you need to look at the stats on global GHG per capita."
I think it's more useful to look at carbon emissions per unit GDP, and the change therein. Stuff has to be produced somewhere, and it doesn't matter to the Earth where. What we want is for it to be produced as carbon-efficiently as possible. By this standard the U.S. still has a way to go to catch up with Europe, but it is catching up, rapidly (and our Canadian friends are weirdly awful, I guess because of tar sands and growing food in greenhouses).
I think it's more useful to look at carbon emissions per unit GDP, and the change therein. Stuff has to be produced somewhere, and it doesn't matter to the Earth where. What we want is for it to be produced as carbon-efficiently as possible. By this standard the U.S. still has a way to go to catch up with Europe, but it is catching up, rapidly (and our Canadian friends are weirdly awful, I guess because of tar sands and growing food in greenhouses).
> Basically the US, Canada, Australia, and the Gulf Countries are disproportionately wasteful per capita.
Gee I wonder why those countries would be producing so many emissions per capita. I mean it's not like they're supplying the entire world with food and energy, oh wait, they are.
Gee I wonder why those countries would be producing so many emissions per capita. I mean it's not like they're supplying the entire world with food and energy, oh wait, they are.
> the Golf Countries
Given the truly impressive number of golf courses in the area (for a desert), this isn't the worst descriptor, but I do wonder if you mean the Gulf Countries, referring to the countries with a shoreline on the southern half of the Persian Gulf? I remember being a kid in the early 90s wondering why they were starting a war over a game...
Given the truly impressive number of golf courses in the area (for a desert), this isn't the worst descriptor, but I do wonder if you mean the Gulf Countries, referring to the countries with a shoreline on the southern half of the Persian Gulf? I remember being a kid in the early 90s wondering why they were starting a war over a game...
At least in Portuguese, "Persian Gulf" is "Golfo Pérsico", so that typo is perfectly understandable if the commenter is not a native English speaker (or has recently read non-English texts mentioning it).
Many advanced nations have already seen pretty significant emissions declines, and this is robust even when you factor in offshoring manufacturing. Many of the huge declines in renewable energy production prices haven’t kicked in yet, so we’re likely to see lots more. Getting to net zero isn’t impossible. The problem is that we may get there when it’s too late.
Then the GP suggestion seems to have a role again - if net zero emissions is not enough, carbon capturing is needed to mitigate previous emissions.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
All of these things are part of net zero (and beyond). The problem is that we may already have kicked off a warming/methane/cloud feedback loop (there are several) and so getting carbon emissions down in the future isn’t going to be enough to fix it. These geoengineering solutions scare the life out of me, but they may (soon) be our only option for surviving this.
According to Vesta's own website, even at their projections of "global scale" i.e. 100's of millions of tons CO2 captured, that's still around 1% of the annual fossil fuel driven emissions (tens of billions of tons).
This is the sort of thing you are meant to learn at school...
Introducing an exotic species for pest control can work, but sometimes it just makes everything much, much worse.
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/05/top-10-inv...
Introducing an exotic species for pest control can work, but sometimes it just makes everything much, much worse.
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/05/top-10-inv...
Disappointed that the article didn't mention the sad litany of New Zealand.
1) Hey, let's introduce rabbits for hunting!
2) Shit, they're eating all the grass that we want our sheep to eat
3) Let's introduce ferrets, stoats, and weasels, to eat all the rabbits!
4) Shit, they're just eating all the endemic birds
5) Uh....
We're still wrestling with Step #6 - our native beech forests (not Northern Hemisphere beech, as their Latin name makes clear - Nothofagus "false beech") will have a mass seeding event (a "mast") every few years. And when that happens, rodent populations explode, and then so too do the stoat and weasel populations.
But when the mustelids run out of rats and mice, then they move onto the birds. So, we have to poison, like crazy, as well as trap, to try to protect the birds most vulnerable to them.
1) Hey, let's introduce rabbits for hunting!
2) Shit, they're eating all the grass that we want our sheep to eat
3) Let's introduce ferrets, stoats, and weasels, to eat all the rabbits!
4) Shit, they're just eating all the endemic birds
5) Uh....
We're still wrestling with Step #6 - our native beech forests (not Northern Hemisphere beech, as their Latin name makes clear - Nothofagus "false beech") will have a mass seeding event (a "mast") every few years. And when that happens, rodent populations explode, and then so too do the stoat and weasel populations.
But when the mustelids run out of rats and mice, then they move onto the birds. So, we have to poison, like crazy, as well as trap, to try to protect the birds most vulnerable to them.
I am reminded of this brilliant solution from the Simpsons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiK7jcC1fY
At one point, after having introduced the brushtail possum from Australia, which is now a massive pest that kills forests and spreads bovine tuberculosis, someone suggested introducing dingos and/or tree snakes to control the possums.
Luckily, that didn't get much traction.
Luckily, that didn't get much traction.
She swallowed the snake to catch the possum. She swallowed the possum to catch the spider. She swallowed the spider to catch the fly. I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she’ll die.
Perhaps she’ll die.
Row row row your boat gently down the stream...
The closer attention you pay, the more this place seems like a simulation, of some kind.
The closer attention you pay, the more this place seems like a simulation, of some kind.
Or, more likely, life inspires art.
Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them.
Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them.
> Or, more likely, life inspires art.
Or maybe: both are true (to some degree) simultaneously!
> Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences.
Exactly - this, and also all the other things.
> This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them.
I am suspicious of the word "just" in this sentence, it makes an otherwise fine sentence seem necessarily incorrect. What did you mean by it?
Or maybe: both are true (to some degree) simultaneously!
> Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences.
Exactly - this, and also all the other things.
> This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them.
I am suspicious of the word "just" in this sentence, it makes an otherwise fine sentence seem necessarily incorrect. What did you mean by it?
It’s just a verbal tick (ha, I did it again) and means nothing. Eliminate that word and the sentence meaning is unchanged as far as my intent is concerned.
If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will.
If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will.
> It’s just a verbal tick (ha, I did it again) and means nothing. Eliminate that word and the sentence meaning is unchanged as far as my intent is concerned.
So it may seem...but can you know for certain that it doesn't reflect underlying cognition, at least to some degree?
For example, let's reconsider your statement:
"Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them."
We now know that "paying close attention means you notice more of them [only coincidences, which has also been ruled out]" is not necessarily a comprehensive set of the consequences/benefits of paying very close attention - so then: what might some other plausible benefits be, for various degrees of the exercise of "paying close attention"?
(And as an aside: have you ever noticed how programmers and scientists, and their fans, regularly extol the superiority of the virtues of strict logic and epistemology, but when they are asked to practice it they often claim that it is ~stupid/dumb/meaningless/a waste of time?)
> If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will.
This makes several assumptions - for example, if we are in a simulation, you seem to be assuming a particular kind of simulation (one that people or an entity of some kind made) - what about the Plato's Allegory of the Cave style of simulation, that has substantial scientific support?
For example: "they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic" is your experience, but not mine - materialists (not making an accusation, just saying "in general") tend to only "see" the physical realm of reality, but others also see the metaphysical realm (although ~everyone complains about the metaphysical realm, despite thinking it doesn't exist).
So it may seem...but can you know for certain that it doesn't reflect underlying cognition, at least to some degree?
For example, let's reconsider your statement:
"Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them."
We now know that "paying close attention means you notice more of them [only coincidences, which has also been ruled out]" is not necessarily a comprehensive set of the consequences/benefits of paying very close attention - so then: what might some other plausible benefits be, for various degrees of the exercise of "paying close attention"?
(And as an aside: have you ever noticed how programmers and scientists, and their fans, regularly extol the superiority of the virtues of strict logic and epistemology, but when they are asked to practice it they often claim that it is ~stupid/dumb/meaningless/a waste of time?)
> If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will.
This makes several assumptions - for example, if we are in a simulation, you seem to be assuming a particular kind of simulation (one that people or an entity of some kind made) - what about the Plato's Allegory of the Cave style of simulation, that has substantial scientific support?
For example: "they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic" is your experience, but not mine - materialists (not making an accusation, just saying "in general") tend to only "see" the physical realm of reality, but others also see the metaphysical realm (although ~everyone complains about the metaphysical realm, despite thinking it doesn't exist).
I have read your post twice and I can say with all sincerity that I can't make any sense of it, and that I'm unable to even guess what the point of any of it is.
The best I can tell is that your argument is that it's not possible for me to provide an absolute assessment of my own opinion. And that my choice of sentence construction could have some deeper meaning. If that's what you're saying, it is—in my opinion—nothing more than empty sophistry.
The best I can tell is that your argument is that it's not possible for me to provide an absolute assessment of my own opinion. And that my choice of sentence construction could have some deeper meaning. If that's what you're saying, it is—in my opinion—nothing more than empty sophistry.
That's a very simplified argument as well. Technological interventions are also often good. Medicine intervenes with the natural course of disease and deformity and more often than not produces better outcomes than if we let nature take its course. Agriculture is technology applied to the growth of plants and animals and has eliminated famine in the West for over a century and is quickly eliminating it around the world. You can't just say that human intervention = bad.
It's hard for me to see a scenario where we reduce carbon emissions by any meaningful amount, TBH.
That said, I'd rather just take my chances with the warming than engage in some mad-scientist cooling plans...
Tangential, but I really enjoyed this podcast with a climate modeler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYCrDuxal6k
That said, I'd rather just take my chances with the warming than engage in some mad-scientist cooling plans...
Tangential, but I really enjoyed this podcast with a climate modeler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYCrDuxal6k
> I'd rather just take my chances with the warming
At a certain point humanity's chances with the warming are zero. Just depends on how many dominoes start to fall and how fast. We could conceivably wipe out just about all life on the planet. If our only hope is to buy ourselves a few more years by geoengineering I'm all for it, but I do wish we'd start with things that didn't involve poisoning our atmosphere or risking upsetting our already screwed up weather system. It seems like we've done basically nothing so far so jumping straight to the most extreme potential solutions (none of which have a ton of evidence supporting their effectiveness) feels premature.
I guess if I were in the fossil fuel industry and wanted to continue making money hand over fist by destroying the planet these kinds of options must seem pretty tempting though. They certainly wouldn't lose any sleep poisoning the sky if it means they can continue doing business as usual.
At a certain point humanity's chances with the warming are zero. Just depends on how many dominoes start to fall and how fast. We could conceivably wipe out just about all life on the planet. If our only hope is to buy ourselves a few more years by geoengineering I'm all for it, but I do wish we'd start with things that didn't involve poisoning our atmosphere or risking upsetting our already screwed up weather system. It seems like we've done basically nothing so far so jumping straight to the most extreme potential solutions (none of which have a ton of evidence supporting their effectiveness) feels premature.
I guess if I were in the fossil fuel industry and wanted to continue making money hand over fist by destroying the planet these kinds of options must seem pretty tempting though. They certainly wouldn't lose any sleep poisoning the sky if it means they can continue doing business as usual.
>At a certain point humanity's chances with the warming are zero. Just depends on how many dominoes start to fall and how fast. We could conceivably wipe out just about all life on the planet.
The hyperbole in your claim is laughable and completely unhelpful for anyone who's on the fence about climate change and climate change measures. Even the worst evidence-based predictions of the UN and the IPCC come nowhere near the extinction of all life or anything remotely in the same ballpark.
What you're saying seems to be part of a doom and gloom fetishism that has always been innate to humanity (see centuries of apocalyptic predictions under any number of pretexts you can conceive) and has nothing to do with real science, real risks and real, possible solutions. Today, for many, this fetishism happens to have latched onto climate change, and steals some of its apparent legitimacy from the fact that the underlying problem is a real one, though not a genuine doom scenario.
The Earth has warmed drastically at many times in its past, and it will survive along with life, without problems despite even our worst human-caused warming. Even with our predicted warming trends, humanity will be a long ways from being in danger of extinction as the climate changes to a warmer one because of our economic activities. As we've already done many times in our past, we will simply adapt.
The hyperbole in your claim is laughable and completely unhelpful for anyone who's on the fence about climate change and climate change measures. Even the worst evidence-based predictions of the UN and the IPCC come nowhere near the extinction of all life or anything remotely in the same ballpark.
What you're saying seems to be part of a doom and gloom fetishism that has always been innate to humanity (see centuries of apocalyptic predictions under any number of pretexts you can conceive) and has nothing to do with real science, real risks and real, possible solutions. Today, for many, this fetishism happens to have latched onto climate change, and steals some of its apparent legitimacy from the fact that the underlying problem is a real one, though not a genuine doom scenario.
The Earth has warmed drastically at many times in its past, and it will survive along with life, without problems despite even our worst human-caused warming. Even with our predicted warming trends, humanity will be a long ways from being in danger of extinction as the climate changes to a warmer one because of our economic activities. As we've already done many times in our past, we will simply adapt.
"we will simply adapt."
Tough luck to the other folks, right? They should have been born in a different country. They deal with the consequences of your pollution, as their political system crumbles and nobody lets them migrate.
First, don't make assumptions. I live in a tropical country, in the tropics.
Secondly, your emotional comment completely disregards the basic point of what I was saying, that humans in general will adapt and are actually very good at it in general.
Furthermore, even more fundamentally, my points about doom fetishism and apocalyptic exaggeration: Climate change is a problem for the vastly complex human society spread all across the globe and sustaining 8 billion people, but it is not on par with a true cataclysm for life on earth in the way something like a large asteroid impact or a "snowball earth" ice age would be. It is something that the earth, life on earth and much of human society in general will find ways to deal with. This isn't to sweep suffering under the rug, but it's worth mentioning for a dose of realistic optimism.
We simply can't predict at this point what human innovations in the next 150 years of the UN/IPCC predictions of worst case climate warming will possibly improve things or let humanity adapt in ways that mitigate the worst effects of those evidence-based predictions (as opposed to sheer hyperbole pushed forward by people obsessed with emotional arguments over death and destruction.)
Secondly, your emotional comment completely disregards the basic point of what I was saying, that humans in general will adapt and are actually very good at it in general.
Furthermore, even more fundamentally, my points about doom fetishism and apocalyptic exaggeration: Climate change is a problem for the vastly complex human society spread all across the globe and sustaining 8 billion people, but it is not on par with a true cataclysm for life on earth in the way something like a large asteroid impact or a "snowball earth" ice age would be. It is something that the earth, life on earth and much of human society in general will find ways to deal with. This isn't to sweep suffering under the rug, but it's worth mentioning for a dose of realistic optimism.
We simply can't predict at this point what human innovations in the next 150 years of the UN/IPCC predictions of worst case climate warming will possibly improve things or let humanity adapt in ways that mitigate the worst effects of those evidence-based predictions (as opposed to sheer hyperbole pushed forward by people obsessed with emotional arguments over death and destruction.)
Also, the whole world has benefited enormously from emissions and the economies of scale that they have allowed, not just the global north. The immense economic uplifts that have happened in the developing world during the 20th and 21st centuries were also bought with huge levels of resource use and industrialization.
> unhelpful for anyone who's on the fence about climate change
I have no interest in trying to convince anyone who is "on the fence" about climate change. It's real. Anyone who doesn't see that by now can't be convinced by facts, or overwhelming scientific consensus, they sure as hell aren't going to be convinced by me.
> Even the worst evidence-based predictions of the UN and the IPCC come nowhere near the extinction of all life or anything remotely in the same ballpark. What you're saying seems to be part of a doom and gloom fetishism
Some scientists like Frank Fenner, Henry Gee, and Stephen Hawking have already predicted that humans will go extinct in large part due to climate change, but climate research hasn't given much consideration to the worst effects of climate change and it's hard to blame them.
The IPCC has looked at tens of thousands of species of land animals and determined that as many as 14% "will likely face very high risk of extinction" and things are looking much worse for things living in our oceans (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/without-action...) but predicting the effects of climate change on animal populations is hard enough, predicting the effects of the collapse of human society is much much more difficult and also really depressing to think about. Still, scientists are saying that it's time to explore how bad climate change will be on humanity, what the collapse of civilization might look like (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8161/htm), and that human extinction is one of those outcomes we need to be thinking about. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2108146119)
You call it doom and gloom fetishism, but it's smart to take a hard look at the potential outcomes of climate change so we know what's at stake and can prepare as best as we can for what's coming. Even the DoD acknowledges that climate change is an "existential threat" (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/25...).
> The Earth has warmed drastically at many times in its past,
And in the past those periods of warming, which are nothing like what we face now, still resulted in mass extinction events that killed off 80%-90% of all life on the planet. Adaptation takes time, and that's something we might not have enough of.
I have no interest in trying to convince anyone who is "on the fence" about climate change. It's real. Anyone who doesn't see that by now can't be convinced by facts, or overwhelming scientific consensus, they sure as hell aren't going to be convinced by me.
> Even the worst evidence-based predictions of the UN and the IPCC come nowhere near the extinction of all life or anything remotely in the same ballpark. What you're saying seems to be part of a doom and gloom fetishism
Some scientists like Frank Fenner, Henry Gee, and Stephen Hawking have already predicted that humans will go extinct in large part due to climate change, but climate research hasn't given much consideration to the worst effects of climate change and it's hard to blame them.
The IPCC has looked at tens of thousands of species of land animals and determined that as many as 14% "will likely face very high risk of extinction" and things are looking much worse for things living in our oceans (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/without-action...) but predicting the effects of climate change on animal populations is hard enough, predicting the effects of the collapse of human society is much much more difficult and also really depressing to think about. Still, scientists are saying that it's time to explore how bad climate change will be on humanity, what the collapse of civilization might look like (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8161/htm), and that human extinction is one of those outcomes we need to be thinking about. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2108146119)
You call it doom and gloom fetishism, but it's smart to take a hard look at the potential outcomes of climate change so we know what's at stake and can prepare as best as we can for what's coming. Even the DoD acknowledges that climate change is an "existential threat" (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/25...).
> The Earth has warmed drastically at many times in its past,
And in the past those periods of warming, which are nothing like what we face now, still resulted in mass extinction events that killed off 80%-90% of all life on the planet. Adaptation takes time, and that's something we might not have enough of.
> I'd rather just take my chances with the warming rather than engage in some mad-scientist cooling plans
You (and I) are likely fairly wealthy relative to the rest of the world and will be dead within 60 years at the outside.
What we’d rather do doesn’t matter at all. Any decision from here on out is to mitigate the coming climate hell of 100-200 years from now.
Every year for the rest of our lives will be worse climate-wise. Some people are rich enough to avoid it bothering them too much. The rest of us will just have to deal with it.
You (and I) are likely fairly wealthy relative to the rest of the world and will be dead within 60 years at the outside.
What we’d rather do doesn’t matter at all. Any decision from here on out is to mitigate the coming climate hell of 100-200 years from now.
Every year for the rest of our lives will be worse climate-wise. Some people are rich enough to avoid it bothering them too much. The rest of us will just have to deal with it.
Stuff has been injected into the atmosphere by both humans and non-human processes since the beginning. I don't think this is likely to cause irreparable damage. What man has broken man can fix.
The anti-human ideology of environmentalism needs to end or mankind probably will.
The massive carbon reductions being called for won't happen once people realize the massive toll in human suffering they would cause. A pre-industrial Earth couldn't support anywhere near 8 billion humans.
The anti-human ideology of environmentalism needs to end or mankind probably will.
The massive carbon reductions being called for won't happen once people realize the massive toll in human suffering they would cause. A pre-industrial Earth couldn't support anywhere near 8 billion humans.
"What man has broken man can fix."
No evidence to support such a bold and frankly uninformed claim. If we could have fixed this we would have - but right now we have so many complex systems which we only think we have some semblance of control.
"The massive carbon reductions being called for won't happen once people realize the massive toll in human suffering they would cause. A pre-industrial Earth couldn't support anywhere near 8 billion humans." << -- More troll lunacy.
No evidence to support such a bold and frankly uninformed claim. If we could have fixed this we would have - but right now we have so many complex systems which we only think we have some semblance of control.
"The massive carbon reductions being called for won't happen once people realize the massive toll in human suffering they would cause. A pre-industrial Earth couldn't support anywhere near 8 billion humans." << -- More troll lunacy.
> more troll lunacy
The Haber-Bosch process requires nitrogen pulled from petrochemicals (there are no other large sources of nitrogen we can use at scale) to feed a large portion of the worlds population. We literally *CANNOT* go back to guano - people would starve to death.
Edit: I made a grave error in the above. I misremembered nitrogen as the scarce material in the reaction, when in fact it's hydrogen. We get hydrogen from hydrocarbons that we then use for synthesizing fertilizer.
I'm going to leave the above error so future humans can laugh at my idiocy.
The Haber-Bosch process requires nitrogen pulled from petrochemicals (there are no other large sources of nitrogen we can use at scale) to feed a large portion of the worlds population. We literally *CANNOT* go back to guano - people would starve to death.
Edit: I made a grave error in the above. I misremembered nitrogen as the scarce material in the reaction, when in fact it's hydrogen. We get hydrogen from hydrocarbons that we then use for synthesizing fertilizer.
I'm going to leave the above error so future humans can laugh at my idiocy.
"The Haber process consumes 3–5% of the world's natural-gas production (around 1–2% of the world's energy supply)"[1]
Seems like we could cut out most fossil-fuel consumption without making any sacrifice on this front.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_env...
Seems like we could cut out most fossil-fuel consumption without making any sacrifice on this front.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_env...
Even if we don't figure out green hydrogen for some time, I'd be okay with diverting some amount of fossil fuel consumption to essential chemical processes, like Haber-Bosh ammonia and plastics, while cutting drastically the systems that don't strictly need hydrocarbons for their purpose. Hydrocarbons are wildly useful chemical precursors, it's kind of a shame they are mostly used just for burning.
[deleted]
The real lunatics are the ones claiming you can shut down production of internal combustion engines and the use of fossil fuels overnight and long before equivalent alternatives are available without causing societal collapse and the humanitarian disasters that will entail.
Are people seriously suggesting that, though?
We already have an equivalent alternative for internal combustion engines for passenger cars, plus some other types of vehicles in some situations. No, not every situation and every vehicle, but if we could replace all passenger cars with EVs overnight, that would make a huge dent in emissions. Yes, we'd still have all sorts of construction equipment, 18-wheelers, etc. running off gasoline. But that's ok, for now. Of course we can't even replace passenger cars; most legal efforts to phase out ICEs in passenger cars have timelines that we should have already hit, but are still years, and in some places decades, away -- if they exist at all.
On electricity generation, new renewable plants are coming online at a decent pace, but we could be so much farther along by now if it wasn't for special interest groups and lobbyists clinging to the status quo. At the very least, we should have our daylight-hour needs 100% met by renewable sources by now, but we're nowhere near there. It's pathetic.
We already have an equivalent alternative for internal combustion engines for passenger cars, plus some other types of vehicles in some situations. No, not every situation and every vehicle, but if we could replace all passenger cars with EVs overnight, that would make a huge dent in emissions. Yes, we'd still have all sorts of construction equipment, 18-wheelers, etc. running off gasoline. But that's ok, for now. Of course we can't even replace passenger cars; most legal efforts to phase out ICEs in passenger cars have timelines that we should have already hit, but are still years, and in some places decades, away -- if they exist at all.
On electricity generation, new renewable plants are coming online at a decent pace, but we could be so much farther along by now if it wasn't for special interest groups and lobbyists clinging to the status quo. At the very least, we should have our daylight-hour needs 100% met by renewable sources by now, but we're nowhere near there. It's pathetic.
A huge dent would be nice, but it's not a solution to anything. We need a full reversal, not just stopping emissions but actively recovering emissions that have already been expended.
Cars and electricity generation are but a fraction. We need heating, shipping, goods production, agriculture all to become climate neutral or we'll simply continue on this path of ever increasing catastrophe.
What is your argument for electrifying cars being ok for now?
Cars and electricity generation are but a fraction. We need heating, shipping, goods production, agriculture all to become climate neutral or we'll simply continue on this path of ever increasing catastrophe.
What is your argument for electrifying cars being ok for now?
> What man has broken man can fix.
Citation needed, please.
Citation needed, please.
Chop down a tree, plant a new one. Kill someone, have a baby.
I'm not sure these are examples, or counterexamples, though...
I'm not sure these are examples, or counterexamples, though...
The hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica? There's an example.
That's a bold example to use, considering that humanity learned that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) created the ozone hole, so we agreed to stop use them, and then the nature recovered, without causing any noticeable hardship or economic damage.
Now consider that in the context of global warming.
Now consider that in the context of global warming.
Do you understand that one instance of this being true does absolutely nothing to validate any other instance? You need to present a large body of empirical data.
Alright then, how about leaded gasoline, uranium paint, and PFOA/PFOS? All of these chemicals were found to be terrible over time and were phased out.
These examples do nothing to establish that "what man has broken, man can fix". I'm honestly appalled by the lack of scientific thinking in this thread.
I think you're downplaying how destructive heavy metals and xenoestrogens are on the population.
Widespead use of lead had horrific affects on child development - and it's even credited for being one of the factors that lead to the downfall of the Roman empire.
And if we hadn't stopped using pfas as quickly as we did we would have had an even bigger fertility crisis on our hands than we currently do. We would have strode right into a Children of Men scenario.
I don't understand how you can blow these examples off as a "lack of scientific thinking". The irresponsible use of chemicals (or, more charitably, unintended side effects) seriously damaged society, and collective action was taken to mitigate further damage. How is that not an example of what you were asking for?
Widespead use of lead had horrific affects on child development - and it's even credited for being one of the factors that lead to the downfall of the Roman empire.
And if we hadn't stopped using pfas as quickly as we did we would have had an even bigger fertility crisis on our hands than we currently do. We would have strode right into a Children of Men scenario.
I don't understand how you can blow these examples off as a "lack of scientific thinking". The irresponsible use of chemicals (or, more charitably, unintended side effects) seriously damaged society, and collective action was taken to mitigate further damage. How is that not an example of what you were asking for?
I'm not blowing off any examples, I'm disregarding attempts to use these few data points as the basis for proving some asinine hypothesis such as "What man has broken, man can fix".
> How is that not an example of what you were asking for?
I didn't ask for examples. I asked for proof to back up the above claim. A few random examples aren't proof, I don't care how heavy and toxic lead is. It has nothing to do with our current environmental issues, it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
> How is that not an example of what you were asking for?
I didn't ask for examples. I asked for proof to back up the above claim. A few random examples aren't proof, I don't care how heavy and toxic lead is. It has nothing to do with our current environmental issues, it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You know, playing Russian roulette is perfectly safe. I've done it multiple times[1], and look, I'm still here and well.
[1] No, not really.
[1] No, not really.
>What man has broken man can fix.
Counterpoint: Nuclear disasters like Chernobyl.
Some things just need to fix themselves over a long timescale. If we screw up badly enough, humanity won't be around to see the eventual recovery.
Counterpoint: Nuclear disasters like Chernobyl.
Some things just need to fix themselves over a long timescale. If we screw up badly enough, humanity won't be around to see the eventual recovery.
I don't know how the science side of it works out in the real world, but the Snowpiercer take on this is pretty terrifying
But it made for a pretty great TV show and a not bad film though!
Joking aside this is a really fascinating, it’s just a shame we have to experiment in it with an N of 1
Joking aside this is a really fascinating, it’s just a shame we have to experiment in it with an N of 1
> Reduction of Carbon Emissions is and always will be the best strategy to slow down global warming.
This isn’t sufficient on its own. Reduction of emissions, carbon recapture and carbon sequestration are all needed.
This isn’t sufficient on its own. Reduction of emissions, carbon recapture and carbon sequestration are all needed.
> Reduction of Carbon Emissions is and always will be the best strategy to slow down global warming.
A strategy that has consistently failed across multiple countries for the last 30 years is not a good strategy.
A strategy that has consistently failed across multiple countries for the last 30 years is not a good strategy.
incorrect. https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/total-greenhouse-gas-emission-...
The entire EU which consists of multiple countries, has reduced in emissions consistently since about 1970.
Even the US has been going down in absolute numbers since 2005, and per capita for longer.
It would be okay if this trend would be true across the world, but the issue is china primary and India secondly are growing in emissions exponentially, and their increase is more than the decrease in developed nations.
Even the US has been going down in absolute numbers since 2005, and per capita for longer.
It would be okay if this trend would be true across the world, but the issue is china primary and India secondly are growing in emissions exponentially, and their increase is more than the decrease in developed nations.
You just admitted it’s a failing strategy in the last half of your “incorrect” retort.
A solution to global CO2 emissions has to be effective globally or it has failed. The only thing it has accomplished is a slight slowing of the global increase. That is complete, abject failure.
A solution to global CO2 emissions has to be effective globally or it has failed. The only thing it has accomplished is a slight slowing of the global increase. That is complete, abject failure.
What the side effects are, and how you can reverse various techniques if they doesn't work as intended seems like good topics for this proposed research to focus on.
Since volcanoes do the same thing, we know from observation that the aerosols fall out of the atmosphere in a year or two.
Perhaps, until we have practical solutions or the will to embrace the existing solutions lowering carbon solutions is itself a "moon shot" with the potential for unintended consequences of its own along with many known but serious consequences we choose to ignore.
Reduction of Carbon Emissions is also a sure way to show down the economy. And slowing down the economy is not acceptable: people want to get rid of global warming in order to live better; if the price to pay is to live worse, it's not worth it.
How could aerosols ruin the atmosphere?
And how do you calculate the probability of success here? And the probability of success of reducing carbon emissions?
And how do you calculate the probability of success here? And the probability of success of reducing carbon emissions?
no more than a volcanic eruption.
and like a volcanic eruption, the dust goes away in a few years.
stop the hysteria.
and like a volcanic eruption, the dust goes away in a few years.
stop the hysteria.
These threads always have people saying "hmm, I don't know about this, seems like there might be negative unintended consequences". I always want to say this, so I'll say it here:
Without some drastic step, global temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees, causing widespread death, countless displaced people, extinct species, collapsed biomes, and so on. Second-order consequences like starvation, viral outbreaks, and wars are are harder to predict, but seem very likely.
The solution to this, if there is one, will not be to reduce, reuse, and recycle. It will not be driving cars less, or eating less meat, or getting more power from renewable resources. Those are not drastic solutions, those are sensible solutions we could have taken a hundred years ago, but didn't. The thing to realize is that the damage has already been done, and we are just waiting for the effects to propagate.
We're now in a situation where, distasteful and dangerous as they may be, technological solutions like this are the only possible solutions. Not necessarily this, but things like this, and as crazy (or crazier) than this sounds. Yes, unintended side effects. Yes, expensive. Yes, not guaranteed to work. That's what's on the table. From what I've seen, anything short of a novel technological solution at this point amounts to just waiting.
Without some drastic step, global temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees, causing widespread death, countless displaced people, extinct species, collapsed biomes, and so on. Second-order consequences like starvation, viral outbreaks, and wars are are harder to predict, but seem very likely.
The solution to this, if there is one, will not be to reduce, reuse, and recycle. It will not be driving cars less, or eating less meat, or getting more power from renewable resources. Those are not drastic solutions, those are sensible solutions we could have taken a hundred years ago, but didn't. The thing to realize is that the damage has already been done, and we are just waiting for the effects to propagate.
We're now in a situation where, distasteful and dangerous as they may be, technological solutions like this are the only possible solutions. Not necessarily this, but things like this, and as crazy (or crazier) than this sounds. Yes, unintended side effects. Yes, expensive. Yes, not guaranteed to work. That's what's on the table. From what I've seen, anything short of a novel technological solution at this point amounts to just waiting.
Not sure that's really the case. Carbon capture and sequestration is a thing, and is something we know that we can do with current technology. This atmosphere modification plan is still entirely theoretical, and any scientist who believes they can actually model all potential consequences is a quack, at best.
Certainly carbon capture won't be enough; we do need to reduce emissions. We have the technology to do that, but often not the political will. I don't know how to fix that. Fortunately the move toward renewable sources of electricity does continue to march on, just a lot slower than it needs to be.
> Yes, unintended side effects.
What if the unintended side effects are worse than the effects of climate change?
Certainly carbon capture won't be enough; we do need to reduce emissions. We have the technology to do that, but often not the political will. I don't know how to fix that. Fortunately the move toward renewable sources of electricity does continue to march on, just a lot slower than it needs to be.
> Yes, unintended side effects.
What if the unintended side effects are worse than the effects of climate change?
This is learned helplessness. Nothing is set in stone about our world depending on power from burning oil.
>We're now in a situation where, distasteful and dangerous as they may be, technological solutions like this are the only possible solutions.
What about degrowth?
What about degrowth?
> Yes, unintended side effects. Yes, expensive. Yes, not guaranteed to work. That's what's on the table.
I think I see your point, but you are missing the elephant in the room. And you are not alone in missing it, so don't panic about being blind.
> Without some drastic step, global temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees...
This, we know it for sure. Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly?
More and more land around the equator will become inhabitable, and people will be forced to emigrate en masse? Let's help them to start emigrate today!
Those tiny islands in the Indian Ocean that will be submerged by the rising water? Stop building there, and teach the children that their future will be somewhere else.
Widespread viruses? Learn from Covid 19, cooperate world-wide to have express vaccines and so on.
Sure, I'm talking about very, very sad scenarios, but so are you. But my proposals:
1- are based on what we know today;
2- we know that they can work;
3- we can estimate the amount of pain they will cause.
None of this point applies to any other proposal I've ever heard about concerning global warming.
I think I see your point, but you are missing the elephant in the room. And you are not alone in missing it, so don't panic about being blind.
> Without some drastic step, global temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees...
This, we know it for sure. Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly?
More and more land around the equator will become inhabitable, and people will be forced to emigrate en masse? Let's help them to start emigrate today!
Those tiny islands in the Indian Ocean that will be submerged by the rising water? Stop building there, and teach the children that their future will be somewhere else.
Widespread viruses? Learn from Covid 19, cooperate world-wide to have express vaccines and so on.
Sure, I'm talking about very, very sad scenarios, but so are you. But my proposals:
1- are based on what we know today;
2- we know that they can work;
3- we can estimate the amount of pain they will cause.
None of this point applies to any other proposal I've ever heard about concerning global warming.
I'm all good with helping people prepare for the effects of global warming, as long as that does nothing to detract from our efforts to prevent/reverse it. You said:
> Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly?
And the problem I have is the word "just". No, we're not going to just accept it. We should fight like hell to prevent that from happening. We can still plan and prepare for if all our fighting fails, but taking drastic steps and trying some moonshots is absolutely not off the table.
> Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly?
And the problem I have is the word "just". No, we're not going to just accept it. We should fight like hell to prevent that from happening. We can still plan and prepare for if all our fighting fails, but taking drastic steps and trying some moonshots is absolutely not off the table.
At best, the idea that we can "prevent/reverse" climate change, and control the global climate like a household thermostat is purely a hypothesis, at worst, its futile mythology that the priestly caste has been asserting as the path to salvation since the beginning of human history.
Primitive hominids have learned to adapt thru massive climate change for millions of years. Makes sense that we should put more effort into what we know we can do (adapt), than unquestioningly following ideas that shamans, priests, and scientists claim can be done -- with zero proof.
Primitive hominids have learned to adapt thru massive climate change for millions of years. Makes sense that we should put more effort into what we know we can do (adapt), than unquestioningly following ideas that shamans, priests, and scientists claim can be done -- with zero proof.
> extinct species,
We've had extinct species for the last 200 years of Industrial Revolution, not sure a forced terraforming will change anything about that.
We've had extinct species for the last 200 years of Industrial Revolution, not sure a forced terraforming will change anything about that.
You stub your toe all the time! Stop complaining that I'm pulverizing your legs and arms with a baseball bat!
See how magnitude can matter?
See how magnitude can matter?
I wish the destruction brought to the environment by the last 200 or so years had been just a “stub one’s toe” thing.
I’m also highly skeptical of the transformation that took place from “climate change is real, maybe we should do something about it” to “we’re all going to die a because of it!”, all in a matter of a few years at most. I guess that apocalyptic spirit created by the reaction to the last pandemic had to be redirected somewhere.
I’m also highly skeptical of the transformation that took place from “climate change is real, maybe we should do something about it” to “we’re all going to die a because of it!”, all in a matter of a few years at most. I guess that apocalyptic spirit created by the reaction to the last pandemic had to be redirected somewhere.
I'm going to make an out there prediction. It works, but its expensive and demands a lot of technology which people like santos, bechtel, schlumberger are absolute EXPERTS at supplying in a cost+ government project with no penalty clauses.
I'm going to make a second prediction. It wont work as well as moving out of the industrial processes into newer ones which don't exacerbate the problem, it's just that the money flows won't help the people who have the ear of the WH on this.
And a third one. it will have serious downsides. things which we didn't think of which are exceptionally hard to remediate at scale once we've put the material up there in volume.
This isn't really predictive. Its actually not that far removed from what the other commentors say Neal Stephenson said anyway.
I'm going to make a second prediction. It wont work as well as moving out of the industrial processes into newer ones which don't exacerbate the problem, it's just that the money flows won't help the people who have the ear of the WH on this.
And a third one. it will have serious downsides. things which we didn't think of which are exceptionally hard to remediate at scale once we've put the material up there in volume.
This isn't really predictive. Its actually not that far removed from what the other commentors say Neal Stephenson said anyway.
I don't think this needs to be tremendously expensive, and there are side benefits to this.
More reflective footpath and road surfaces (think paler in colour rather than mirror like) are cooler - urban heat will be a problem that also needs solving and that solves both. Solar panels are also somewhat reflective.
I think it's a mistake to think 'large mirror' than to think about what we can change about the massive surfaces that we are already covering with man-made structures.
More reflective footpath and road surfaces (think paler in colour rather than mirror like) are cooler - urban heat will be a problem that also needs solving and that solves both. Solar panels are also somewhat reflective.
I think it's a mistake to think 'large mirror' than to think about what we can change about the massive surfaces that we are already covering with man-made structures.
Those aren't the rapid climate interventions this seems to be about. This about injecting massive amounts of material into the atmosphere and/or ocean.
Solar panels heat the earth: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/giant-desert-solar-farms-mi...
Only if placed above high albedo surfaces. And when placed above existing grass several times less than any other option except wind/tidal.
A solar panel above asphalt or concrete provides a net increase in albedo. And there is more than enough to provide the required solar share of energy to provide all our needs (with the other half provided by wind).
A solar panel above asphalt or concrete provides a net increase in albedo. And there is more than enough to provide the required solar share of energy to provide all our needs (with the other half provided by wind).
More or less than fossil fuels?
Irrelevant, the point is that they don't increase albedo so deploying absurd amounts of them won't cool the atmosphere.
Putting solar panels in deserts is a very stupid use of those solar panels, in any case.
The only reason solar farms are placed in deserts is that pig-ignorant investors love the idea, so there are oceans of money earmarked for it.
The only reason solar farms are placed in deserts is that pig-ignorant investors love the idea, so there are oceans of money earmarked for it.
What's wrong with putting solar panels in deserts? Increased maintenance? Distance from civilization?
They also loose efficiency with heat, about 0.5%/°C, so cheap panels can be 25% less efficient.
They gather dust, which can cut output 50%. That is on top of the heat induced loss of conversion efficiency, and reduced panel life.
And, yes, you need to build transmission lines.
They go better in pastures and floating on canals and reservoirs.
And, yes, you need to build transmission lines.
They go better in pastures and floating on canals and reservoirs.
> And a third one. it will have serious downsides. things which we didn't think of which are exceptionally hard to remediate at scale once we've put the material up there in volume.
I disagree with this. The downsides will be things the same 15% of the population that always points these things out will point out. They'll then be soundly ignored.
I disagree with this. The downsides will be things the same 15% of the population that always points these things out will point out. They'll then be soundly ignored.
Honestly, at this point tech is probably the only way climate change will be fixed. You won't get people to agree to make their life worse for the sake of the environment, no matter how much activists keep trying to push that. And so if drastic measures like this are what's needed, then those are what's needed. We can either argue about responsibilities and sustainability for years with little effect, or accept that technological methods are probably going to be the solution here.
Plus it's not like this would have to go on forever. Once all sources of energy are 'green' and carbon capture has removed enough of the CO2 from the atmosphere, then any means of reflecting back sunlight or reducing the amount that reaches Earth can be gradually scaled back.
Plus it's not like this would have to go on forever. Once all sources of energy are 'green' and carbon capture has removed enough of the CO2 from the atmosphere, then any means of reflecting back sunlight or reducing the amount that reaches Earth can be gradually scaled back.
The driving cost for solar pv is the structure and the land, the panels are now so cheap (and getting cheaper) that the economic recommendation is to install 3x the generation capacity of the inverter. Sizing for hitting capacity on the darkest days basically.
Living in a draft proof, highly insulated home with mechanical air filtration and heat recovery, driving an EV that’s powered by the roof of your house doesn’t sound like any kind of worse life to me.
Abundant, locally generated electricity is a game changer. You can even extract drinking water from the air inside your house in all but the driest of locations.
Living in a draft proof, highly insulated home with mechanical air filtration and heat recovery, driving an EV that’s powered by the roof of your house doesn’t sound like any kind of worse life to me.
Abundant, locally generated electricity is a game changer. You can even extract drinking water from the air inside your house in all but the driest of locations.
Mmm ok, so everyone lives in a house in an American suburb with American population density levels? Yeah, it sounds like you really don’t get how most of the world’s population lives.
Cities have far more potential for efficient energy generation and use than houses.
Let's take one poor country: Brazil. 80% of electricity is from renewable resources.
You cannot buy pure gasoline at the pump, it's all mixed with renewable ethanol and the percentage goes up by law every year. Since the vast majority of cars run on pure ethanal which you can get at all fueling stations, some people choose to never buy fossil fuels for their car.
All diesel is mixed with renewable biodiesel by law, and that percentage goes up every year.
So if a poor country with the largest city in the Southern hemisphere can make such rapid progress, you're really out of excuses. The technology and prices are there. The question is electing the right people who will encourage it to happen.
Some will mention that Brazil is lucky to have a lot of hydro which is true. So go look at their huge investment in solar and wind which isn't luck. And then you need to explain the progress in transportation moving away from fossil fuels. There's a lot to learn from a poor developing country with huge cities.
Let's take one poor country: Brazil. 80% of electricity is from renewable resources.
You cannot buy pure gasoline at the pump, it's all mixed with renewable ethanol and the percentage goes up by law every year. Since the vast majority of cars run on pure ethanal which you can get at all fueling stations, some people choose to never buy fossil fuels for their car.
All diesel is mixed with renewable biodiesel by law, and that percentage goes up every year.
So if a poor country with the largest city in the Southern hemisphere can make such rapid progress, you're really out of excuses. The technology and prices are there. The question is electing the right people who will encourage it to happen.
Some will mention that Brazil is lucky to have a lot of hydro which is true. So go look at their huge investment in solar and wind which isn't luck. And then you need to explain the progress in transportation moving away from fossil fuels. There's a lot to learn from a poor developing country with huge cities.
Those massive investments are made in the hope for return, not the current elected people’s green goodwill. Brazil has lots of land and water which makes ethanol (financially) profitable and many mines that are better driven for national solar panel production than going to international market.
> Those massive investments are made in the hope for return, not the current elected people’s green goodwill
Could you please share the evidence you have of the motivations of the elected people? Anyone can make guesses and it would be easy enough for me to come up with a list of reasons that your guesses are wrong. I'd prefer a more evidence based approach. Lacking evidence, guesses like this can be ignored.
I'm also not sure why the motivations are even important if the end result is renewable energy, and especially energy that is more carbon neutral than burning fossil fuels.
Could you please share the evidence you have of the motivations of the elected people? Anyone can make guesses and it would be easy enough for me to come up with a list of reasons that your guesses are wrong. I'd prefer a more evidence based approach. Lacking evidence, guesses like this can be ignored.
I'm also not sure why the motivations are even important if the end result is renewable energy, and especially energy that is more carbon neutral than burning fossil fuels.
> Let's take one poor country: Brazil. 80% of electricity is from renewable resources.
I dont think thats true at all: https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/brazil
I dont think thats true at all: https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/brazil
Which chart are you looking at? I don't see a chart for electricity sources on that page. When I go to the page for electricity mix (https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix) and choose Brazil in the chart, I get a total of 77.46% of electricity coming from renewables (not including nuclear) for 2021. If we include nuclear, it's 80%.
It's usually higher than 80% without including nuclear, but 2021 had significantly lower hydro due to drought. Fortunately the huge investment in wind and solar kept that number close enough to 80%. Had that investment not happened, the numbers for 2021 would be much lower.
There were multiple decades in Brazil where 80% of electricity came from hydro alone.
It's usually higher than 80% without including nuclear, but 2021 had significantly lower hydro due to drought. Fortunately the huge investment in wind and solar kept that number close enough to 80%. Had that investment not happened, the numbers for 2021 would be much lower.
There were multiple decades in Brazil where 80% of electricity came from hydro alone.
I was specifically addressing "You won't get people to agree to make their life worse for the sake of the environment, no matter how much activists keep trying to push that"
[deleted]
That could as well be a city apartment, except for the rooftop solar being enough for the whole building.
> so everyone lives in a house in an American suburb
How about we get started on those and see how we go? You can also put solar panels on the roofs of appartment blocks and the distributed cost and maintenance gets even mroe compelling even if you dont generate 100% of the usage.
How about we get started on those and see how we go? You can also put solar panels on the roofs of appartment blocks and the distributed cost and maintenance gets even mroe compelling even if you dont generate 100% of the usage.
> Living in a draft proof, highly insulated home with mechanical air filtration and heat recovery, driving an EV that’s powered by the roof of your house doesn’t sound like any kind of worse life to me.
The problem is that even if everyone did that it wouldn't come close to reaching net zero. Personal transportation, electricity use and heating are a fraction of the total emissions. Transportation, electricity and heating for commercial and industrial sectors are much larger and then you need to add on top of that direct emissions by industry and agriculture. So a lot of what people are arguing for when they say they want to cut emissions is a reduction in industry, agriculture and commerce which would indeed make life much worse for everyone.
The problem is that even if everyone did that it wouldn't come close to reaching net zero. Personal transportation, electricity use and heating are a fraction of the total emissions. Transportation, electricity and heating for commercial and industrial sectors are much larger and then you need to add on top of that direct emissions by industry and agriculture. So a lot of what people are arguing for when they say they want to cut emissions is a reduction in industry, agriculture and commerce which would indeed make life much worse for everyone.
> You can even extract drinking water from the air inside your house in all but the driest of locations.
That's some Fremen-level tech right there!
That's some Fremen-level tech right there!
It's a dehumidifier welded to a water filter. Simple tech. Bonus if you're in a cold climate, it helps to heat your home up too.
I wish these guys, or someone would get beyond the 'call us for pricing' vaporware stage and actually start selling to retail customers: https://www.watergen.com/home-office/
I wish these guys, or someone would get beyond the 'call us for pricing' vaporware stage and actually start selling to retail customers: https://www.watergen.com/home-office/
These dehumidifiers produce half a liter a day and need around 72 watt
which is maybe 1€ per liter drinking water for my area
The tech is cool but not really new or a solution to all water problems, the energy cost is relatively high.
More about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGTRX6pZSns
which is maybe 1€ per liter drinking water for my area
The tech is cool but not really new or a solution to all water problems, the energy cost is relatively high.
More about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGTRX6pZSns
AC does it as a side-effect of cooling the interior, but it's still a miserly amount not worth capturing.
Dehumidifiers come in a variety of capacities. Extraction of 4-8L per day with a 400W power consumption is typical, more if humidity is high. Larger communal units would be more efficient. If you have abundant power literally coming from the sky, why not use some of it to make clean water?
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=dehumidifiers+for+home
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=dehumidifiers+for+home
They are far from an abundant source of water, like you said.
Taking 400W *24/7 is quite a lot of energy, and I'm not really believing the 4-8L output.
At 17° Celsius and 38% humidity, you get 0.008g of water out of 1L of air. There are physical limits to this, of course.
The dude in the video does the calculations, and it's far from "no problem to make water out of air". It would be better to use the energy for something else.
If it was so easy to do, there would be no problems with water shortages around the globe (and soon maybe "water wars") just take it out of the air with solar.
Taking 400W *24/7 is quite a lot of energy, and I'm not really believing the 4-8L output.
At 17° Celsius and 38% humidity, you get 0.008g of water out of 1L of air. There are physical limits to this, of course.
The dude in the video does the calculations, and it's far from "no problem to make water out of air". It would be better to use the energy for something else.
If it was so easy to do, there would be no problems with water shortages around the globe (and soon maybe "water wars") just take it out of the air with solar.
>>Taking 400W *24/7 is quite a lot of energy, and I'm not really believing the 4-8L output.
I run a dehumidifier in my British house(in the conservatory) and it easily fills up its 10L tank every 2 days. Also indicentally it does use 400Wh(which yes, is a lot of energy).
I run a dehumidifier in my British house(in the conservatory) and it easily fills up its 10L tank every 2 days. Also indicentally it does use 400Wh(which yes, is a lot of energy).
[deleted]
I think it might get a bit more buy-in if there was some acknowledgement of the biggest producers of these problems. At this point a certain part of society gets to profit from these policies and it's worse for everyone else. It's always easy to get OTHERS to make sacrifices for you.
Yes, but I have this circular from Big Polluter Inc. that makes it clear that they are not to blame and it is just the centerists/alt right/leftists/green/blm/nra/anti-gun/foreigners/locals/state/deep state/vested interests/think tanks/academics/regulators/lobbyists/dea/cartels that are behind it all.
So excuse me it I dont buy into the lies because I know the truth.
So excuse me it I dont buy into the lies because I know the truth.
> You won't get people to agree to make their life worse.
Agreed.
> Honestly, at this point tech is probably the only way climate change will be fixed.
Disagreed. I think it would be a really bad idea to ignore the power legislation has. People don't exactly agree on taxes. They just don't disagree enough to want to suffer the consequences (direct and societal)
Legislate things that people don't disagree with too much.
Agreed.
> Honestly, at this point tech is probably the only way climate change will be fixed.
Disagreed. I think it would be a really bad idea to ignore the power legislation has. People don't exactly agree on taxes. They just don't disagree enough to want to suffer the consequences (direct and societal)
Legislate things that people don't disagree with too much.
Legislation doesn't work on global level, unless you are ready to go to war. And I think world war 3 will kill more people than climate change could. At the very least Russia and China will flat out deny to follow any legislation related to this, with even US not very keen to legislate themselves.
China will. They're an importer of energy and they're suffering from air pollution. They show no ideological opposition to reducing CO2.
Russia won't, but they're a smaller country and the impact isn't as big.
Also, legislation isn't a thing on a world level. You have treaties and agreements. And if that doesn't work, you impose a carbon tarriff. There won't be a need for war.
Russia won't, but they're a smaller country and the impact isn't as big.
Also, legislation isn't a thing on a world level. You have treaties and agreements. And if that doesn't work, you impose a carbon tarriff. There won't be a need for war.
The problem with that is that anything that most things that have the biggest effect here (not eating meat, not travelling a ton, etc) are also things that no government in the world would have support for limiting, and if they tried to regulate them, would probably get destroyed in the next election.
Could you regulate some stuff? Sure, but anything that's remotely unpopular feels like a recipe for the opposing party to win by a landslide just by promising to remove said regulation. Or for someone who doesn't give a toss/is basically anti environmentalist to get elected, ala Bolsonaro in Brazil.
Could you regulate some stuff? Sure, but anything that's remotely unpopular feels like a recipe for the opposing party to win by a landslide just by promising to remove said regulation. Or for someone who doesn't give a toss/is basically anti environmentalist to get elected, ala Bolsonaro in Brazil.
> You won't get people to agree to make their life worse for the sake of the environment, no matter how much activists keep trying to push that
You left out a word: wealthy people.
The lower 50% of the world's people income-wise are responsible for 15% of global CO2 emissions, and the top 10% for 34% of total emissions.
It won't matter how many people are riding around on e-bikes instead of cars if we have rich assholes flying half-way around the world 3-4x a year for vacation.
You left out a word: wealthy people.
The lower 50% of the world's people income-wise are responsible for 15% of global CO2 emissions, and the top 10% for 34% of total emissions.
It won't matter how many people are riding around on e-bikes instead of cars if we have rich assholes flying half-way around the world 3-4x a year for vacation.
Exactly.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/17/people-caus...
>Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study.
>Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn (£75bn) subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/17/people-caus...
>Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study.
>Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn (£75bn) subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated.
> You won't get people to agree to make their life worse for the sake of the environment,
This. The sooner we understand this, the sooner it will be possible to have useful propositions.
> no matter how much activists keep trying to push that.
A huge part of the problem are the (usually) most vocal among the activists, who spit utter idiocies like: "It's too late: run!"
No! If it is too late, there's no point in running. If global warming is irreversible, there's no point in freaking up the whole word economy. Propose something that works and we will discuss the benefit-cost ratio. Going around howling nonsense only creates noise and lessen the credibility of the great people who are trying, with their heart, to solve the biggest problem humanity has ever had to deal with.
This. The sooner we understand this, the sooner it will be possible to have useful propositions.
> no matter how much activists keep trying to push that.
A huge part of the problem are the (usually) most vocal among the activists, who spit utter idiocies like: "It's too late: run!"
No! If it is too late, there's no point in running. If global warming is irreversible, there's no point in freaking up the whole word economy. Propose something that works and we will discuss the benefit-cost ratio. Going around howling nonsense only creates noise and lessen the credibility of the great people who are trying, with their heart, to solve the biggest problem humanity has ever had to deal with.
I'm not at all conspiratorial and I see the idea of trying to change the colour of clouds is not going to go down well.
Surely the close the blocking object is to the sun the better how close could we get a parasole?
Surely the close the blocking object is to the sun the better how close could we get a parasole?
> Surely the close the blocking object is to the sun the better how close could we get a parasole?
Moving an object closer to the sun will enlarge its penumbra, but this does not mean that it will block more light. Because its apparent size relative to the sun will also get smaller.
For example, mercury and the moon are roughtly the same size. Yet a Mercury transit will not block much light; it looks like a small dot moving across the sun[1]. While a solar eclipse caused by the moon will block a lot of light.[2]
That doesn't mean that a space sunshade is completely infeasible. But you do need something very large, e.g. a 1000km diameter object (or cloud of smaller objects) placed at the L1 Lagrange point. It would probably cost at least trillions of dollars[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury
[2] https://i.stack.imgur.com/5E5fZ.png
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457652...
Moving an object closer to the sun will enlarge its penumbra, but this does not mean that it will block more light. Because its apparent size relative to the sun will also get smaller.
For example, mercury and the moon are roughtly the same size. Yet a Mercury transit will not block much light; it looks like a small dot moving across the sun[1]. While a solar eclipse caused by the moon will block a lot of light.[2]
That doesn't mean that a space sunshade is completely infeasible. But you do need something very large, e.g. a 1000km diameter object (or cloud of smaller objects) placed at the L1 Lagrange point. It would probably cost at least trillions of dollars[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury
[2] https://i.stack.imgur.com/5E5fZ.png
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457652...
Makes sense!
Great diagrams too.
Great diagrams too.
As the costs and damage of flooding quickly rise into the trillions per year, changing the color of clouds will look more and more attractive.
Depends how attached your are to heterosexual amphibians.
So nuclear energy is too dangerous but apparently this is okay?
The biggest danger I see here is that we won't reduce emissions, we'll just carry on business as usual and pump up aerosols to compensate.
And then if one day we can't pump up enough aerosols and they begin to dissipate there will be intense warming. It's a band-aid.
Nuclear power is the best solution we have for a sustainable and prosperous society.
The biggest danger I see here is that we won't reduce emissions, we'll just carry on business as usual and pump up aerosols to compensate.
And then if one day we can't pump up enough aerosols and they begin to dissipate there will be intense warming. It's a band-aid.
Nuclear power is the best solution we have for a sustainable and prosperous society.
This solution, for all its problems, has the advantage that it can be imposed on unwilling countries. Short of coercion tantamount to war, you can't make the unwilling stop burning fossil fuels and use non-fossil alternatives instead.
Nuclear also isn't the best solution in any case, for multiple reasons that have been explained here over and over.
Nuclear also isn't the best solution in any case, for multiple reasons that have been explained here over and over.
There is no singular best answer. Nuclear fission for the foreseeable future will remain one of the solutions. There is the caveat that it’s not technically “sustainable” or “renewable”, but practically no source of energy is fully.
Yeah building nuclear plants should be priority one. There is no replacement for the quality(variability) and quantity of power produced by them. It's obviously political, there's no money in building nuke plants for the current ruling class, only in "renewables".
Nuclear is an energy source of the past. It's too expensive and therefore rejected by the markets. Modern, emmission-free energy-sources like solar or wind (accompanied by storage in homes, districts and some larger-scale storage facilities) became so cheap in the past decade that you can now build more than 10 times the capacity in renewables for the price of a nuclear reactor. It's simple economics why nuclear is dying a slow death.
The price argument feels like a very lazy one to me since regulatory environment plays such a large role.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but building nuclear plants can't be priority one because we don't have time to wait around for them to be built. We should be building them in parallel with more immediate initiatives that can buy us time.
We still will need to take care of CO2, as it -- among other things -- acidifies the oceans (which totally fucks up that eco system).
Or if one day we discover that those aerosols have side effects we didn’t think of.
A better way would be to build a large mirror at a Lagrange point between earth and sun. With the huge reduction in launch cost by Starship this would become possible. And it’d be “easily” reversible.
But nothing of this will get done, because there are way simpler solutions.
A better way would be to build a large mirror at a Lagrange point between earth and sun. With the huge reduction in launch cost by Starship this would become possible. And it’d be “easily” reversible.
But nothing of this will get done, because there are way simpler solutions.
> Nuclear power is the best solution we have for a sustainable and prosperous society.
Nuclear or hydro or solar+wind. These are all good solutions.
Nuclear is far more expensive, but it can provide 100% of needs by itself.
Solar+wind is far cheaper, but the variability means that we can only get about 70-80% of the grid that way (no storage needed), with the remaining 20-30% made up by cheap storage or gas.
Nuclear or hydro or solar+wind. These are all good solutions.
Nuclear is far more expensive, but it can provide 100% of needs by itself.
Solar+wind is far cheaper, but the variability means that we can only get about 70-80% of the grid that way (no storage needed), with the remaining 20-30% made up by cheap storage or gas.
I'll never understand how
1. People think a non-renewable resource is somehow a permanent solution
2. There is only ever one solution and not a combination of multiple solutions all working towards a common goal
1. People think a non-renewable resource is somehow a permanent solution
2. There is only ever one solution and not a combination of multiple solutions all working towards a common goal
I mean i could store all the nuclear waste to power America for 10000 years in a football field 1500 ft deep, with 300-400 of that just being fill. Ideally stored in a salt mine of some sort. It's not "renewable" the can is so far kicked a better power source will definitely arise by then.
Seems pretty easy to understand. No one is claiming that nuclear is a permanent solution, they are claiming that is a solution we have right now that can produce more than enough to meet our needs for at least a century if not a lot more. I've also never seen anyone say that we should use only nuclear and ban using renewables, their argument is usually exactly what you just stated, that we should use a combination of solutions which would naturally include nuclear.
> 1. People think a non-renewable resource is somehow a permanent solution
They usually think solar and wind isn't good enough due to variability. Most haven't looked into it, and are adopting a plausible-sounding line they've heard someone else say. Probably someone who aligns with them politically, given how politically charged and partisan the topic is.
They usually think solar and wind isn't good enough due to variability. Most haven't looked into it, and are adopting a plausible-sounding line they've heard someone else say. Probably someone who aligns with them politically, given how politically charged and partisan the topic is.
It isn't good enough due to variability.
We don't have efficient energy storage so that means you have to build massive overcapacity, like 5x as much.
We should have some renewables but we can't base the entire energy supply on them.
We don't have efficient energy storage so that means you have to build massive overcapacity, like 5x as much.
We should have some renewables but we can't base the entire energy supply on them.
It is good enough. The variability isn't a problem. The US, Canada, Australia, EU, could provide 80% of the their grids from renewables, no storage, for a cost a lot cheaper than nuclear, and delivered 10 years sooner.
The case study that demonstrates this is Denmark, which has about 50% of its energy produced locally from renewables, mostly wind. They plan to increase this to 84%. They hardly had to overbuild, and they sell the excess capacity to their neighbors. Even if the overcapacity wasn't sold and was wasted, it's still much cheaper than nuclear.
This shows us that a bigger country could easily get >80% from renewables without storage. Two reasons. First, more terrain means more variability cancelling from wind. Second, solar cancels out wind, and Denmark has very little solar. Solar and wind are significantly negatively correlated, because it's less windy in Summer.
You can do even better by having a network of countries, each selling overcapacity.
Storage or gas makes up the small remaining shortfall. Luckily battery costs are declining on a super-linear learning curve.
I'm all for nuclear power, it works fine and is far better than fossil fuels. But I'm more for renewables as a mass scale solution. It's cheaper and we can have it sooner.
The case study that demonstrates this is Denmark, which has about 50% of its energy produced locally from renewables, mostly wind. They plan to increase this to 84%. They hardly had to overbuild, and they sell the excess capacity to their neighbors. Even if the overcapacity wasn't sold and was wasted, it's still much cheaper than nuclear.
This shows us that a bigger country could easily get >80% from renewables without storage. Two reasons. First, more terrain means more variability cancelling from wind. Second, solar cancels out wind, and Denmark has very little solar. Solar and wind are significantly negatively correlated, because it's less windy in Summer.
You can do even better by having a network of countries, each selling overcapacity.
Storage or gas makes up the small remaining shortfall. Luckily battery costs are declining on a super-linear learning curve.
I'm all for nuclear power, it works fine and is far better than fossil fuels. But I'm more for renewables as a mass scale solution. It's cheaper and we can have it sooner.
> It isn't good enough due to variability. We don't have efficient energy storage so that means you have to build massive overcapacity, like 5x as much.
That's a problem already solved: Storage. Germany alone has 3.4 GWh of home-battery storage installed as of today. And it's constantly increasing. Averaged over a year, renewable energy sources operate at about 30% of their capacity. So even in a worst-case scenario with no storage whatsoever you would need to build 3x "overcapacity".
> We should have some renewables but we can't base the entire energy supply on them.
We surely can and will! Mark my words.
That's a problem already solved: Storage. Germany alone has 3.4 GWh of home-battery storage installed as of today. And it's constantly increasing. Averaged over a year, renewable energy sources operate at about 30% of their capacity. So even in a worst-case scenario with no storage whatsoever you would need to build 3x "overcapacity".
> We should have some renewables but we can't base the entire energy supply on them.
We surely can and will! Mark my words.
> Averaged over a year, renewable energy sources operate at about 30% of their capacity. So even in a worst-case scenario with no storage whatsoever you would need to build 3x "overcapacity".
I don't think that calculation is valid. Even assuming perfectly sunny days solar power e.g. runs at less than 100 % of its capacity simply due to the day-night-cycle. However that doesn't mean that overbuilding solar by just "1 divided by average capacity utilisation %" will be enough to get you round-the-clock-power – in fact no amount of overbuilding will get you any solar power at all at night.
What you'd actually have to look at is define a desired reliability factor for your electric grid, calculate the minimum guaranteed power output for that reliability factor (so to remain with the solar power example – even during the daytime you need to calculate the likelihood and impact of cloudy weather, but in any case as soon you as you want more reliability than there are even theoretical sunshine hours in a day, guaranteed power output drops to zero – unless of course you finally attempt to include some storage) and then overbuild according to that calculation.
I don't think that calculation is valid. Even assuming perfectly sunny days solar power e.g. runs at less than 100 % of its capacity simply due to the day-night-cycle. However that doesn't mean that overbuilding solar by just "1 divided by average capacity utilisation %" will be enough to get you round-the-clock-power – in fact no amount of overbuilding will get you any solar power at all at night.
What you'd actually have to look at is define a desired reliability factor for your electric grid, calculate the minimum guaranteed power output for that reliability factor (so to remain with the solar power example – even during the daytime you need to calculate the likelihood and impact of cloudy weather, but in any case as soon you as you want more reliability than there are even theoretical sunshine hours in a day, guaranteed power output drops to zero – unless of course you finally attempt to include some storage) and then overbuild according to that calculation.
If you build your grid big enough it works.
https://model.energy/?results=f476509869f9cee1582db8e09905fd...
It's stupid (arguably even stupider than a 100% nuclear grid and twice as expensive), but it works.
Luckily storage does exist and electrolyser prices and needs for rare metals are dropping precipitously, so you don't have to do something stupid.
https://model.energy/?results=f476509869f9cee1582db8e09905fd...
It's stupid (arguably even stupider than a 100% nuclear grid and twice as expensive), but it works.
Luckily storage does exist and electrolyser prices and needs for rare metals are dropping precipitously, so you don't have to do something stupid.
> twice as expensive
Is it twice as expensive after you factor in selling the excess capacity?
Is it twice as expensive after you factor in selling the excess capacity?
If we're in the fictional world where any production above a perfectly constant baseline (with the occasional two month break for refuelling where fairies power everything) has zero utility, that excess is worthless isn't it?
There's only so far you can take these counterfactuals, but presumably you'd be selling it at, say, $10/MWh (because things like hydrogen are already profitable at this cost) which might cover part of the distribution costs (which are not in that model) and bring it down to roughly on par.
There's only so far you can take these counterfactuals, but presumably you'd be selling it at, say, $10/MWh (because things like hydrogen are already profitable at this cost) which might cover part of the distribution costs (which are not in that model) and bring it down to roughly on par.
If it really is on par, then even the stupidest approach to renewables (i.e. massively over-building instead of using some storage) is equal cost to nuclear. That's a strong case for renewables.
It's really hard to overstate how much better the case for renewables is than the competition.
That said, there are a bunch of risks and externalised costs in a zero storage strategy not captured by simple prices. Many of the objections of the nuclear industry are actually true in such a scenario.
Overbuilding solar 4-8x with current tech would cause alot of CO2 emissions from silicon refining, it would strain silver and copper supplies. Overbuilding wind by a similar amount would require vast amounts of steel, strain niobium production, and cause CO2 emissions from concrete. Even if your system was on par with nuclear on a dollar basis, it would still produce too many emissions (half or more of 100% gas) and quite fragile.
Relying on cross continent links to reduce overbuild ratio is a massive strategic risk, and if someone in the chain does a texas and has a bunch of equipment fail, you'd have a real version of the scenario the anti-wind campaogners are imagining in europe right now.
A good strategy is a mix of everything aiming to remove as many emissions with each dollar spent. If that means aiming initially for 50% net solar availability, and 30% net wind availability with 20% surplus and keeping the gas turbines running through winter to provide the remaining 40% for a few years whilst shotgunning money at research for abundant batteries, electrolysers, and tidal to see which one sticks, then that is far better than using the same funds to pay for 20% nuclear that will be online in 2050.
Another good strategy would be to build out scalable storage (thermal batteries, electrolysers and pumped hydro) immediately and go all in on wind/solar asap. The amount of concrete required for the pumped storage might he prohibitive though and it won't cost a great deal less than nuclear (although it will be online sooner).
Even a strategy with 10-20% nuclear like what China is pursuing is tolerable (including the very likely chernobyl scale incidents that will happen if it's pursued worldwide -- which are vastly preferable to the consequences of coal) in countries that aren't controlled by neoliberal systems which are fundamentally incapable of operating any large scale project that won't pay off visibly in an election cycle. It's just the constant shouting of "stop all the wind and only build nuclear" that's imbecilic.
That said, there are a bunch of risks and externalised costs in a zero storage strategy not captured by simple prices. Many of the objections of the nuclear industry are actually true in such a scenario.
Overbuilding solar 4-8x with current tech would cause alot of CO2 emissions from silicon refining, it would strain silver and copper supplies. Overbuilding wind by a similar amount would require vast amounts of steel, strain niobium production, and cause CO2 emissions from concrete. Even if your system was on par with nuclear on a dollar basis, it would still produce too many emissions (half or more of 100% gas) and quite fragile.
Relying on cross continent links to reduce overbuild ratio is a massive strategic risk, and if someone in the chain does a texas and has a bunch of equipment fail, you'd have a real version of the scenario the anti-wind campaogners are imagining in europe right now.
A good strategy is a mix of everything aiming to remove as many emissions with each dollar spent. If that means aiming initially for 50% net solar availability, and 30% net wind availability with 20% surplus and keeping the gas turbines running through winter to provide the remaining 40% for a few years whilst shotgunning money at research for abundant batteries, electrolysers, and tidal to see which one sticks, then that is far better than using the same funds to pay for 20% nuclear that will be online in 2050.
Another good strategy would be to build out scalable storage (thermal batteries, electrolysers and pumped hydro) immediately and go all in on wind/solar asap. The amount of concrete required for the pumped storage might he prohibitive though and it won't cost a great deal less than nuclear (although it will be online sooner).
Even a strategy with 10-20% nuclear like what China is pursuing is tolerable (including the very likely chernobyl scale incidents that will happen if it's pursued worldwide -- which are vastly preferable to the consequences of coal) in countries that aren't controlled by neoliberal systems which are fundamentally incapable of operating any large scale project that won't pay off visibly in an election cycle. It's just the constant shouting of "stop all the wind and only build nuclear" that's imbecilic.
Why is CA power so expensive? I'm genuinely asking. NC has very cheap power for comparison
People have proposed approaches to increasing the earth's albedo (and thus reflecting more sunlight) without launching material into the atmosphere.
Best known is probably the idea of painting roads and rooftops white.
Another interesting approach: setting up very light-weight (thin plastic?) mirrors in large quantities in farmer's fields. Farmers have incentive to do this in areas that are getting hotter and where crops may already grow better with some partial shade than in full sun. Spacing mirrors on posts in fields can provide this.
This is being proposed by Ye Tao, an MIT Chemistry PhD who has pivoted to this project. Discussed on Dave Robert's Volts podcast [0].
[0] https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-dr-ye-tao-on-a-grand#d...
Best known is probably the idea of painting roads and rooftops white.
Another interesting approach: setting up very light-weight (thin plastic?) mirrors in large quantities in farmer's fields. Farmers have incentive to do this in areas that are getting hotter and where crops may already grow better with some partial shade than in full sun. Spacing mirrors on posts in fields can provide this.
This is being proposed by Ye Tao, an MIT Chemistry PhD who has pivoted to this project. Discussed on Dave Robert's Volts podcast [0].
[0] https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-dr-ye-tao-on-a-grand#d...
Painting roofs white seems like a good idea, and I remember seeing a study once saying it could have decently significant effect.
But it does have one disadvantage: if you don't like the effects, you have to paint all those roofs again. With stratospheric aerosols, if you don't like the results you just stop doing it, and they'll fall out of the atmosphere in a year or two.
But it does have one disadvantage: if you don't like the effects, you have to paint all those roofs again. With stratospheric aerosols, if you don't like the results you just stop doing it, and they'll fall out of the atmosphere in a year or two.
If the lifetime of a roof is ~20-30 years, in that time we won't have 'solved' climate change, so exceedingly unlikely that you'll need to repaint it for climate reasons at least.
What I mean is bad localized effects in important areas.
Painting roofs sounds completely benign, but if it's as effective as other geoengineering methods, then there's little reason to think it doesn't have the risks of other methods.
(Personally I think those risks are probably worth taking, given climate tipping points.)
Painting roofs sounds completely benign, but if it's as effective as other geoengineering methods, then there's little reason to think it doesn't have the risks of other methods.
(Personally I think those risks are probably worth taking, given climate tipping points.)
White roads sounds like a recipe for glare-induced accidents, especially in sunny locations.
If only we had some sort of glare reducing technology that can be strapped to our faces.
I think this came up at a recent panel discussion https://www.climateresolve.org/reflecting-sunlight/
tl;dr: Not an issue. We're not talking about painting roads bright white, it's more like a change from dark asphalt to light gray asphalt (similar to cement sidewalks).
tl;dr: Not an issue. We're not talking about painting roads bright white, it's more like a change from dark asphalt to light gray asphalt (similar to cement sidewalks).
>We're not talking about painting roads bright white, it's more like a change from dark asphalt to light gray asphalt (similar to cement sidewalks).
In this case, perhaps people should stop proposing "painting roads white" and secretly meaning "light gray" and thinking everyone can read their minds, and instead they should propose "painting roads light gray".
In this case, perhaps people should stop proposing "painting roads white" and secretly meaning "light gray" and thinking everyone can read their minds, and instead they should propose "painting roads light gray".
Cement roads?
I like the idea of launching mirrors into space as well. Preferably we stop adding things to the atmosphere we can't breathe but that seems to be a hard ask for us...
The article fails to mention a really important idea - Sulfur Dioxide is not the only aerosol that can be injected, and there are other options that seem much more promising. For example, using Calcium Carbonate may actually help restore the Ozone layer while also reducing the temperature.
> Source: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-group...
> "The chemists think the solution could be calcium carbonate — the stuff of chalk, limestone, marble, and seashells. It may be less harmful to the ozone, and it’s not a big health concern. The team is studying how the substance affects chlorine and nitrogen oxides, which also exist in the stratosphere — largely due to man-made emissions — and speed ozone destruction. The researchers think the calcium carbonate might help to lower levels of these gases."
> Source: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-group...
> "The chemists think the solution could be calcium carbonate — the stuff of chalk, limestone, marble, and seashells. It may be less harmful to the ozone, and it’s not a big health concern. The team is studying how the substance affects chlorine and nitrogen oxides, which also exist in the stratosphere — largely due to man-made emissions — and speed ozone destruction. The researchers think the calcium carbonate might help to lower levels of these gases."
Too much calcium carbonate is really detrimental to a wide variety of plants, it causes a condition called iron chlorosis. Basically plants will readily absorb calcium instead of iron (they need iron to do their chemistry for photosynthesis), the result of which is yellowing leaves, poor production, plant death, etc. Spraying massive amounts of calcium carbonate in the atmosphere, if it makes it down to the plants on the ground, sounds like a great way to cause massive forest die offs. Much like sulfur creates acid rain, calcium in the atmosphere would create "basic rain" which is just as much of a problem if you're a plant that requires a fairly narrow range of soil pH.
So I am having trouble finding this source now, but I have perviously read from the main team researching Calcium Carbonate, SCoPEx (https://scopexac.com/), that the intention is to spray the calcium carbonate high enough in the atmosphere so that it does not float down to the ground but rather dissipates into space. There is a specific height in the atmosphere where it needs to be released, and yes, if it fell to earth, this wouldn't be a viable solution. I can't find where I read this, but this is one component of the current hypothesis.
Interesting, I will look into that.
[deleted]
I love this idea. I would wager that calcium carbonate dust has a higher ballistic coefficient than SOx (ratio of mass to cross section, a measure of ability to stay aloft), meaning if we overdo it (unlikely but the most common concern), the decay rate would be faster.
Plus would also mitigate acid rain somewhat, and isn't noxious the way SOx is.
Plus would also mitigate acid rain somewhat, and isn't noxious the way SOx is.
Yes, exactly - it's an interesting idea worth researching. Thanks for adding this idea!
While post leads with “the White House is pushing…” in fact the report was requested by Congress:
“In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy […] was directed by Congress to develop a five-year – “scientific assessment of solar and other rapid climate interventions in the context of near-term climate risks and hazards.” /1
1/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/legal/
I point this out so those with concerns can direct letters to all relevant actors.
“In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy […] was directed by Congress to develop a five-year – “scientific assessment of solar and other rapid climate interventions in the context of near-term climate risks and hazards.” /1
1/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/legal/
I point this out so those with concerns can direct letters to all relevant actors.
OMG, I did not see this coming so quickly. This is Neal Stephenson: Termination Shock happening in real life. I love the fact that he wrote a book, but setup the sequel in the name of the book. What is the math? 100 grams of sulfur removes the effects of 100 tons of CO2?
The Ministry of the Future also addressed the same type of heat reduction technology, albeit as a much smaller part of the book.
I'd highly recommend it, though the opening is very hard to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future
I'd highly recommend it, though the opening is very hard to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future
I bought it as you were typing! Boy that's funny.
[deleted]
It's easier to geo-engineer the atmosphere than to stop polluting it? I'm not sure I understand what's going on in the world anymore.
One organization, the US government, could do this alone.
Stopping a billion separate entities polluting the atmosphere is organizationally infinitely harder.
Stopping a billion separate entities polluting the atmosphere is organizationally infinitely harder.
So we just keep reflecting more and more light and heat while we made the planet more and more smoggy and barren. What are the second and third order effects?
No, because the people of the US absolutely do not want to decrease their living standards to the extent it would require. The government would most likely be promptly fired if it went the austerity route.
The world is bigger than the US, and cutting living standards for people in Africa, China, etc that JUST came out of poverty is not ideal or moral.
This assumes that current US and EU living standards are inherently better than other ways of living. But what if you could live sustainably and maintain a higher quality of living? Why not use tech like solar panels, geothermal heating/cooling, and more to help those countries "skip over" the dirty, coal-burning period of industrialization and invent something better (and more sustainable)?
We tend to assume that living in the US, driving around a polluting car, buying up polluting gadgets, throwing away tons of plastic per person, burning propane and natural gas and oil for heating, watering your lawn in the desert, etc. are all... the best way to live. But you could supply small towns in Africa with solar panels and let them figure out a better way, no? And they have certain advantages -- like distributed small farms, walkable towns, no "technical debt" of inefficient gadgets and gizmos in their houses -- that put them in a much better position than countries like the USA.
Take the massive US military budget and spend it on this instead.
We tend to assume that living in the US, driving around a polluting car, buying up polluting gadgets, throwing away tons of plastic per person, burning propane and natural gas and oil for heating, watering your lawn in the desert, etc. are all... the best way to live. But you could supply small towns in Africa with solar panels and let them figure out a better way, no? And they have certain advantages -- like distributed small farms, walkable towns, no "technical debt" of inefficient gadgets and gizmos in their houses -- that put them in a much better position than countries like the USA.
Take the massive US military budget and spend it on this instead.
[deleted]
I think you've misread the comment you're replying to. He's saying the US could do the aerosol thing, which would not require a big decrease in living standards.
Ah yep, you’re right, thanks for the correction. It’s not a fix, though, just buys us a little time. We have to stop polluting if we want to avoid catastrophe - we likely have to get to net negative. So we’d still have the multi-billion people coordination problem.
It would be a fix for global warming, just not other things like ocean acidification.
Yes it absolutely is. The pollution is the consequence of an organically grown, over 300 years no less, system, whose incentives we barely (if at all) understand and whose control knobs are extremely indirect (and equally poorly understood). And that ignores, that it may very well be, that the pure momentum of the system is too large for us to be "safe" even if we magic'd a complete solution stop _right now_.
We had a climate scientist make the statement in a colloquium over here, basically saying that he doesn't like humanity starting with geoengineering solution because we barely understand the system. He's of course correct with the latter part. We don't understand the earth's ecosystem. But he is _at least_ 300 years late with the first part. We are already doing geoengineering for quite some time, it just happens that the earth is a rather inert system and it takes a while to react.
We had a climate scientist make the statement in a colloquium over here, basically saying that he doesn't like humanity starting with geoengineering solution because we barely understand the system. He's of course correct with the latter part. We don't understand the earth's ecosystem. But he is _at least_ 300 years late with the first part. We are already doing geoengineering for quite some time, it just happens that the earth is a rather inert system and it takes a while to react.
> It's easier to geo-engineer the atmosphere than to stop polluting it?
coordination problems are tough, and there's no reason to believe that the largest one ever encountered should be easier than one organization deciding to engage in a large scale engineering project.
coordination problems are tough, and there's no reason to believe that the largest one ever encountered should be easier than one organization deciding to engage in a large scale engineering project.
Why is this surprising? Let's say you're a factory that makes widgets but produces hydrochloric acid as a result. You're currently leaking it into the water table.
It's cheaper to just start bottling the acid than to stop producing widgets.
It's cheaper to just start bottling the acid than to stop producing widgets.
The problem is even if we stop polluting it on any reasonably possible timeline, we'll still see continued heating of the planet (and even if we didn't, it's already hot enough to be seriously affecting natural disasters like hurricane Ian).
We need short term solutions like this, medium term solutions like reducing carbon emissions and longer term solutions like carbon capture. It's a complicated problem and the world is a complicated place.
We need short term solutions like this, medium term solutions like reducing carbon emissions and longer term solutions like carbon capture. It's a complicated problem and the world is a complicated place.
The temperament of humanity is just that we can't solve a problem by producing and consuming less. We're not going to stop fighting this planet, and if that means we have to kick weather in the nuts, we'll do that too.
It's potentially more profitable (in the short term, and for the people proposing it) to geo-engineer the atmosphere.
Late stage capitalism and globalization would be my guess.
I've heard it said that the US is good at coming up with technical solutions to social problems and this seems like the perfect example of that. (Analogous to our terrible highway/stroad system in most cities, that moves a lot of vehicles and kills a lot of people)
Late stage capitalism and globalization would be my guess.
I've heard it said that the US is good at coming up with technical solutions to social problems and this seems like the perfect example of that. (Analogous to our terrible highway/stroad system in most cities, that moves a lot of vehicles and kills a lot of people)
Is the US good at shutting down Indian and Chinese coal plants?
The US could be great at shutting down Indian and Chinese coal plants by EO. Just provide asylum to those that would seek to do it by any means necessary.
Could you please clarify? Are you talking about encouraging wreckers and then taking them in as refugees?
Yes, this is the climate change version of McD Theory[1].
1. https://jonbell.medium.com/mcdonalds-theory-9216e1c9da7d
1. https://jonbell.medium.com/mcdonalds-theory-9216e1c9da7d
Selecting something awful for lunch doesn't have potential for disasterous consequences the way state sponsored terrorism does, though.
Feel free to suggest your own bad solution!
Nuke China and India? We would drastically cut emissions for a small toll of three billion lives. Then we could pollute as much as we want! /s
You can shut down coal plants by simply providing power more cheaply than they could afford to continue operating.
Renewables achieve this, and just need to be built out. But building out takes time.
Renewables achieve this, and just need to be built out. But building out takes time.
Wait, so you're proposing the US pay for India and China's power?
What? No, undercut them.
"This computer model says the Earth might get 1 degree warmer over the next 100 years, let's blot out the sun!"
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but these people sound like reckless lunatics to me. The fact is we don't have anywhere near enough of a mature climate science to allow any kind of responsible engineering. It's a good goal, and I applaud research in that direction. But I deplore the possibility of some idiot billionaires getting the numbers wrong by a few percent, creating a positive feedback loop, and causing a glaciation event. Lest we forget, we are still in the Quaternary Ice Age! This is just an interglacial period. All of the major geological factors to make a snowball Earth possible still obtain! And I guarantee you that humanity will better adapt to a hothouse than a snowball.
I know it's taboo to mention votes, but please, please, if you're thinking about downvoting me because I'm wrong, please at least offer the consolation of explaining why glaciation is nothing to worry about.
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but these people sound like reckless lunatics to me. The fact is we don't have anywhere near enough of a mature climate science to allow any kind of responsible engineering. It's a good goal, and I applaud research in that direction. But I deplore the possibility of some idiot billionaires getting the numbers wrong by a few percent, creating a positive feedback loop, and causing a glaciation event. Lest we forget, we are still in the Quaternary Ice Age! This is just an interglacial period. All of the major geological factors to make a snowball Earth possible still obtain! And I guarantee you that humanity will better adapt to a hothouse than a snowball.
I know it's taboo to mention votes, but please, please, if you're thinking about downvoting me because I'm wrong, please at least offer the consolation of explaining why glaciation is nothing to worry about.
We already have the solutions. Use nuclear, use renewables, use carbon from the atmosphere and not the earth's crust. Really not that hard to figure out, but you'll notice no end to the supply of "wait but." They'll eat up science-y rubbish like reflecting sunlight because it sounds really clever, but then find any reason to ignore reality which, guess what, will always be more or less dirty. It's the siren song of the free lunch. Catch any one here on the street and ask them on the spot what they know about the carbon cycle and chances are they couldn't tell you anything about it, but they'll readily supply you an opinion on carbon emissions.
I think this is pretty hard to stop and not necessarily a bad idea depending on your perception of how screwed we already are.
It'd be hard because many proposals are within the range of many nations or just billionaires and it's going to be really hard to stop a nation being hit hard by climate change from acting to protect themselves. So the sensible thing to do is to try to do it in the most understood and least harmful way because otherwise there are going to be less discerning and more desperate people doing it their own way.
It'd be hard because many proposals are within the range of many nations or just billionaires and it's going to be really hard to stop a nation being hit hard by climate change from acting to protect themselves. So the sensible thing to do is to try to do it in the most understood and least harmful way because otherwise there are going to be less discerning and more desperate people doing it their own way.
Seems like something fossil fuel industry would concoct against the solar panels.
> Morpheus : We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky.
I was hoping to read they are pushing for reflection from space, from the lagrange point directly between earth and sun. That one at least possible to turn off, if something went wrong.
> Morpheus : We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky.
I was hoping to read they are pushing for reflection from space, from the lagrange point directly between earth and sun. That one at least possible to turn off, if something went wrong.
The only geoengineering approach I see discussed in the media is this sulfur dioxide aerosol method. Does anyone know why seeding iron filings in the Southern Ocean doesn't get more consideration? That's always seemed a more straightforward route to me, and one that could be pursued more cautiously.
For those that don't know, coccolithophores are single-celled phytoplankton that grow a calcium carbonate shell, of sorts. When they die, their shells sink to the ocean floor. It's posited that their population growth in the Southern Ocean is inhibited by the availability of iron in the water — the theory is that if you dumped some iron filings in the ocean, you'd get a coccolithophore bloom, sucking out carbon for their shells, and then sinking it permanently.
For those that don't know, coccolithophores are single-celled phytoplankton that grow a calcium carbonate shell, of sorts. When they die, their shells sink to the ocean floor. It's posited that their population growth in the Southern Ocean is inhibited by the availability of iron in the water — the theory is that if you dumped some iron filings in the ocean, you'd get a coccolithophore bloom, sucking out carbon for their shells, and then sinking it permanently.
This reminds me that it was mentioned how the decrease in global shipping during the pandemic and the fact that the bulk of those ships burn high-sulfur fuels may have had an observable effect on warming.
Pinatubo already did this. The side effects have already been observed. We survived. This is not a permanent solution, so much as a hotfix (heh) while we develop more sustainable solutions.
If I were a wealthy truck-stop billionaire, I'd probably do this without asking anybody. If I were the head of a global NGO, I'd be advocating for this.
If I were a wealthy truck-stop billionaire, I'd probably do this without asking anybody. If I were the head of a global NGO, I'd be advocating for this.
Came here looking for Termination Shock references, was not disappointed :)
I liked Termination Shock a lot, but I actually preferred "The Ministry For The Future" (the NGO callout), which is more a political thriller and addresses notions of dealing with climate change from many angles, not just geoengineering. (The need to clamp down on financial flows who are still betting on fossil fuels, for example, or the people who will short initiatives to mitigate or reverse climate change.)
I recently read both books back-to-back. Interestingly, there was only one approach that actually seemed like a viable long-term solution: climate terrorism, in Ministry mostly executed by the Children of Kali. While I certainly don't condone downing planes and sinking ships, I do feel like well-aimed acts of sabotage -- grounding planes, stranding ships at docks, etc. over a prolonged period of time could actually deter folks from using those methods of transportation. Once the average human being no longer takes unsustainable flights, go crazy disincentivizing the private jet flyers.
In both books, reducing insolation is just a short-term band-aid. I think Ministry does a good job of explaining just how many angles you'd have to play (some legal, some illegal; some pie-in-the-sky, some highly practical) to make society more sustainable. The whole thing does tend to make you feel helpless, though -- without broad systemic changes, there's so little anyone can do.
In both books, reducing insolation is just a short-term band-aid. I think Ministry does a good job of explaining just how many angles you'd have to play (some legal, some illegal; some pie-in-the-sky, some highly practical) to make society more sustainable. The whole thing does tend to make you feel helpless, though -- without broad systemic changes, there's so little anyone can do.
Bleak, but also hilarious the lengths the fossil fuel industry will be defended and coddled- almost as astounding as the people who refuse to understand how the greenhouse effect works despite encountering it on a regular basis. Scientists have been warning about the potential climate impacts since more than a century ago:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a144161...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a144161...
>>Scientists have been warning about the potential climate impacts since more than a century ago:
Cry wolf enough times and people stop listening altogether.
The history of 'scientists' making outlandish claims about what will or won't happen - and then being provably wrong - is a big part of the problem.
Cry wolf enough times and people stop listening altogether.
The history of 'scientists' making outlandish claims about what will or won't happen - and then being provably wrong - is a big part of the problem.
What a tremendously ignorant take. Do you get your science only from pop-sci articles 4 degrees removed from actual scientists? Can you point to any actual examples of this happening?
Do your own research - start with all the predictions from scientists in the 70's that were claiming that we were entering the next ice age.
Like this one:
>>>> “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt said in 1970. “If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
He was hardly alone. In 1975, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said that “(t)he cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” Scientist Nigel Calder wrote that “(t)he threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
Scientific consensus eventually moved away the global cooling alarums and instead began warning against global warming in the 1980s. Columbia University scientist James Hansen’s 1988 congressional testimony was one of the watershed moments in putting the global warming agenda before the American people in a major way. These days, Hansen is suing the government on behalf of children and future generations because he thinks they’re not doing enough to stop global warming. <<
The media and (some) scientists have cried wolf so many times, they now get ignored by the masses - and now they have to make ever more outrageous claims in order to get noticed.
Like this one:
>>>> “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt said in 1970. “If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
He was hardly alone. In 1975, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said that “(t)he cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” Scientist Nigel Calder wrote that “(t)he threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
Scientific consensus eventually moved away the global cooling alarums and instead began warning against global warming in the 1980s. Columbia University scientist James Hansen’s 1988 congressional testimony was one of the watershed moments in putting the global warming agenda before the American people in a major way. These days, Hansen is suing the government on behalf of children and future generations because he thinks they’re not doing enough to stop global warming. <<
The media and (some) scientists have cried wolf so many times, they now get ignored by the masses - and now they have to make ever more outrageous claims in order to get noticed.
people who refuse to understand how the greenhouse effect works despite encountering it on a regular basis
Astounding.
Astounding.
The deadline was last month to submit a paper to the white house on this:
https://mailchi.mp/ff8ed2a3ed98/save-the-date-usgcrp-interna...
My preferred method of this is a filter/shade between the earth and sun. That’s second to actually pulling carbon out of the air/ocean.
Agree. And I’d first float it permanently over the Atlantic where hurricanes seem to grow over warm water.
Sure if that somehow improves the drought conditions in the US southwest. (And it might considering the rain the southwest experienced this year.) Seems odd to prioritize hurricanes that don’t really seem to affect the South that much while the southwest has millions of people experiencing wildfires and in danger of running out of water. Run out of water and literal society fails. Too many more wildfires and we might start losing whole forests. NM looked to have come close this year.
“So the leaders conceived of their most desperate strategy yet, a final solution - the destruction of the sky. Thus would man try to cut the Machines off from the sun, their main energy source. May there be mercy on man and machine for their sins.”
- The Second Renaissance, Part 2
- The Second Renaissance, Part 2
You know what, we don't have the machines from the Matrix yet, maybe it's a blessing in disguise and we're just taking the initiative on this one.
Agreed. Well, it's probably not far off. It's not 2090 yet.
Appreciate your choice of handle, by the way.
Appreciate your choice of handle, by the way.
Maybe, maybe. It's not like solar power becomes utterly useless if you cut out a single digit percent of the input light, whereas that percentage probably would reduce planetary temperature a great degree.
NERV did JetAlone dirty. Robro just wanted to help.
NERV did JetAlone dirty. Robro just wanted to help.
The downside of "crazy schemes" is they take focus away from what really needs to be done, which is stop producing greenhouses gasses.
We're already doing that. The human race would have to literally go extinct to reverse global warming by only cutting carbon emissions.
I hope this doesn't end up like the plot of Snow Piercer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Piercer#Plot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Piercer#Plot
Not gonna lie, the first thing I did when came to this webpage is ctrl+F "snow piercer"
The weight of a decision is often determined by the ability to back out of the decision should it turn out to be the wrong one. This seems like a solution that would be very hard to back out if we discover unintended side-effects.
A giant mirror in space would be harder to achieve but much easier to turn off.
A giant mirror in space would be harder to achieve but much easier to turn off.
How about a way to reflect HID headlights on 3'6" high front end trucks?
Now imagine this: if we could do this, we could just as well put a shade in front of Venus. We could cool Venus as much as we want, in particular we could cool it to below the freezing temperature of CO2. All the CO2 in the atmosphere would fall to the surface. The pressure would decrease from the current 93 bar to very nearly 1 bar (the pressure on Earth). A factor of 3.5 comes from the lowering of the temperature (from about 700K to 200K) and another factor of 30 from the disappearance of the CO2, which currently represents 96.5% of the Venusian atmosphere
How long would it take for this to happen? Most likely just a few years.
But how do you make Venus habitable? If you let more light come through, the temperature goes up, but so does the CO2. You need to first sequester the CO2.
We would need to plant trees on Venus. Initially, we'll put them in some greenhouses. Besides CO2, trees need water and oxygen, but not a lot of oxygen, because once they get started, they create oxygen from CO2. As for water, there's very little of it on Venus, but there's plenty of clouds of sulfuric acid, from which we could make water. After that trees would need nitrogen, and Venus has plenty. Also potassium and phosphorus. I'm not sure if they'd be easy to source.
How long would it take for this to happen? Most likely just a few years.
But how do you make Venus habitable? If you let more light come through, the temperature goes up, but so does the CO2. You need to first sequester the CO2.
We would need to plant trees on Venus. Initially, we'll put them in some greenhouses. Besides CO2, trees need water and oxygen, but not a lot of oxygen, because once they get started, they create oxygen from CO2. As for water, there's very little of it on Venus, but there's plenty of clouds of sulfuric acid, from which we could make water. After that trees would need nitrogen, and Venus has plenty. Also potassium and phosphorus. I'm not sure if they'd be easy to source.
When narratives collide. I hope someone does the math on how much this will degrade solar panels.
[deleted]
An interesting bit from the article:
> Ironically, as the world reduces coal burning to curb the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming, we’ll also be eliminating the sulfur dioxide emissions that mask some of that warming. > > “Sulfur pollution that’s coming out of smokestacks right now is masking between a third and a half of the heating signal from the greenhouse gases humans have already emitted into the atmosphere,” Parson said.
That's not great.
> Ironically, as the world reduces coal burning to curb the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming, we’ll also be eliminating the sulfur dioxide emissions that mask some of that warming. > > “Sulfur pollution that’s coming out of smokestacks right now is masking between a third and a half of the heating signal from the greenhouse gases humans have already emitted into the atmosphere,” Parson said.
That's not great.
We need to strip CO2 out of the atmosphere too.
CO2 is a known cognitive retardant [1], ocean acidifier[2], and plant nutrition degrader[2].
Iron fertilization seems like a good option: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
[1]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200421090556.h....
[2]: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co...
[3]:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5....
Iron fertilization seems like a good option: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
[1]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200421090556.h....
[2]: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co...
[3]:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5....
This is a hilarious take. You're saying that plant food (CO2) is bad for plant based nutrition because they grow too fast and therefore plants have less minerals? How about we just improve nutrition for people that rely on cheap calories likes rice, corn and wheat...we should do that regardless. Those plants don't provide a proper nutrition anyway.
I'm sure poor countries would love to turn their rice fields into soccer fields and feed themselves with more nutritious food, but they need to farm cheap calories to feed themselves with the amount of money they have.
and how does more CO2 make this worse? Say a country like Sri Lanka has 1 million tons of rice per year - that contain 100 tons of minerals. After the CO2 enrichment they get 1.2million tons of rice, but with they contain still 100 tons of minerals.
Things Sri Lanka can do:
1. eat more rice, all 1.2 mil tons of it, for the same amount of minerals (this would lead to obesity).
2. plant and eat 1 million tons of rice per year, leaving empty 1/6 of the previous fields free for other use. In those 1/6 of the fields, they can now grow carrots and mushrooms and lentils and other highly nutritious stuff. It might even leave them with extra land for football fields.
How is this an issue? I swear: sometimes people want to find a negative even in the most positive outcomes.
Things Sri Lanka can do:
1. eat more rice, all 1.2 mil tons of it, for the same amount of minerals (this would lead to obesity).
2. plant and eat 1 million tons of rice per year, leaving empty 1/6 of the previous fields free for other use. In those 1/6 of the fields, they can now grow carrots and mushrooms and lentils and other highly nutritious stuff. It might even leave them with extra land for football fields.
How is this an issue? I swear: sometimes people want to find a negative even in the most positive outcomes.
Sri Lanka is an interesting example as their organic fertilizer mandate would (I imagine, being less nutrient dense) fail to provide enough nutrients to support the increased growth of the plants in the new higher-CO2 atmosphere. The synthetic fertilizer ban situation also doesn't seem to indicate that they would be adept at implementing large scale agricultural changes without throwing the whole system into disarray.
Don't forget to factor in the cognitive impairment from higher CO2 as well - even if CO2 magically made the food both more nutrient-dense and with higher growth rate (instead of higher growth rate with lower nutrient-density) the overall health effect on humans would still be presumably a massive net negative due to the cognitive function decline.
Don't forget to factor in the cognitive impairment from higher CO2 as well - even if CO2 magically made the food both more nutrient-dense and with higher growth rate (instead of higher growth rate with lower nutrient-density) the overall health effect on humans would still be presumably a massive net negative due to the cognitive function decline.
> even if CO2 magically made the food both more nutrient-dense and with higher growth rate
I just detailed on how that will happen, no need to use magic. Increased CO2 will be better for plants worldwide (including deserts) and for agriculture, that's maybe the one positive thing I can find about global warming.
I just detailed on how that will happen, no need to use magic. Increased CO2 will be better for plants worldwide (including deserts) and for agriculture, that's maybe the one positive thing I can find about global warming.
What, you and I are typing right now in a comment thread precisely about increased CO2 resulting in lower nutrient density, so no, you haven't detailed how that will happen.
you need to use less land for the same amount of poor calories (rice,corn,wheat,potatoes), and use the remaining land for highly nutritional food
Really is the sun not the root cause of our warming problem? We should simply blow it up.
I agree. We need to get the sun before it gets us.
We should just fly over there at night and put a blanket over it
Also in the news "Solar Power Harnessed From Space Could Be Wirelessly Transmitted to Earth" https://www.newsweek.com/wireless-electricity-space-solar-pa...
Maybe get these teams together?
Maybe get these teams together?
This will sound very familiar to anyone who read Neal Stephenson's Termination Shock. The picture of Pinatubo was too much.
What percentage drop in solar conversion will PV panels have after the change? If I have 40x400 watt monocrystalline panels rated at 22% efficiency what will my power reduction be, approximately? Or in other words, how many panels will I need to add to maintain 16kw? Not delivered yet queued up with a vendor, may change order
This reminds me of Neo encounter with Morpheus in the Matrix
Morpheus : We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.
Morpheus : We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.
I think there are some ideas here that are low risk and low cost. I only know a little about the topic, but it seems doable and much better than the alternative of doing nothing and just taking our medicine.
A very interesting discussion on freezing the poles using aerosols (e.g. sulfur compounds): https://youtu.be/DQbwSI_MI7I
That is far cheaper than dealing with just the effects of rising sea levels, nevermind everything else. It's relatively low risk because the effects don't last long, and they stay trapped by the polar vortex, and nobody lives there. If it doesn't work, or has sufficient undesirable effects, you cancel the experiment.
A very interesting discussion on freezing the poles using aerosols (e.g. sulfur compounds): https://youtu.be/DQbwSI_MI7I
That is far cheaper than dealing with just the effects of rising sea levels, nevermind everything else. It's relatively low risk because the effects don't last long, and they stay trapped by the polar vortex, and nobody lives there. If it doesn't work, or has sufficient undesirable effects, you cancel the experiment.
DOE chief under Obama Steven chu proposed painting roofs and roads white to improve earths albedo
This sounds like something straight from The Simpsons.
Shoot, I was looking for my personal favorite [0] but it isn't in the list: send a few hundred rockets loaded with thin sheets of aluminum foil to the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrange point, and unroll them in space as a sun shield.
It is crazy enough to be exciting yet practical enough to potentially be within reach given recent technological developments and – perhaps best of all – very easily reversible!
[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...
It is crazy enough to be exciting yet practical enough to potentially be within reach given recent technological developments and – perhaps best of all – very easily reversible!
[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...
“ Well, the Simpsons really called this one first. In Season 6, Episode 25, "Who Shot Mr. Burns," the evil Mr. Burns decides that he's going to block out the sun to cool Springfield so people have to rely on his energy company to heat their homes and power their lights.”
Read More: Simpsons Called It First: Bill Gates Wants To Block Out The Sun To Cool Earth | https://97x.com/simpsons-called-it-first-bill-gates-wants-to...
Read More: Simpsons Called It First: Bill Gates Wants To Block Out The Sun To Cool Earth | https://97x.com/simpsons-called-it-first-bill-gates-wants-to...
The goal should be to have a thermostat on our planet. Alien civilizations are looking at us like we're living in a house without A/C. They out here building dyson spheres and sh*t.
Something tells me it may not be welcomed by other countries and playing with climate can have lots of unintended and disastrous consequences.
On the other hand we may reach a point where we would not have much choice.
On the other hand we may reach a point where we would not have much choice.
Keep in mind that what's being done here is research, not a US-only geoengineering campaign starting tomorrow. The interventions themselves wouldn't happen without some pretty serious diplomacy first. And of course we're already playing with the climate, with disastrous unintended consequences. Leaving the climate alone is no longer one of the options.
Why do exotic and dangerous solution like dimming the sunlight, get attention and funding, but natural, safe and evolutionary tested carbon sequestring biological systems are ignored?
For example, we have been trying to find funding to get our project off the ground and no one is interested (including Y Combinator). Meanwhile we just lost 477 pilot whales (amazing biological carbon sequestering systems) in mass stranding in NZ because there are no resources and technology to save them.
For example, we have been trying to find funding to get our project off the ground and no one is interested (including Y Combinator). Meanwhile we just lost 477 pilot whales (amazing biological carbon sequestering systems) in mass stranding in NZ because there are no resources and technology to save them.
Eh? Plenty of funding gets thrown at carbon capture...
In fact, things like dimming and sunshades get very very little funding.
Problem is most forms of biological carbon capture aren't sustainable (e.g. don't dump that carbon back in the ground, you need to instead continuously sustain that forrest or those pilot whales). The ideal form of carbon capture is probably growing forests then chopping them down and putting them in landfill, but you get soil depletion like that...
In fact, things like dimming and sunshades get very very little funding.
Problem is most forms of biological carbon capture aren't sustainable (e.g. don't dump that carbon back in the ground, you need to instead continuously sustain that forrest or those pilot whales). The ideal form of carbon capture is probably growing forests then chopping them down and putting them in landfill, but you get soil depletion like that...
What do you mean, not sustainable? Cetacean populations are still well below pre-whaling numbers and are very sustainable. Not only they capture and store vast quantities of carbon in their bodies (and when they die and sink, they take all this stored carbon with them), but they are the only source of important nutrients that are required for the phytoplankton to thrive. Phytoplankton is a super potent and effective carbon capturing system as well.So not only cetaceans help carbon sequestering directly, they also help indirectly by helping phytoplankton to grow. This is a perfect system, it is safe and it is effective, unlike dimming the sunlight and changing the atmosphere.
I mean that unless you're increasing the amount of plankton in the ocean by hundreds of gigatons you're not making a dent compared to the amount currently in the air, let alone what's still being made.
How much CO2 do you think your method can capture?
How much CO2 do you think your method can capture?
To achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 we will need to sequester additional 1859 million tons of CO2.(SOURCE: edf.org).
Whales can sequester carbon in 2 ways. First, they store carbon in their bodies. When they die and sink, they take all this carbon with them. One blue whale can directly store 12 tons of CO2, a humpback can store 5.5 tons, a fin whale can store 6.7 tons, etc. In terms of populations, we are nowhere near pre-whaling, stable population numbers. We had 303500 blue whales (now 5400), 307000 humpback ( now 66000), 246000 sei whales (now 49100). Increasing number of whales directly will increase annual carbon capture. Second, whales help to sequester carbon because they are the only organisms on this planet that can fertilize phytoplankton. Only whale transport can bring iron to the surface where the phytoplankton blooms, and in addition to iron, whales also bring a number of other crucial nutrients that are in short supply where phytoplankton lives. Thus by increasing the number of whales (and not losing existing whales via strandings) we can contribute to phytoplankton growth, leading to more carbon capture and sequestration. Right now phytoplankton alone captures 37 billion tons of CO3 yearly. So if we even increase phytoplankton numbers slightly, it could result in large absolute contribution in terms of capturing carbon. Some estimations show that for example just 12000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean are responsible for the export of 400000 tons of carbon yearly via their direct impact on phytoplankton.
All of the above means we cannot afford to lose whales, have to preserve current populations and increase their numbers. According to our estimates we now lose around 200 great whales and 1000 small delphiniids yearly via live stranding and many of them can be saved with proper interventions , response and adequate resources.
Please note, apart from carbon capture, whales also have additional value in terms what they do for fisheries and ecotourism.
Some data from Chami et al. 2022 was used in this comment.
Whales can sequester carbon in 2 ways. First, they store carbon in their bodies. When they die and sink, they take all this carbon with them. One blue whale can directly store 12 tons of CO2, a humpback can store 5.5 tons, a fin whale can store 6.7 tons, etc. In terms of populations, we are nowhere near pre-whaling, stable population numbers. We had 303500 blue whales (now 5400), 307000 humpback ( now 66000), 246000 sei whales (now 49100). Increasing number of whales directly will increase annual carbon capture. Second, whales help to sequester carbon because they are the only organisms on this planet that can fertilize phytoplankton. Only whale transport can bring iron to the surface where the phytoplankton blooms, and in addition to iron, whales also bring a number of other crucial nutrients that are in short supply where phytoplankton lives. Thus by increasing the number of whales (and not losing existing whales via strandings) we can contribute to phytoplankton growth, leading to more carbon capture and sequestration. Right now phytoplankton alone captures 37 billion tons of CO3 yearly. So if we even increase phytoplankton numbers slightly, it could result in large absolute contribution in terms of capturing carbon. Some estimations show that for example just 12000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean are responsible for the export of 400000 tons of carbon yearly via their direct impact on phytoplankton.
All of the above means we cannot afford to lose whales, have to preserve current populations and increase their numbers. According to our estimates we now lose around 200 great whales and 1000 small delphiniids yearly via live stranding and many of them can be saved with proper interventions , response and adequate resources.
Please note, apart from carbon capture, whales also have additional value in terms what they do for fisheries and ecotourism.
Some data from Chami et al. 2022 was used in this comment.
Is it actually possible to breed enough pilot whales to completely reverse climate change? Presumably you have the research to back that up.
Please see our comment below for detailed data and numbers regarding cetaceans and carbon capture and sequestration. We can start by preserving what we already have and working towards increasing cetacean numbers.
Isaac Arthur has a few videos about the viability of this on his YouTube channel. Very much worth a watch if you are into the science part of science fiction.
[deleted]
I say cover all land and ocean surfaces with self-replicating robots with solar panels. Instead of the energy going into heat, it generates electricity, which powers the robots, which make more of themselves as well as do other valuable things like wash our dishes and fold our laundry.
I'm sure there is a problem with this idea but I'm not sure what it is.
I'm sure there is a problem with this idea but I'm not sure what it is.
As usual, when humans try to solve a subtle ecological issue, they will fix one thing and create 20 new problems... because we just don't understand everything.
Just stop digging up tons of CO2 per day from underground reserves, and start capturing the CO2 that we released and put it back where we got it from.
> Just
I don't see why research is a bad idea. Research is a great idea and should be encouraged. Of course it sounds scary to modify the atmosphere of the whole planet, but please, at least allow some scientists to take that money, go away and run checks for a few years and present back what they think.
This is so dumb. The reflection of sunlight to reduce TSI should happen at the L1 Lagrange point using moon dust, not by further polluting our own atmosphere.
The benefit of L1 is that it’s not perfectly stable. Anything you throw up into that orbit will only stay there without course correction for about a decade.
The benefit of L1 is that it’s not perfectly stable. Anything you throw up into that orbit will only stay there without course correction for about a decade.
Sounds like a cool sci-fi idea, but you would probably need to put a significant amount of material 1,500,000km away to put a shade over the Sun. Probably comparable to the mass of our atmosphere. And then repeat every decade.
It would surely cost a few trillion to deploy the moon base and railguns capable of deploying that much material on target, but doesn’t require any physics-bending materials or processes.
It would be an ongoing process of refinement and launch, there are some papers that have done the napkin math on the launch rate and energy requirements and it’s all perfectly feasible in the context of preventing an earth-shattering calamity.
The only problem with having a human-controllable thermostat over the entire Earth is that no one will agree on how to set it.
It would be an ongoing process of refinement and launch, there are some papers that have done the napkin math on the launch rate and energy requirements and it’s all perfectly feasible in the context of preventing an earth-shattering calamity.
The only problem with having a human-controllable thermostat over the entire Earth is that no one will agree on how to set it.
I have not seen a mention of the most efficient and controllable method of reflecting solar energy away from the earth: - Ground mounted mirrors, which can be glass or plastic film. They provide a cooler living space underneath and global cooling potential. See MEER.org
What worries me the most is that some day, a mad billionaire will decide to implement such measures without anyone's approval. That's why we need to reform the system such that it is impossible for anyone to be a billionaire. Nobody should have the resources or power to unilaterally transform the earth without majority consensus.
The problem must be solved at the individual level. We need an efficient economic system which gives individuals enough financial surplus such that they can afford to start worrying about such issues as climate change.
Most people are too busy trying to survive the next day to even think about such long term issues as climate change. It became the elites' problem because nobody else has the surplus resources necessary to do anything about it... Even though the problem would be far easier to solve on an individual basis if each individual was responsible for negating or offsetting their own environmental impact.
The problem must be solved at the individual level. We need an efficient economic system which gives individuals enough financial surplus such that they can afford to start worrying about such issues as climate change.
Most people are too busy trying to survive the next day to even think about such long term issues as climate change. It became the elites' problem because nobody else has the surplus resources necessary to do anything about it... Even though the problem would be far easier to solve on an individual basis if each individual was responsible for negating or offsetting their own environmental impact.
What do people do when they have more money? You think they'll be eager to spend it on insulation retrofits and ground-source heat pumps? In our fossil fuel-powered economy, I think they'll buy more stuff and travel more, and most of those activities will increase GHG emissions.
I'm not arguing against measures to decrease wealth inequality. But is the sum of (potentially richer) individuals' actions likely to address climate change in a better way than a hypothetical billionaire's geoengineering project? I'm not convinced in either direction.
I'm not arguing against measures to decrease wealth inequality. But is the sum of (potentially richer) individuals' actions likely to address climate change in a better way than a hypothetical billionaire's geoengineering project? I'm not convinced in either direction.
A lot of people feel the same way about nation states in which one actor can make decisions which unilaterally transform the earth without majority consensus. The world actually has a long history of political leaders making short-sighted decisions which affected generations to come, can you think of times an individual billionaire has done the same?
I'm personally much more concerned with the concentrated individual power of the likes of Putin or Xi than I am of Buffet or Gates.
I'm personally much more concerned with the concentrated individual power of the likes of Putin or Xi than I am of Buffet or Gates.
I would definitely prefer governments to be made up of small autonomous city states with a simple NATO-like 'An attack against one is an attack against all' clause to maintain peace.
Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out that simply painting roofs white could have a significant impact.
Interesting thought that going 100% solar energy might cause global warming, not as bad as fossil fuels but certainly changing your roof to a black solar panel is exactly opposite to this advice of reflecting it back.
I hope we manage to reduce emissions before we're forced to enact these desperate measures. Be prepared to strike if your industry isn't planning to reduce consumption to safe levels
As we know too little about how this will affect climate dynamics, be sure that suspicion, loaded infodemics and extreme events will trigger more than one climate-based conflict.
I am not sold CO2 is causing the warming anymore. CO2 is heavy and so falls to the ground if cool. Adding more trees and vegetation on the ground near cool areas should do the trick.
Methane is probably more of a contributor. And blocking the sun is not a real solution. It has the potential for catastrophic changes like less vegetation.
Plus there are studies on global dimming. More pollution leads to global dimming which leads to less evaporation which leads to less clouds cover.
As a matter of fact, global dimming is better studied and should be a topic before conducting this research
Methane is probably more of a contributor. And blocking the sun is not a real solution. It has the potential for catastrophic changes like less vegetation.
Plus there are studies on global dimming. More pollution leads to global dimming which leads to less evaporation which leads to less clouds cover.
As a matter of fact, global dimming is better studied and should be a topic before conducting this research
You, nor your car, or your plastic straw, or the waste you create comes even a 'nith close to volcanoes and the Military Industrial Complex.
I'm all here for the roll out of a more positive outlook towards the impending climate hell as we try to fix it before the storm is too big.
This is a very tricky topic.
If NASA (or whoever) sprays too much UV blockers it might lead to crop failure.
If NASA (or whoever) sprays too much UV blockers it might lead to crop failure.
If this plan would only impact the sun received by the USA. Fine feel free to do whatever you want to yourself.
In reality this plan is intended to impact all countries. So this war mongering country is unilaterally deciding how much sun my country receives? No, that's not allowed.
All this to fix a problem that you caused? Clear incitement of war; which is exactly the USA's goal. The USA doesn't know what it's like not to be at war.
In reality this plan is intended to impact all countries. So this war mongering country is unilaterally deciding how much sun my country receives? No, that's not allowed.
All this to fix a problem that you caused? Clear incitement of war; which is exactly the USA's goal. The USA doesn't know what it's like not to be at war.
Wasn’t this the plot of Highlander 2?
Another great argument for nuclear power: it keeps on humming even when you block out the sun.
Approach #2...
Send a 747 flying across the desert loaded with white paint, and literally paint the land white.
Send a 747 flying across the desert loaded with white paint, and literally paint the land white.
It will help, we need these big efforts.
But it won’t reduce ocean acidification via too much CO2.
But it won’t reduce ocean acidification via too much CO2.
I am actively working on SAI. If you'd like to help, please reach out.
Worth at least looking into. I would be profoundly surprised if this worked.
We could also ask the God of Sun to reduce his level by some sacrifice.
>spraying an aerosol like sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere
What happened to it being a toxic gas? And is this why they were pushing so hard to completely discredit the notion of "chemtrails" so that all criticism of this idea can be killed easily?
As someone else once pointed out here on hacker news: "Mankind will rather fight the sun than capitalism."
Nobody's stopping you from returning to subsistence farming.
Probably still plenty of feudal Lords out there willing to accept some new serfs to work the land.
Probably still plenty of feudal Lords out there willing to accept some new serfs to work the land.
Oh please, like the only two options are world-suicidal capitalism or medieval serfdom. You sound worse than a religious fanatic.
So what's your solution?
How about let's move from SUVs and heavy individual transport in favor of public transportation, ebikes, having walkable and more compact cities that do not require 100 km commute each day.
There are literally hundreds of easy first-steps to be made and I'd argue the biggest pain imposed would be a slight paradigm shift in our heads.
There are literally hundreds of easy first-steps to be made and I'd argue the biggest pain imposed would be a slight paradigm shift in our heads.
If I had a ready one I wouldnt be talking with you. In any case, blind fanatism for the current economical system is what is killing us, it's obvious that more fanatism is only going to make things worse.
It's like having a cancer and pretending the only acceptable solution is to improve the conditions of the patient without treating the cancer itself.
It's like having a cancer and pretending the only acceptable solution is to improve the conditions of the patient without treating the cancer itself.
Glad to see the white house pulling a classic "too little, way too late". How about we pour that money into actual solutions. Crazy idea, I know. We already have them, the US just needs to actually grow a spine and commit to them.
they know we're boned, and the only fix is geoengineering.
Anything to keep ignoring the problems fossil fuels bring us. Unbelievable that anyone is considering such an obviously goofy approach when there's an obvious and easy one.
What could go possibly go wrong?
nice, this could create a new business model a new SaaS, Sun as a Service
Artemis Fowl much?
Five years, isn’t that like, all of them that are left?
Oh god the chemtrail people are gonna go nuts.
Why? They are going to be the least surprised, although perhaps a bit miffed no one listened.
Their main points were all the patents, whitepapers, and testing which indicated the government had a secret program to inject the stratosphere with various substances to partially block the sun. They literally used the terminology "stratospheric aersolized injections", because that's what all the documents called it as well.
Why do you think they would go nuts? Because the government is now openly admitting they are going to do the literal exact thing they accused them of doing the past 15+ years?
I would think the people completely oblivious to the entire concept and body of research would go more nuts.
Their main points were all the patents, whitepapers, and testing which indicated the government had a secret program to inject the stratosphere with various substances to partially block the sun. They literally used the terminology "stratospheric aersolized injections", because that's what all the documents called it as well.
Why do you think they would go nuts? Because the government is now openly admitting they are going to do the literal exact thing they accused them of doing the past 15+ years?
I would think the people completely oblivious to the entire concept and body of research would go more nuts.
We've had cloudseeding deployed in the wild for a long while.
[deleted]
Did the oil industry global warming flippening just happen?: When the oil companies 100% side with environmentalists, completely accept global warming, and endorse geoengineering to fix it.
They love active solutions that distract from the fact that the only permanent solution means there can be no more oil, gas, or coal companies.
Because one of the solutions seems to be "burn more sulfur-containing fuels"?
I think it is quite possible that humans attempting to “fix” nature is what will ultimately lead to the extinction of the human race. It is pretty fitting too since we are the ones who helped accelerate the mess we are in.
The article points out some of the problems here:
> There are significant and well-known risks to some of these techniques — sulfur dioxide aerosol injection, in particular.
> First, spraying sulfur into the atmosphere will “mess with the ozone chemistry in a way that might delay the recovery of the ozone layer,” Parson told CNBC.
> The Montreal Protocol adopted in 1987 regulates and phases out the use of ozone depleting substances, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which were commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioners, but that healing process is still going on.
> Also, sulfates injected into the atmosphere eventually come down as acid rain, which affects soil, water reservoirs, and local ecosystems.
> Third, the sulfur in the atmosphere forms very fine particulates that can cause respiratory illness.
Who gets to make the call that these risks are okay and are not as bad as the negative impact(s) we may face from climate change? Who decides that it is an acceptable trade-off to wipe out entire species and ecosystems and potentially some percent of the human population?
The problem is when it comes to climate change impact, it is all hypothetical based on models we have limited understanding of whereas with this stuff there are concrete risks and side-effects now.
The article points out some of the problems here:
> There are significant and well-known risks to some of these techniques — sulfur dioxide aerosol injection, in particular.
> First, spraying sulfur into the atmosphere will “mess with the ozone chemistry in a way that might delay the recovery of the ozone layer,” Parson told CNBC.
> The Montreal Protocol adopted in 1987 regulates and phases out the use of ozone depleting substances, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which were commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioners, but that healing process is still going on.
> Also, sulfates injected into the atmosphere eventually come down as acid rain, which affects soil, water reservoirs, and local ecosystems.
> Third, the sulfur in the atmosphere forms very fine particulates that can cause respiratory illness.
Who gets to make the call that these risks are okay and are not as bad as the negative impact(s) we may face from climate change? Who decides that it is an acceptable trade-off to wipe out entire species and ecosystems and potentially some percent of the human population?
The problem is when it comes to climate change impact, it is all hypothetical based on models we have limited understanding of whereas with this stuff there are concrete risks and side-effects now.
The article failed to mention a really important idea - Sulfur Dioxide is not the only aerosol that can be injected, and there are other options that seem much more promising. For example, using Calcium Carbonate may actually help restore the Ozone layer while also reducing the temperature.
> Source: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-group...
> "The chemists think the solution could be calcium carbonate — the stuff of chalk, limestone, marble, and seashells. It may be less harmful to the ozone, and it’s not a big health concern. The team is studying how the substance affects chlorine and nitrogen oxides, which also exist in the stratosphere — largely due to man-made emissions — and speed ozone destruction. The researchers think the calcium carbonate might help to lower levels of these gases."
> Source: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-group...
> "The chemists think the solution could be calcium carbonate — the stuff of chalk, limestone, marble, and seashells. It may be less harmful to the ozone, and it’s not a big health concern. The team is studying how the substance affects chlorine and nitrogen oxides, which also exist in the stratosphere — largely due to man-made emissions — and speed ozone destruction. The researchers think the calcium carbonate might help to lower levels of these gases."
And we might end up reducing atmosphere humidity and having torrential rain.
Yes, and so that's why we need to study these things now. These aerosols dissipate - you need to continually add them to the atmosphere every few months. The point here is that this a temporary measure to bring down the temperature to prevent additional deaths caused from global warming. If it ended up causing more harm than the co2 alone, this could be stopped. However, when faced with the impossible situation all of humanity is in now, applying a tourniquet to stop the bleeding buys time for decarbonization to happen.
>prevent additional deaths caused from global warming
How would one even begin to make such an assessment? Natural disaster is less likely than ever to cause death with a higher than ever population. Damage dollar cost increases from weather have increased as a result of development, not increasingly severe events.
>the impossible situation all of humanity is in now
Compared to the current resurgence in desire for nuclear war, war and diminishing diplomacy? We are not in an impossible situation because of weather. This is alarmist and completely predicated on climate models being accurate, despite that they have always proven to be inaccurate.
"Whelp, no issue there, those were the old models. We've got new, accurate models now!!"
How would one even begin to make such an assessment? Natural disaster is less likely than ever to cause death with a higher than ever population. Damage dollar cost increases from weather have increased as a result of development, not increasingly severe events.
>the impossible situation all of humanity is in now
Compared to the current resurgence in desire for nuclear war, war and diminishing diplomacy? We are not in an impossible situation because of weather. This is alarmist and completely predicated on climate models being accurate, despite that they have always proven to be inaccurate.
"Whelp, no issue there, those were the old models. We've got new, accurate models now!!"
Climate models are generally inaccurate in the opposite direction of what we want though. Things are progressing faster than predicted.
But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.
But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.
>But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.
The fact that you disagree with someone does not make the other person's analysis a "politically motivated opinion" any more than your disagreeing with them makes your analysis a "politically motivated opinion."
Either party in a disagreement can always choose to stoop to insults and ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks is the path to the best or desired outcomes.
The fact that you disagree with someone does not make the other person's analysis a "politically motivated opinion" any more than your disagreeing with them makes your analysis a "politically motivated opinion."
Either party in a disagreement can always choose to stoop to insults and ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks is the path to the best or desired outcomes.
Come on. They're conflating climate and weather, downplaying the effects, and calling people who are concerned about the ongoing mass extinction alarmists. This is good old climate change denialism, there is nothing here that's worth taking seriously.
Feel free to engage any of the points I brought up.
Or don't. You are hyperbolic and provided nothing of value to the conversation thus far.
I don't deny climate change. I question the appropriate response and the motivations of those that intend to place themselves in positions of authority unsubstantiated. You fall into the latter category if not the former.
Or don't. You are hyperbolic and provided nothing of value to the conversation thus far.
I don't deny climate change. I question the appropriate response and the motivations of those that intend to place themselves in positions of authority unsubstantiated. You fall into the latter category if not the former.
I'm 100% for challenging how the powers that be react to climate change! But you're saying we should be taking it less seriously than we already do. That's completely bonkers and the complete wrong conclusion. You're not challenging authority, you're supporting their destructive profit seeking behaviour by downplaying the negative effects.
Speaking as someone who is unequivocally of the view that climate change is the greatest threat to human survival, I will say that the manner in which you are attacking your opponent is far less effective rhetorically, logically, and substantively than you believe it to be, because you are bringing so many pre-conceptions about "the other side" that you are hearing the other party say all sorts of things that they aren't actually saying and framing your argument with them around things you believe they believe but that they didn't actually say.
By pulling your own emotions into check and responding to the actual concrete points the other party has made you make your own points far more effective because your words speak directly to what the other party is saying, not to a mental straw man you've built in your mind of what you think the "other side" says and believes.
The ad hominem attacks and attacks on things the other party didn't say (but that you believe they believe) don't strengthen the effectiveness of your words, they weaken it. I'm not disagreeing with you as to the importance of climate change, I'm saying you have the capacity to be far more effective in how you chose to make your points, and given the importance you attach to this topic I'll advocate you owe it to yourself and to the world to bring your A-game to debates and actions on a subject you feel is this important.
By pulling your own emotions into check and responding to the actual concrete points the other party has made you make your own points far more effective because your words speak directly to what the other party is saying, not to a mental straw man you've built in your mind of what you think the "other side" says and believes.
The ad hominem attacks and attacks on things the other party didn't say (but that you believe they believe) don't strengthen the effectiveness of your words, they weaken it. I'm not disagreeing with you as to the importance of climate change, I'm saying you have the capacity to be far more effective in how you chose to make your points, and given the importance you attach to this topic I'll advocate you owe it to yourself and to the world to bring your A-game to debates and actions on a subject you feel is this important.
You make some great points, but I fear you are wasting your 'breath'.
I'm glad to hear reasonable discussion that is willing to at least acknowledge some inconvenient and fairly concerning aspects of climate change science. Ideologues don't require any scrutiny of the facts because they've been told what to believe and do so obediently.
There is substantial political interest and monetary incentive for both sides of the climate debate.
To make wild assumptions and then speak in imperatives about the future, as if we all agree about those assumptions, is putting the cart before the horse
I'm glad to hear reasonable discussion that is willing to at least acknowledge some inconvenient and fairly concerning aspects of climate change science. Ideologues don't require any scrutiny of the facts because they've been told what to believe and do so obediently.
There is substantial political interest and monetary incentive for both sides of the climate debate.
To make wild assumptions and then speak in imperatives about the future, as if we all agree about those assumptions, is putting the cart before the horse
I appreciate the criticism. I suppose I was hoping that Hacker News would in general be more on the side against the end of civilization, but I might be over-estimating. It seems like people are all too happy to view repeating oil lobby talking points as "challenging authority". This website is a mess.
No, they are not. Models vs observations:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mod...
Even the modellers themselves admit this. When they felt a need to re-declare victory a few years ago in response to graphs like that one, even then, their argument was "if we re-calculate the original models with better data then they aren't so inaccurate anymore". It wasn't that the original predictions were correct.
Now look at a graph of temperatures as measured by satellites:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Notice that it has long periods where it moves sideways, despite continuing emissions. Models don't predict these apparently arbitrary pauses.
"But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal."
This is a thought terminating cliché. The default non-political position in any discussion of what should government or society do is always "do nothing". It has to be - think about it. It's always the people agitating for change who are engaged in the process of politics, because it's via the process of politics that change on the level of government policy is enacted.
What's happening here is the opposite; the people saying "default to nothing, we think the need is unproven" are the people taking the default non-political position. It's the people demanding massive enforced changes to people's lives that are engaging in politics. And unfortunately, history teaches that people who insist on totally upending society for long term abstract goals must always be treated with suspicion because that is power, power corrupts, and the ground is full of the skeletons of people who died due to the dreams of despots. What they advertised as concern over some abstract ideal (justice, equality, nation, etc) rapidly became a mere tool to enter and stay in power.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mod...
Even the modellers themselves admit this. When they felt a need to re-declare victory a few years ago in response to graphs like that one, even then, their argument was "if we re-calculate the original models with better data then they aren't so inaccurate anymore". It wasn't that the original predictions were correct.
Now look at a graph of temperatures as measured by satellites:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Notice that it has long periods where it moves sideways, despite continuing emissions. Models don't predict these apparently arbitrary pauses.
"But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal."
This is a thought terminating cliché. The default non-political position in any discussion of what should government or society do is always "do nothing". It has to be - think about it. It's always the people agitating for change who are engaged in the process of politics, because it's via the process of politics that change on the level of government policy is enacted.
What's happening here is the opposite; the people saying "default to nothing, we think the need is unproven" are the people taking the default non-political position. It's the people demanding massive enforced changes to people's lives that are engaging in politics. And unfortunately, history teaches that people who insist on totally upending society for long term abstract goals must always be treated with suspicion because that is power, power corrupts, and the ground is full of the skeletons of people who died due to the dreams of despots. What they advertised as concern over some abstract ideal (justice, equality, nation, etc) rapidly became a mere tool to enter and stay in power.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
> Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D.[3] is a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a crank with a major persecution complex. His favored form of pseudoscience is global warming denial, though he has also become known as a proponent of Intelligent Design.
> Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D.[3] is a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a crank with a major persecution complex. His favored form of pseudoscience is global warming denial, though he has also become known as a proponent of Intelligent Design.
Is that meant to be a rebuttal? You realize that I'm citing data, not even personal opinions?
It's hilarious that the website is called "rational wiki" by the way. Replies like yours are why we must not geo-engineer the earth. The sort of people who insist it's necessary can't handle data and fall back to ad-hominem, so should not be listened to.
It's hilarious that the website is called "rational wiki" by the way. Replies like yours are why we must not geo-engineer the earth. The sort of people who insist it's necessary can't handle data and fall back to ad-hominem, so should not be listened to.
Yep, it is a rebuttal. Climate cranks and their misuse of questionable data should not be taken seriously. Relying on them in your arguments, quoting and defending them is likewise an instant credibility fail.
Rational wiki are well known cranks therefore you should not cite them for anything. There, done, you have no possible answer to that. Do you now wish to address the actual data?
> Rational wiki are well known cranks
Incorrect, they do not fit the criteria. Their pages are extensively sourced and annotated, as is the about section of their site, and the Wikipedia article about them
and while we're at it:
> Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist)
Incorrect, they do not fit the criteria. Their pages are extensively sourced and annotated, as is the about section of their site, and the Wikipedia article about them
and while we're at it:
> Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist)
Thanks for that reasoned reply
Is that sarcasm? That's a 100% oblivious reply.
Why are you linking to one guy's wordpress blog? I think this is the kind of research that might take more than one person. And is his data only coming from satellites? Wouldn't it make more sense to get a variety of sensor data?
Because that's where I happened to find the graphs? Go right ahead and find the papers if you like. The research in question is simply plotting old model projections on a graph along with satellite temperatures.
"Wouldn't it make more sense to get a variety of sensor data?"
By all means, try it. You'll find that satellites and weather balloons disagree with surface level temperature history. The reason is, climatologists keep editing surface temperature databases to create new 'versions' that create warming trends where none were previously visible. This is not scientific, of course. You're meant to fit your theory to the data, not data to the theory. The satellite data presented there is much less tampered with.
"Wouldn't it make more sense to get a variety of sensor data?"
By all means, try it. You'll find that satellites and weather balloons disagree with surface level temperature history. The reason is, climatologists keep editing surface temperature databases to create new 'versions' that create warming trends where none were previously visible. This is not scientific, of course. You're meant to fit your theory to the data, not data to the theory. The satellite data presented there is much less tampered with.
How do I know the satellite data wasn't tampered with?
Good question! In fact some satellite datasets are tampered with. There's a good example documented here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOHrYY3yAGE
The RSS dataset showed no warming for nearly twenty years - a problem, it's not meant to show that. Once the data was released, people with experience with how climatology operates (like Dr Spencer) predicted the data would soon be revised to show warming, somehow. That's exactly what happened. The original data used confidence intervals that widened over time, to reflect degrading instruments and orbits. In the new data the CIs were gone and the new trend line was simply the uppermost value allowed within the CI for each point. Because the CIs were widening, this trick created an appearance of warming where previously there hadn't been any.
Generally, the only way to be sure something isn't being messed with is to review the methodologies. The tampering is public, it's not a secret and they don't hide the fact that they do it, they just don't mention it to the general public and rely on the media to not report what they're doing. It works: awareness of this problem is incredibly low. Still, you can compare the different 'versions' they release over time to see the enormous magnitude of the changes, or you can read the occasional reports that surface in outlets like Nature when really massive revisions occur, and then you can remember that scientists aren't meant to do that. They're meant to add error bars if they have doubts about their data and propagate that uncertainty through to their final graphs and predictions. Climatologists don't do this. Instead they argue that they know temperatures should be going up, so if it isn't, there must be something wrong with the data. Nothing a quick model can't fix.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700
"An apparent pause in global warming might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis. Global average temperatures have continued to rise throughout the first part of the twenty-first century, researchers report on 5 June in Science. That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOHrYY3yAGE
The RSS dataset showed no warming for nearly twenty years - a problem, it's not meant to show that. Once the data was released, people with experience with how climatology operates (like Dr Spencer) predicted the data would soon be revised to show warming, somehow. That's exactly what happened. The original data used confidence intervals that widened over time, to reflect degrading instruments and orbits. In the new data the CIs were gone and the new trend line was simply the uppermost value allowed within the CI for each point. Because the CIs were widening, this trick created an appearance of warming where previously there hadn't been any.
Generally, the only way to be sure something isn't being messed with is to review the methodologies. The tampering is public, it's not a secret and they don't hide the fact that they do it, they just don't mention it to the general public and rely on the media to not report what they're doing. It works: awareness of this problem is incredibly low. Still, you can compare the different 'versions' they release over time to see the enormous magnitude of the changes, or you can read the occasional reports that surface in outlets like Nature when really massive revisions occur, and then you can remember that scientists aren't meant to do that. They're meant to add error bars if they have doubts about their data and propagate that uncertainty through to their final graphs and predictions. Climatologists don't do this. Instead they argue that they know temperatures should be going up, so if it isn't, there must be something wrong with the data. Nothing a quick model can't fix.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700
"An apparent pause in global warming might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis. Global average temperatures have continued to rise throughout the first part of the twenty-first century, researchers report on 5 June in Science. That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium."
Yes, but how do I know the original data wasn't faked to begin with?
> Why are you linking to one guy's wordpress blog?
One particular guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
See particularly Wikipedia:
> "Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community."
Which, if you translate back from the dry language that Wikipedia uses, says "this guy's a nut".
One particular guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
See particularly Wikipedia:
> "Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community."
Which, if you translate back from the dry language that Wikipedia uses, says "this guy's a nut".
This statement is just false.
As of yet, the outcomes have been on the lower end of modeling, i.e. less severe, until the models are revised to be more conservative in their estimates. Convenient because then the models can come back with elevated outcomes by comparison to the predicted average. Ah! See scientism at work?
It's the persistent, politically motivated science that causes the hesitancy and disbelief
As of yet, the outcomes have been on the lower end of modeling, i.e. less severe, until the models are revised to be more conservative in their estimates. Convenient because then the models can come back with elevated outcomes by comparison to the predicted average. Ah! See scientism at work?
It's the persistent, politically motivated science that causes the hesitancy and disbelief
> I think it is quite possible that humans attempting to “fix” nature is what will ultimately lead to the extinction of the human race.
Do you feel similarly about freezing CO2 out of the air in the interior of Antarctica and burying it as dry ice? The natural temperatures are within spitting distance of the freezing point already (supposedly there have been occasional natural CO2 snows, although this is dubious because of the low partial pressure). Seems like it would be much less intrusive overall, although it would undoubtedly cost trillions to accomplish at scale.
Related papers:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217183858.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0110.1
Do you feel similarly about freezing CO2 out of the air in the interior of Antarctica and burying it as dry ice? The natural temperatures are within spitting distance of the freezing point already (supposedly there have been occasional natural CO2 snows, although this is dubious because of the low partial pressure). Seems like it would be much less intrusive overall, although it would undoubtedly cost trillions to accomplish at scale.
Related papers:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217183858.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0110.1
Not the person you're replying to, but I think these two things are very different. I expect that the results of injecting substances into our upper atmosphere in large quantities are essentially impossible to model with high degrees of accuracy, and the consequences if things go wrong could be catastrophic. This freezing CO2 in Antarctica thing presumably does have some failure modes, but I imagine none of them are as comprehensibly terrible as if we were to screw up the atmosphere.
I have come to the conclusion that most or at least a significant amount of human engineering is to solve problems caused by other human engineering.
> I think it is quite possible that humans attempting to “fix” nature is what will ultimately lead to the extinction of the human race. It is pretty fitting too since we are the ones who helped accelerate the mess we are in.
I think what will kill the human race is the "climate engineering" humans fighting with the "no nuclear, no engineering" humans while the "fuck you, I got mine" humans deliberately egg them on. Nothing gets done and the bulk of humanity dies from runaway temperatures that make significant parts of the world unlivable, drought, and rising sea levels ravaging coastal cities.
I think what will kill the human race is the "climate engineering" humans fighting with the "no nuclear, no engineering" humans while the "fuck you, I got mine" humans deliberately egg them on. Nothing gets done and the bulk of humanity dies from runaway temperatures that make significant parts of the world unlivable, drought, and rising sea levels ravaging coastal cities.
I think the "fuck you, I already live in a part of the world that was developed on the back of cheap energy and it's really too bad that you will never be allowed to develop like I did" humans will kill more humans than the status quo ever will.
The “fuck you, you developed on the back of cheap energy, and want us to keep living in huts” humans will do plenty to move the needle. There’s 1.5 billion Indians, Bangladeshis, and Pakistanis with sub-1.0 tons of CO2 annual footprints who want to live like Texans. (My cousin just moved to Arlington, TX and she loves it. “Look at all this elbow room!”)
I have mixed feelings about Texans ;-) but I'm glad that your cousin is living a better life and expending an order of a magnitude more energy than she presumably used to.
We are talking about the same people.
> Who gets to make the call
An excellent question. I'd be just as skeptical as you are about all this. And this seems to be a US effort, not a multi-national one? I would hope the US government wouldn't unilaterally decide to do something like this without getting buy-in from... well... literally the entire world. But presumably that would be impossible to do, so it would never get done if they chose a consensus-building approach. Which... might not be a bad thing.
An excellent question. I'd be just as skeptical as you are about all this. And this seems to be a US effort, not a multi-national one? I would hope the US government wouldn't unilaterally decide to do something like this without getting buy-in from... well... literally the entire world. But presumably that would be impossible to do, so it would never get done if they chose a consensus-building approach. Which... might not be a bad thing.
That ship has sailed. Spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to modify the weather happens around the world already, including in the US.
Weather modification in the US has been underway for a long time.
Haven't asked yet
Haven't asked yet
Absolutely agree.
In fact, I think it is deeply ingrained colonialist thinking that nature would need guidance from humans.
Rather, it's the other way around: as long as we don't see ourselves as part of the ecosystem and take our assigned role instead of constantly trying to patronize everyone else in the ecosystem - we would actually have a chance of survival.
The best strategy is to adapt. We are part of something bigger - but just a part and not the CEO of it.
In fact, I think it is deeply ingrained colonialist thinking that nature would need guidance from humans.
Rather, it's the other way around: as long as we don't see ourselves as part of the ecosystem and take our assigned role instead of constantly trying to patronize everyone else in the ecosystem - we would actually have a chance of survival.
The best strategy is to adapt. We are part of something bigger - but just a part and not the CEO of it.
Our natural place in the ecosystem involves being parasitized by a dozen kinds of horrific worms and predated on by lions. No, thank you.
This reminds of factory farming and how it encourages the growth of bacteria that make both animals and humans sick. To solve this problem, instead drastically changing the way we grow livestock we just opted to abuse antibiotics to both enlarge the livestock and keep them from getting ill resulting in antibiotic resistant superbugs
There is a long way from “we don’t fully understand the side effects” to the “extinction of human race”.
Sure depends upon the side effect we didn't understand, doesn't it?
I really did miss hearing about acid rain in the 90s
It would be disastrous if this went ahead.
Failing to draw down atmospheric CO2 ensures increasing ocean acidification, threatening the basis of the whole ocean ecosystem.
Failing to draw down atmospheric CO2 ensures increasing ocean acidification, threatening the basis of the whole ocean ecosystem.
Doing solar radiation management as a substitute for drawing down CO2 would be disastrous.
But we're starting to see various positive feedbacks kick in, where rising temperatures cause the planet to release CO2 and methane of its own. We see evidence of this in geologic history too, where a modest temperature increase due to an orbital variation causes greenhouse releases that tip the planet into a warming cycle.
If we cross that tipping point, reducing our emissions to zero won't keep the CO2 from increasing further. We might need SRM to keep that from happening. The tipping point could be as low as +1.5C, we're already over +1C, and we've made essentially zero reductions to our emissions so far.
But we're starting to see various positive feedbacks kick in, where rising temperatures cause the planet to release CO2 and methane of its own. We see evidence of this in geologic history too, where a modest temperature increase due to an orbital variation causes greenhouse releases that tip the planet into a warming cycle.
If we cross that tipping point, reducing our emissions to zero won't keep the CO2 from increasing further. We might need SRM to keep that from happening. The tipping point could be as low as +1.5C, we're already over +1C, and we've made essentially zero reductions to our emissions so far.
> Who gets to make the call that these risks are okay and are not as bad as the negative impact(s) we may face from climate change? Who decides that it is an acceptable trade-off to wipe out entire species and ecosystems and potentially some percent of the human population?
Well you have your answer already: the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. If anything, it was a grand scale experiment to see how well human beings can listen to and obey Orders. How well human beings can adhere to lockdowns and mask mandates and how well they will work. How well the Government and so called "Experts" will handle the grave situation. To weigh pros and cons of dying due to the virus vs dying due to starvation and poverty.
The result is that everyone fucked up. Big time. We are extremely lucky that the virus had a low fatality rate and was not like the black plague which wiped out 60% of Europe's population.
None of these "Executive Orders" were through Consensus or Vote. We were forced to "trust" the Government and the "Experts" to do the right thing. And how many of us know anything about viruses or developing vaccines to make any sort of reasonable judgement anyways? A tiny percentage of the entire populace. We had no choice really.
Irrespective of how bad they fucked up — from flip-flopping on mask mandates to imposing extremely harsh lockdowns that caused economic distress and induced the recession we are in now — not to discount the crazy Wars going on in the World especially after a devastating pandemic. We have proven ourselves to be the most inept "superficially intelligent" species which is due for another genetic evolution — the last one being the Neanderthal extinction some 40,000 years ago [1].
We let the elites and experts take decisions on our behalf and we saw how it fucked everything up. This is going to be no different. When push comes to shove, some old buffoons, holding desperately on to power, in their 70s, 80s or 90s, with little to no cognitive abilities, will be deciding the fate of approximately 8 billion people. To support these buffoons will be those greedy good-for-nothing companies that will be looking at how best to profit from the situation... all while being on the verge of extinction.
We are royally screwed. There is no denying that. If some highly evolved super-intelligent species of the future writes a history on Homo Sapiens, it would definitely be that we were the only species to have "fought amongst each other, stuttering and stammering our way to extinction, taking with us a perfectly habitable planet".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction
Well you have your answer already: the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. If anything, it was a grand scale experiment to see how well human beings can listen to and obey Orders. How well human beings can adhere to lockdowns and mask mandates and how well they will work. How well the Government and so called "Experts" will handle the grave situation. To weigh pros and cons of dying due to the virus vs dying due to starvation and poverty.
The result is that everyone fucked up. Big time. We are extremely lucky that the virus had a low fatality rate and was not like the black plague which wiped out 60% of Europe's population.
None of these "Executive Orders" were through Consensus or Vote. We were forced to "trust" the Government and the "Experts" to do the right thing. And how many of us know anything about viruses or developing vaccines to make any sort of reasonable judgement anyways? A tiny percentage of the entire populace. We had no choice really.
Irrespective of how bad they fucked up — from flip-flopping on mask mandates to imposing extremely harsh lockdowns that caused economic distress and induced the recession we are in now — not to discount the crazy Wars going on in the World especially after a devastating pandemic. We have proven ourselves to be the most inept "superficially intelligent" species which is due for another genetic evolution — the last one being the Neanderthal extinction some 40,000 years ago [1].
We let the elites and experts take decisions on our behalf and we saw how it fucked everything up. This is going to be no different. When push comes to shove, some old buffoons, holding desperately on to power, in their 70s, 80s or 90s, with little to no cognitive abilities, will be deciding the fate of approximately 8 billion people. To support these buffoons will be those greedy good-for-nothing companies that will be looking at how best to profit from the situation... all while being on the verge of extinction.
We are royally screwed. There is no denying that. If some highly evolved super-intelligent species of the future writes a history on Homo Sapiens, it would definitely be that we were the only species to have "fought amongst each other, stuttering and stammering our way to extinction, taking with us a perfectly habitable planet".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction
Humans are pretty good at following economic orders however. Almost perfect at that, given some time of weeks or months. Economic actors respond to prices in the economy in a very predictable pattern.
One very good example, of following economic orders, is the shortage of masks, at the start of the covihoax. Less masks available, orders the price to go up, because more people are bidding up masks which are of short supply. One billion masks, roughly every week, only for the US, is an extraordinary amount, which would cause the price to go ballistic, 10x, 100x or maybe even 1000x. Masks are useless of course after just one use, so everyone who follows the science and wants to be safe, is obliged to buy a mask almost everyday. We didn't see anywhere mask prices to follow this pattern, so what happened? Maybe hundreds of millions of people were lying with their mouth, but not with their money, is one explanation that comes to mind.
One other good example is the submerging of coastal lines to the sea. Here in Greece, i think we have the biggest coastline of every other nation in the world. Someone would expect coastline house prices to drop a lot, 10x easily. 2050 or something for the house to be submerged into the water, is a very short period of time, considering how long a good house can last. New housing located at coast lines, should drop almost to zero. Did we see any of these scenarios happen? Of course not! How come prices of the soon to be submerged houses are high as ever? Maybe one possibility is that billions of people lie only with their mouths, not with their sacred and hard earned money!
One very good example, of following economic orders, is the shortage of masks, at the start of the covihoax. Less masks available, orders the price to go up, because more people are bidding up masks which are of short supply. One billion masks, roughly every week, only for the US, is an extraordinary amount, which would cause the price to go ballistic, 10x, 100x or maybe even 1000x. Masks are useless of course after just one use, so everyone who follows the science and wants to be safe, is obliged to buy a mask almost everyday. We didn't see anywhere mask prices to follow this pattern, so what happened? Maybe hundreds of millions of people were lying with their mouth, but not with their money, is one explanation that comes to mind.
One other good example is the submerging of coastal lines to the sea. Here in Greece, i think we have the biggest coastline of every other nation in the world. Someone would expect coastline house prices to drop a lot, 10x easily. 2050 or something for the house to be submerged into the water, is a very short period of time, considering how long a good house can last. New housing located at coast lines, should drop almost to zero. Did we see any of these scenarios happen? Of course not! How come prices of the soon to be submerged houses are high as ever? Maybe one possibility is that billions of people lie only with their mouths, not with their sacred and hard earned money!
> covihoax
Oh please
Oh please
"It is the year 8000. Humanity has
joined a vast universal republic along
with tens of thousands of alien worlds.
All worlds agree on one thing: the
search for intelligent life still continues."
The thing about a plan like this, though, is it doesn't require cooperation from the public. Getting everyone to stay home, wear masks, socially distance, and get vaccines is indeed a pretty hard problem.
But decreeing that a few hundreds or thousands of scientists and engineers are going to make a possibly-catastrophic change to our biosphere doesn't require getting regular citizens to do anything.
Having said that, I do expect public opinion to play a role in deciding what (if anything) gets done. Whether or not it'll be enough to stop something catastrophic from happening... probably not?
But decreeing that a few hundreds or thousands of scientists and engineers are going to make a possibly-catastrophic change to our biosphere doesn't require getting regular citizens to do anything.
Having said that, I do expect public opinion to play a role in deciding what (if anything) gets done. Whether or not it'll be enough to stop something catastrophic from happening... probably not?
[deleted]
This administration is so far off the rails at this point that I wish they'd just say screw it, print another trillion dollars EACH for everybody who wants to build nuclear reactors in the Nevada desert, and just call it a day. We're heading for a massive depression anyway, might as well get some nuclear reactors out of it.
Absolutely f off with this absurd nonsense. Look at what this idiotic climate engineering crap did by introducing asian carp.
The answer is in front of you. Nuclear power. FFS.
Absolutely f off with this absurd nonsense. Look at what this idiotic climate engineering crap did by introducing asian carp.
The answer is in front of you. Nuclear power. FFS.
I'm having a hard time believing this could work too.
I remember the federal government tried to stimulate internet growth, or help jumpstart solar companies or similar - they became giant cash grabs with little to show in the end.
I'd like to know ways the government could help stimulate really good solutions without giving money away or picking (unproven) winners.
I remember the federal government tried to stimulate internet growth, or help jumpstart solar companies or similar - they became giant cash grabs with little to show in the end.
I'd like to know ways the government could help stimulate really good solutions without giving money away or picking (unproven) winners.
I think we all have a hard time believing this could work. These aren't new ideas, they're long shots and everyone knows it, but we're concerned enough that we're researching it. Dumping a few cargo jets of sulfur and chalk isn't going to fuck anything up more than we have already, and learning anything new about how the atmosphere works is a win in my book (even if it's: hey, don't do that). That being said, I hope we never consider deploying this at scale.
Personally, I think the answer is more of what we're doing right now: financial incentives for provable results. Taxes or fines for pollution, credits and subsidies for green energy. Subsidize the energy, not the equipment and you'll discourage bad actors.
Personally, I think the answer is more of what we're doing right now: financial incentives for provable results. Taxes or fines for pollution, credits and subsidies for green energy. Subsidize the energy, not the equipment and you'll discourage bad actors.
Cash for Clunkers comes to mind as always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
What's the answer?
Well the first step would be to tell the NRC to stop blocking companies like OKLO from building their demonstration reactor.
Launch giant rolls of toilet paper. Spread them out in low orbit. They will reflect light; ablate incoming space junk, and sequester carbon as well as stimulating the forestry industry. If we want to we could subsidize newspapers by having them print ads on them before launch.
Of course they won't last long, even low orbits are harsh. This will be an ongoing opportunity for several industries capable of making important campaign donations.
Of course they won't last long, even low orbits are harsh. This will be an ongoing opportunity for several industries capable of making important campaign donations.
Strangely, I think I would be more okay with this than a longer lasting chemical- TP is predominantly lignin, of which the atmosphere already has the constituent elements. Only worry is stray chlorine, lead and other heavy metal contaminants absorbed into the source material from trees as they grew- but presumably the TP would offset whatever shenanigans those get up to.
Since it would break down and burn up upon reentry (or maybe just float down?) there might not be that much interaction anyway.
Compare that with the unknowns of longer-lasting particulates of sulfur and other nasties, the back-of-the-napkin math really doesn't sound that bad.
Since it would break down and burn up upon reentry (or maybe just float down?) there might not be that much interaction anyway.
Compare that with the unknowns of longer-lasting particulates of sulfur and other nasties, the back-of-the-napkin math really doesn't sound that bad.
What's the math for this? How much CO2 per gram into low orbit, these days?
My naive assumption is that the amount of CO2 released to put them into orbit would be a net negative, since they'll eventually fall away, revealing the the now increased CO2 to the sun.
My naive assumption is that the amount of CO2 released to put them into orbit would be a net negative, since they'll eventually fall away, revealing the the now increased CO2 to the sun.
mercy_dude(1)
chemtrailz2(2)
Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun.
BLOCK IT OUT!
For those that don’t get the reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F
For those that don’t get the reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F
HackerNews tries to discourage the sort of pop culture references that are so prevalent across the Internet in the hopes of fostering real substantial communication and dialog. I don't speak on their behalf but as a member of their audience and this has been the culture of this site for a long while, which is why I downvoted your post, the post you replied to, and the other posts that reference this same Simpsons quote which I hope will illustrate that references like this are not very creative either.
I joined HN 10 days before you did (back in 2013)…
Your account age of nine years gives you no more authority than mine (or an account age of nine days). You’ve been here as long as I have - there is one dang. You’ve exercised your downvoting ability. Fair enough.
On HN and elsewhere in my > 20 years in the broader technology community I’ve noticed substantially higher interest in “golden era” Simpsons, Futurama, etc. In my experience and understanding they are part of our culture.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call a reference to a single line in an episode that aired in 1995 “Pop Culture”.
I simply added context because a reference to a 27 year old episode from a series that seems to have been well respected in the technology space should not be completely lost on a younger generation of HN readers that don’t recognize it (likely because they hadn’t been born yet).
On HN and elsewhere in my > 20 years in the broader technology community I’ve noticed substantially higher interest in “golden era” Simpsons, Futurama, etc. In my experience and understanding they are part of our culture.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call a reference to a single line in an episode that aired in 1995 “Pop Culture”.
I simply added context because a reference to a 27 year old episode from a series that seems to have been well respected in the technology space should not be completely lost on a younger generation of HN readers that don’t recognize it (likely because they hadn’t been born yet).
> I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call a reference to a single line in an episode that aired in 1995 “Pop Culture”.
The fact that plenty of others here got the reference suggests otherwise.
The fact that plenty of others here got the reference suggests otherwise.
sweetbitter(1)
Telling someone that you downvoted their comment is extremely toxic. Either downvote without replying, or reply without mentioning downvoting.
> Telling someone that you downvoted their comment is extremely toxic.
Why so? "Extremely toxic" seems at the least an exaggeration, but I don't see why it's "toxic" at all. Rather than just merely downvoting, the replier is also indicating why they thought the comment was inappropriate, which to my mind sounds constructive.
Why so? "Extremely toxic" seems at the least an exaggeration, but I don't see why it's "toxic" at all. Rather than just merely downvoting, the replier is also indicating why they thought the comment was inappropriate, which to my mind sounds constructive.
As the subject of the parent, it’s not the downvote or comment regarding it that bothers me.
The lecture about what this community is or isn’t through some imagined position of authority through seniority bothers me. That is extremely toxic.
Bonus points they didn’t bother to check my profile to discover I “got here first” - which only goes to show how ridiculous this position is in the first place.
The lecture about what this community is or isn’t through some imagined position of authority through seniority bothers me. That is extremely toxic.
Bonus points they didn’t bother to check my profile to discover I “got here first” - which only goes to show how ridiculous this position is in the first place.
The lack os skepticism in these comments makes me want to go back in time to assassinate William of Okham.
I heard the White House is also planning research on how Nuclear Armageddon will actually be green in the long run. /s
Why don’t we all just leave the fridge door open for a day or two? That should cool the planet.
1. We are currently in an ice age (defined as both poles covered in ice)
2. A few degrees the wrong direction and the whole globe turns to ice.
3. A warmer earth with more carbon increases crop yields and actually has positive effects. The downside might be people need to move inland.
4. Much more concerning is the chemicals we are releasing into the atmosphere — I’d be seriously concerned here.
2. A few degrees the wrong direction and the whole globe turns to ice.
3. A warmer earth with more carbon increases crop yields and actually has positive effects. The downside might be people need to move inland.
4. Much more concerning is the chemicals we are releasing into the atmosphere — I’d be seriously concerned here.
> The downside might be people need to move inland.
There's a lot of human suffering underneath that anodyne phrase. Deadly storms and refugee camps and all the rest.
The trouble isn't the final temperature, it's the speed of the change. Given tens of thousands of years ecosystems can adapt. Change the climate in a few decades, though, and many species will just die. We aren't going to know all the consequences of that biodiversity loss until it's too late to fix.
You're absolutely right however that there's a narrow band of temperatures consistent with a habitable Earth. Which is why research into tools we might need to stay in that range is a good thing.
There's a lot of human suffering underneath that anodyne phrase. Deadly storms and refugee camps and all the rest.
The trouble isn't the final temperature, it's the speed of the change. Given tens of thousands of years ecosystems can adapt. Change the climate in a few decades, though, and many species will just die. We aren't going to know all the consequences of that biodiversity loss until it's too late to fix.
You're absolutely right however that there's a narrow band of temperatures consistent with a habitable Earth. Which is why research into tools we might need to stay in that range is a good thing.
It's not just about temp change and ocean levels- it's the shifts in climate affecting ecosystems (for example, speeding up desertification in some places and bringing extreme weather to others). Sure, people can move inland, but moving inland isn't going to help the ecosystems. Humans are very adaptable, we have technology and skills to handle rapidly changing parameters- other organisms can't. Changes of salinity in water, drier soil, excessive rain, first/last frost, etc. are happening too fast and causing widespread destruction to and collapse of ecosystems worldwide- the affected flora/fauna aren't like us- they simply won't survive.
Good; natural ecosystems re a moral hazard, anyway- a giant, self-perpetuating torture dungeon. If somebody created predator species, or botflies, or ringworms, you'd have them executed for crimes against nervous systems. I vote, then, to execute natural selection.
It's our duty to save all living things capable of pain from their fates.
Myself, I think that both this type of things and emission controls should be going on to get the situation under control. Simply because we cannot know exactly how much any of this will accomplish and the needs are big.
The climate question's credibility is hurt by limiting solutions to an ideologically approved list and treating it as a vehicle for one's favorite causes. People can suspect that if the activists are so choosy about the methods, this cannot be that serious and this is not how truly desperate people act.