Why North America's killer heat scares me(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Why North America's killer heat scares me
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57729502
192 comments
I sympathize with and share your exhaustion, but I force myself to pay attention to these stories. They remind me why Climate Change is always my #1 priority when voting in elections, and when thinking about the world writ large.
There was an editorial in The Atlantic a couple of years ago—which I now can’t seem to find—titled something like “We should be covering climate change like it’s the only story that matters”. The body of the piece was very short, but can be summed up as “because in terms of relative importance, it is the only story that matters. But we won’t do it.”
But we should. But we need to.
There was an editorial in The Atlantic a couple of years ago—which I now can’t seem to find—titled something like “We should be covering climate change like it’s the only story that matters”. The body of the piece was very short, but can be summed up as “because in terms of relative importance, it is the only story that matters. But we won’t do it.”
But we should. But we need to.
I was listening to a podcast a while back (middle of 2020) and the guest said something the effect of "If I could choose to end racism or reverse/stop/slow/fix climate change I would choose climate change. If we don't stop/slow climate change then nothing else will matter, if we fix the climate we have the time to address racism". I'm not exactly sure why but that has stuck with me and has shaped my thinking around it since. The fact that addressing climate change is just tacked on the current infrastructure bills making their way though congress (or at least the one going through budget reconciliation since it would never pass in the senate with that) is sad. I understand some of the political reasoning behind it, it's not as sexy of a topic as other things in the bills but it's just incredibly depressing how little attention appears to be paid to it.
Making money comes first in this world, and only then comes the realization if our kids or grandkids still have a habitable world.
Guess up until now it’s an abstraction people couldn’t imagine. Despite years of warning.
Recently been thinking we should reform old style political parties. Instead we get to directly vote for ideological topics which we can vote on, and politicians/parties who adhere to them. So instead of parties we vote for ideas directly. Just an idea that needs a lot more work :)
Guess up until now it’s an abstraction people couldn’t imagine. Despite years of warning.
Recently been thinking we should reform old style political parties. Instead we get to directly vote for ideological topics which we can vote on, and politicians/parties who adhere to them. So instead of parties we vote for ideas directly. Just an idea that needs a lot more work :)
> Making money comes first in this world
In the past year virtually every major economy in the world shut down to try to ward off a virus that, even unchecked, couldn't kill a fraction of the people or ruin the world the way climate change might. Google tells me that it'd cost anywhere from $300 billion to $50 trillion to end climate change, however that'd work [0]; the amount we've collectively spent on COVID, somewhere around $10 trillion more than half a year ago [1], would at the very least take a big dent out of that.
Clearly, there's a point where we can put money aside for other things. It's not just greed; it's short-sightedness and stupidity too.
[0] https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/cost-to-end-climate-chang...
[1] https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/global-cost-...
In the past year virtually every major economy in the world shut down to try to ward off a virus that, even unchecked, couldn't kill a fraction of the people or ruin the world the way climate change might. Google tells me that it'd cost anywhere from $300 billion to $50 trillion to end climate change, however that'd work [0]; the amount we've collectively spent on COVID, somewhere around $10 trillion more than half a year ago [1], would at the very least take a big dent out of that.
Clearly, there's a point where we can put money aside for other things. It's not just greed; it's short-sightedness and stupidity too.
[0] https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/cost-to-end-climate-chang...
[1] https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/global-cost-...
Yeah, that’s one way to look at it. If we had tackled climate change like we do covid a decade ago or more, we might already have made significant progress.
>Recently been thinking we should reform old style political parties. Instead we get to directly vote for ideological topics which we can vote on, and politicians/parties who adhere to them.
I'm not sure whether it's that. Addressing climate change might be a popular policy, but spending money to address climate change doesn't seem to be.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27686289
I'm not sure whether it's that. Addressing climate change might be a popular policy, but spending money to address climate change doesn't seem to be.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27686289
Gas tax is particularly regressive. People with lower incomes have less access to electric cars, charging infrastructure, and real estate with convenient commutes.
Use the gas tax as a crude carbon tax, and spend the revenue subsidizing less costly EVs, charging infra buildouts, and incentives to businesses to support remote work.
You're not alone in that thought, but the first step is dismantling the party system. In the United States that would either require extreme campaign finance reform and the elimination of First-Past-The-Post voting systems. Or a violent revolution. Either way it's not looking likely...
The parties can be improved without dismantling. In fact, that’s exactly what must happen and indeed the fate of our democracy depends upon it happening.
[deleted]
Political parties are a product of the electoral system they compete in.
| Climate Change is always my #1 priority when voting in elections
If every climate change candidate you favored for won in the US and Canada the impact on climate would be near zero. Why? Because China, Vietnam, India and Indonesia are now the majority contributors to emissions and they don't care about your agenda.
Such are the unintended consequences of progressive agendas. We regulated 'dirty' businesses out of existence (mostly) in North America and in so doing gave up our influence over how those industries operate.
And, no, we cannot coerce compliance via tariffs or sanctions. You cannot manufacture drugs, chemicals, electronics and other critical societal goods today without inputs from polluting countries.
The lack of dimensionality in progressive political agendas is disheartening and dangerous.
If every climate change candidate you favored for won in the US and Canada the impact on climate would be near zero. Why? Because China, Vietnam, India and Indonesia are now the majority contributors to emissions and they don't care about your agenda.
Such are the unintended consequences of progressive agendas. We regulated 'dirty' businesses out of existence (mostly) in North America and in so doing gave up our influence over how those industries operate.
And, no, we cannot coerce compliance via tariffs or sanctions. You cannot manufacture drugs, chemicals, electronics and other critical societal goods today without inputs from polluting countries.
The lack of dimensionality in progressive political agendas is disheartening and dangerous.
I disagree. Force people to pay for the externalities their actions have. Like buying electronics from China could have a tax based on how polluting it is. Then factories will either get better to win on price, or someone might build a factory elsewhere and actually be able to compete.
Tarriffs aren't enough. Most companies/consumers will just eat the costs. You need the federal government to start actively supporting building things back home, which personally I don't think will be possible for at least a generation. Too many people are addicted to the lifestyle NAFTA enabled.
We regulated 'dirty' businesses out of existence (mostly) in North America and in so doing gave up our influence over how those industries operate.
Thats a bit hyperbolic, but presuming it’s true, What influence do you believe we would’ve had if we hadn’t done that?
Thats a bit hyperbolic, but presuming it’s true, What influence do you believe we would’ve had if we hadn’t done that?
The pandemic proved the premise (not hyperbolic), with particular reference to drugs & PPE.
Had industries like refining, chemicals & primary materials manufacturing (as just 3 of many examples) remained centric to North America we would now be in a position apply the "Green New Deal" ethos and its vast expenditures to industries that provide offsetting jobs, tax revenues and secondary income flows at home. Instead, we must now direct the progressive agenda to things like real-estate, power grids, power generation, transportation & farming. These industries are either comparatively small employers or soon-to-be so due to automation; and several are reliant on inputs from China that simply transfer even more wealth from the US abroad.
Had industries like refining, chemicals & primary materials manufacturing (as just 3 of many examples) remained centric to North America we would now be in a position apply the "Green New Deal" ethos and its vast expenditures to industries that provide offsetting jobs, tax revenues and secondary income flows at home. Instead, we must now direct the progressive agenda to things like real-estate, power grids, power generation, transportation & farming. These industries are either comparatively small employers or soon-to-be so due to automation; and several are reliant on inputs from China that simply transfer even more wealth from the US abroad.
if we hadn't done that already, then we'd have the opportunity to regulate the out of existence in the future - it's much different
I like to think in a worst case scenario we can always use military power to halt or destroy their industries if necessary to save the planet. The developing nations emitting the most pollution have no chance against the United States.
Unfortunately most of those countries have nukes
Finally found the article. I'd kept searching in The Atlantic, when it was actually from The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-isnt-the-media-c...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-isnt-the-media-c...
^ Never mind, that's still not it. (Sorry.)
Of course, if one does want to cover it like it's the only story that matters, one should really seriously take a look at how to best present that — because there are real possibilities that a naive approach might very well fail you, and get the coverage ignored.
While it might be true, even the Atlantic isn't just covering climate change as a no. 1. priority.
Their priority is more about intersectionality (and not even as it regards climate).
If they believe it's climate, then they should stress climate and leave other things second.
Their priority is more about intersectionality (and not even as it regards climate).
If they believe it's climate, then they should stress climate and leave other things second.
They remind me why Climate Change is always my #1 priority when voting in elections
> The problem I always face is that I want to vote for a party that want to do something against climate change but the party that claims to be ecologist wants to get away from nuclear without any real plans like they did in Germany. I believe that right now, we should rely on nuclear power and that it's the only way in the short to medium term to get out of the crisis.
Not to mention the undeserved political-economic influence Germany's energy policy has gifted to Russia.
There’s the idea that any significant change starts with yourself. Ghandi and stuff. Yet, I can’t stop thinking that as humans our role is to multiply and exploit our habitat, and that trying to fight this is meaningless. In the end we’re doomed anyway, so is accelerating the inevitable that bad? Especially if it’s making the lives of people better right now?
You feel powerless to do anything about climate change ? You feel your individual actions such as recycling are meaningless in the face of the incoming tsunami ? That is because they are. If you want meaningful, get into political action !
"For consumers in the industrialized world to signal virtue with their individual actions is irrelevant at best. Countries like Sweden that have had success in decarbonizing, didn’t reach their accomplishment with individual sacrifices, but by generating energy cleanly (with nuclear power instead of fossil fuel). In my opinion, the individual action that matters most is voting. Climate change is a problem governments will solve, not individuals. It is strange that people think the world’s most challenging problem can be solved by voluntary actions from billions of people — this is why we have representative governments" - https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/individual-actions...
"For consumers in the industrialized world to signal virtue with their individual actions is irrelevant at best. Countries like Sweden that have had success in decarbonizing, didn’t reach their accomplishment with individual sacrifices, but by generating energy cleanly (with nuclear power instead of fossil fuel). In my opinion, the individual action that matters most is voting. Climate change is a problem governments will solve, not individuals. It is strange that people think the world’s most challenging problem can be solved by voluntary actions from billions of people — this is why we have representative governments" - https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/individual-actions...
Although voting is important, it only makes a difference when there is a candidate or ballot initiative that takes climate seriously.
Building a coalition that cares about climate is needed. Then politicians will see that the issue has a reliable voting block they can depend on for their careers.
Building a coalition that cares about climate is needed. Then politicians will see that the issue has a reliable voting block they can depend on for their careers.
It was extremely difficult getting my knowledgeable and smart sister to vaccinate for COVID19, an eminent disease that we both agreed was killing hundreds-of-thousands of Americans. Fortunately, I pushed her hard enough with a little bit of help from the Demon Slayer: Mugen Train movie (we will go to theaters if you vaccinate).
Honestly: I don't know how I would have done it without that movie, lol.
Now my sister's sister-in-law also is an anti-vaxxer. Lets call her "C".
------------
Frankly, my political capital is still 100% on COVID19. I don't have enough political capital left to spend on climate change.
If I can't convince these people of the eminent dangers of COVID19, and the incredible relative safety of the vaccines... then climate change is hopeless.
C isn't dumb. But she's part of a family of conservatives. "Conservatism" is part of their identity, and right now, that means that they want to believe that the virus will go away on its own, that masks are stupid, the vaccine is made by Bill Gates (wtf??) etc. etc. etc. And climate change is fake is part of that identity they hold.
Pushing this part of their identity away from them is extremely difficult. Just pushing one concept onto them (ex: get the freaking vaccine) is hard enough.
Honestly: I don't know how I would have done it without that movie, lol.
Now my sister's sister-in-law also is an anti-vaxxer. Lets call her "C".
------------
Frankly, my political capital is still 100% on COVID19. I don't have enough political capital left to spend on climate change.
If I can't convince these people of the eminent dangers of COVID19, and the incredible relative safety of the vaccines... then climate change is hopeless.
C isn't dumb. But she's part of a family of conservatives. "Conservatism" is part of their identity, and right now, that means that they want to believe that the virus will go away on its own, that masks are stupid, the vaccine is made by Bill Gates (wtf??) etc. etc. etc. And climate change is fake is part of that identity they hold.
Pushing this part of their identity away from them is extremely difficult. Just pushing one concept onto them (ex: get the freaking vaccine) is hard enough.
You talk as if you're 100% certain about these things, which is obviously not possible.
I'm 100% certain in the vaccine's effectiveness on the average American.
Sure: Immunocompromised individuals may not be saved even with the vaccine (not enough B-cells or T-cells to fight off the disease even with the vaccine training them up). But its pretty much 100% proven at this point that the vaccines are 99.999%+ safe (all deaths due to vaccine are measured in the 10-in-a-million or smaller magnitude), while being 95% effective at preventing symptoms against the disease in question. Because the vaccine has been deployed to over 100-million Americans, I have evidence on how it works!!
There's no doubt anymore in my mind. There wasn't any doubt in my mind in December 2020, and we've only got 7 more months of evidence: the virus is surging in unvaccinated areas (ex: India), while receding in vaccinated areas. Something like 100% of LA's COVID19 deaths were from unvaccinated indivuals, despite only having ~50% vaccination rates (so 50% / 50% split of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in that population, but 100% deaths coming from only the unvaccinated pool?)
What more evidence do you want?
Sure: Immunocompromised individuals may not be saved even with the vaccine (not enough B-cells or T-cells to fight off the disease even with the vaccine training them up). But its pretty much 100% proven at this point that the vaccines are 99.999%+ safe (all deaths due to vaccine are measured in the 10-in-a-million or smaller magnitude), while being 95% effective at preventing symptoms against the disease in question. Because the vaccine has been deployed to over 100-million Americans, I have evidence on how it works!!
There's no doubt anymore in my mind. There wasn't any doubt in my mind in December 2020, and we've only got 7 more months of evidence: the virus is surging in unvaccinated areas (ex: India), while receding in vaccinated areas. Something like 100% of LA's COVID19 deaths were from unvaccinated indivuals, despite only having ~50% vaccination rates (so 50% / 50% split of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in that population, but 100% deaths coming from only the unvaccinated pool?)
What more evidence do you want?
And are you 100% certain your sister and sister-in-law are average Americans?
I believe them to be well above-average Americans on the scale of intelligence.
If its this difficult to convince them of the facts, when they're open to understanding scientific data, then I don't expect much from the average American.
If its this difficult to convince them of the facts, when they're open to understanding scientific data, then I don't expect much from the average American.
I did not downvote you, but I want to explain why some people might be. I don't doubt that the majority of people here, even people downvoting you, don't disagree that the vaccine seems to be mostly safe and effective, based on the limited data we have so far. But you're not saying that: you're saying you're 100% sure and willing to bet your life and the lives of others on that certainty, which is not rooted in statistics but rather emotion. You're following the same style of thinking as the conservatives you criticized, just at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Name the causes of death due to the vaccine.
* J&J has that blood clot issue, measured to be less than 15 in 8-million. Though serious, we now know how to deal with these blood clots thanks to the temporary pause. So with treatment, that vaccine won't kill many people anymore (if you count 15-in-8-million as "many").
* There's the heart-palpatation issue, which is measured to be less than 10-in-a-million and hasn't caused many deaths IIRC.
That's it. After 100-million Americans have received the vaccine for several months, that's all we've seen. And that's taking the worst of the two vaccines that have come out.
---------
mRNA self-disintegrates at room temperature. That's why they have to keep the darn thing at -80C or -30C. After a few days in the body (or ~37C), its __ literally __ gone and can no longer affect the body.
I'm willing to give a few weeks or even months to see if there's lingering effects of the mRNA spike proteins generated from the vaccine. But at this point, I'm willing to call it. The mechanics of how the darn thing works means that long-term effects are negligible.
That's why our bodies use DNA to begin with! Because mRNA (although effective as an "execution engine" so to speak) is extremely volatile and barely lasts. Our bodies transcribe DNA into mRNA instructions constantly, renewing the "code" that our body executes.
--------
Its put-up or shut-up time. The vaccine is in over 100-million Americans. If you think its unsafe, prove it. Find the deaths and report back.
EDIT: That's the thing. COVID19 is "put up or shut up" time. We have the evidence staring at us in the face. Climate Change, as annoying as it is, isn't anywhere near as "provable" as COVID19. We actually have placebo studies on different population sets and a proper experiment set up to create evidence for our COVID19 policies.
Climate change? We don't have a 2nd Earth to run as our "control study" in our experiment. We literally cannot experiment upon Climate change to get the same level of evidence that's available in the COVID19 debate.
And still: look at all these downvoters. Look at this debate. Its ridiculous. If we can't even get COVID19 figured out in our arguments, why the hell should we assume people will agree with us on climate change?
* J&J has that blood clot issue, measured to be less than 15 in 8-million. Though serious, we now know how to deal with these blood clots thanks to the temporary pause. So with treatment, that vaccine won't kill many people anymore (if you count 15-in-8-million as "many").
* There's the heart-palpatation issue, which is measured to be less than 10-in-a-million and hasn't caused many deaths IIRC.
That's it. After 100-million Americans have received the vaccine for several months, that's all we've seen. And that's taking the worst of the two vaccines that have come out.
---------
mRNA self-disintegrates at room temperature. That's why they have to keep the darn thing at -80C or -30C. After a few days in the body (or ~37C), its __ literally __ gone and can no longer affect the body.
I'm willing to give a few weeks or even months to see if there's lingering effects of the mRNA spike proteins generated from the vaccine. But at this point, I'm willing to call it. The mechanics of how the darn thing works means that long-term effects are negligible.
That's why our bodies use DNA to begin with! Because mRNA (although effective as an "execution engine" so to speak) is extremely volatile and barely lasts. Our bodies transcribe DNA into mRNA instructions constantly, renewing the "code" that our body executes.
--------
Its put-up or shut-up time. The vaccine is in over 100-million Americans. If you think its unsafe, prove it. Find the deaths and report back.
EDIT: That's the thing. COVID19 is "put up or shut up" time. We have the evidence staring at us in the face. Climate Change, as annoying as it is, isn't anywhere near as "provable" as COVID19. We actually have placebo studies on different population sets and a proper experiment set up to create evidence for our COVID19 policies.
Climate change? We don't have a 2nd Earth to run as our "control study" in our experiment. We literally cannot experiment upon Climate change to get the same level of evidence that's available in the COVID19 debate.
And still: look at all these downvoters. Look at this debate. Its ridiculous. If we can't even get COVID19 figured out in our arguments, why the hell should we assume people will agree with us on climate change?
The vaccine is 0% effective against denialists.
> I'm 100% certain in the vaccine's effectiveness on the average American.
The effectiveness is in giving them COVID and helping them fight against the intentional infection, via mRNA antibody response. COVID will eventually become yet-another-endemic-disease, that everyone is vaccinated against. There are some people who are marginally genetically susceptible, who will survive with the vaccine. There are some people who are genetically susceptible and with or without the vaccine, will die once infected.
The question is, why get vaccinated and take the chance if, due to vaccinations your chances are low to get infected (albeit almost guaranteed over 10 years imo)? That's ok with me. The fact that the unvaccinated individuals are the majority of people dying is unsurprising (as expected, there are some vaccinated deaths as well).
This is the uncomfortable truth, which doesn't change what can be done or will happen. The big difference vaccines have made, is an overall reduction in total deaths (as intended) and speeding up the process of total viral exposure (as intended).
The effectiveness is in giving them COVID and helping them fight against the intentional infection, via mRNA antibody response. COVID will eventually become yet-another-endemic-disease, that everyone is vaccinated against. There are some people who are marginally genetically susceptible, who will survive with the vaccine. There are some people who are genetically susceptible and with or without the vaccine, will die once infected.
The question is, why get vaccinated and take the chance if, due to vaccinations your chances are low to get infected (albeit almost guaranteed over 10 years imo)? That's ok with me. The fact that the unvaccinated individuals are the majority of people dying is unsurprising (as expected, there are some vaccinated deaths as well).
This is the uncomfortable truth, which doesn't change what can be done or will happen. The big difference vaccines have made, is an overall reduction in total deaths (as intended) and speeding up the process of total viral exposure (as intended).
> they want to believe that the virus will go away on its own
Pandemics have never "ended". Their effects just slide to a level that people stop talking about it.
Pandemics have never "ended". Their effects just slide to a level that people stop talking about it.
Smallpox.
With a high enough vaccination rate, even a disease with R0 of 20 can go away (COVID19 has an R0 of 3 to 6, maybe 9 if we include Delta variant).
We've literally eradicated a more difficult and deadly disease before. I'm not saying we need to eradicate COVID19, but its absolutely within our power.
With a high enough vaccination rate, even a disease with R0 of 20 can go away (COVID19 has an R0 of 3 to 6, maybe 9 if we include Delta variant).
We've literally eradicated a more difficult and deadly disease before. I'm not saying we need to eradicate COVID19, but its absolutely within our power.
Unlike smallpox, SARS-CoV-2 has animal reservoirs. So eradication is not a feasible goal. But widespread vaccination can minimize the long term death toll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox
The relationship between Smallpox and Cowpox was well known even in the 1700s. (Though the concept of infectious diseases was not understood until the late 1800s, the people who hung around cows a lot didn't die of Smallpox as much).
Turns out that Cowpox was the same viral-family as Smallpox, and that Cowpox could be used to lessen the effect of Smallpox.
So there were absolutely animal reservoirs of the Smallpox viral family. The disease was shown to hop from different species (from humans to cows and vice versa).
The relationship between Smallpox and Cowpox was well known even in the 1700s. (Though the concept of infectious diseases was not understood until the late 1800s, the people who hung around cows a lot didn't die of Smallpox as much).
Turns out that Cowpox was the same viral-family as Smallpox, and that Cowpox could be used to lessen the effect of Smallpox.
So there were absolutely animal reservoirs of the Smallpox viral family. The disease was shown to hop from different species (from humans to cows and vice versa).
The word "pandemic" ~didn't exist prior to vaccines; arguably, it's too early to say whether every pandemic or no pandemic has ended.
We didn't used to have pandemics. We had plagues and poxes. We only had pandemics once we started having the option to not have everyone die of communicable diseases regularly.
We didn't used to have pandemics. We had plagues and poxes. We only had pandemics once we started having the option to not have everyone die of communicable diseases regularly.
All pandemics end. That doesn’t mean the disease is eliminated. It means it no longer is spreading uncontrolled around the world.
The 1918 pandemic didn't end until 1957. The virus came back as seasonal influenza until it was eventually displaced by H2N2 (as H1N1 displaced whatever influenza was around pre-1918). That H1 envelope protein came back in the 2009 pandemic and has been with us ever since.
COVID is an evolutionary filter for the anti-vax movement. If freedom loving Americans want to roll the dice on survival, let 'em.
I happen to care about my sister-in-law's life. So that's not an option.
Even if it worked that way, its a poor filter since the IFR is only 1% and it mostly kills people that are very old anyway. Plus ideologies aren't genetic. And even with genetics the whole "evolutionary filter" concept fails due to reversion to the mean. Plus it is a fundamentally right wing political concept. "Evolutionary filters" are about as scientific as the antivax movement.
It doesn't need to be perfect nor does it need to kill to be effective. You can negatively impact the fertility rate just by diminishing the quality of life.
Even in a worst case scenario with no vaccination, COVID-19 would kill less than 1% of the world population. So it's a serious public health problem but not an existential risk to human civilization. I certainly encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can so as to get us to herd immunity faster, but as a practical matter the disease isn't much of an eminent danger to most people who are otherwise in good health.
The potential long term effects of anthropogenic global climate change are more severe. We may see large regions of the world become essentially uninhabitable. That's a far more serious concern than any infectious disease.
The potential long term effects of anthropogenic global climate change are more severe. We may see large regions of the world become essentially uninhabitable. That's a far more serious concern than any infectious disease.
dragontamer(1)
> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day.
Tangential, but recycling is much less effective the reduced consumption.
I think the problem with policy makers not moving on this front is a reflection of people not doing so. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make people even believe in something that would require them to sacrifice their lifestyle, let alone actually commit to doing something about it. To that end, the continued talk about climate change is necessary to hammer into our thick skulls that yes indeed this is a real problem and we really should do something about it and pressure our policy makers to make it a priority even if it means we can't have the same luxurious lifestyle we're accustomed to.
Tangential, but recycling is much less effective the reduced consumption.
I think the problem with policy makers not moving on this front is a reflection of people not doing so. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make people even believe in something that would require them to sacrifice their lifestyle, let alone actually commit to doing something about it. To that end, the continued talk about climate change is necessary to hammer into our thick skulls that yes indeed this is a real problem and we really should do something about it and pressure our policy makers to make it a priority even if it means we can't have the same luxurious lifestyle we're accustomed to.
People are very good at making small changes that make them feel good, but don't actually impact their lifestyle or require any sacrifice.
Paper straws? Not a bad thing, but if you really care about the environment, using a paper straw while at a bar in country on the other side of the world that you flew to is not helpful.
Additionally, people like to see the problem as "out there". i.e. my recycling is pointless because a factory undoes it. Well, the factory is building something... that you are buying. If the factory building (let's say cars) doesn't have anyone to sell the cars to, they aren't going to continue building them.
Paper straws? Not a bad thing, but if you really care about the environment, using a paper straw while at a bar in country on the other side of the world that you flew to is not helpful.
Additionally, people like to see the problem as "out there". i.e. my recycling is pointless because a factory undoes it. Well, the factory is building something... that you are buying. If the factory building (let's say cars) doesn't have anyone to sell the cars to, they aren't going to continue building them.
I think most consumer-facing plastics need to go. They're one of the major catalysts, if not the catalyst for our hyperconsumerist habits. Go back to glass bottles for things. Give subsidies to companies that use glass for inventory loss and such. Bring back the milkman who refills your empty jugs.
IMO the focus on plastics is a distraction. We'd be much better served by building buildings that last longer (I live in Switzerland and I'm surrounded by 50 year old concrete buildings being knocked down and replaced with concrete apartments at the cost of god knows how much co2) and need less energy (noticed how old cities with narrow streets stay cool in the sun? Much better than glass-fronted apartments), reducing land use change, taxing transport appropriately, taxing meat, and so on. But those are hard and complaining that too much clingfilm is used is easy, so here we are.
I'm sure someone will say "but we need to start somewhere!". That's true, but we don't really have time for starting small. And often the alternatives are no better anyway — lots of people bought cotton bags to replace single-use plastic ones at the supermarket but that's probably worse for the environment than just continuing to use plastic (a cotton bag needs to be used hundreds of times to have a lower impact). I know that people mean well but we're all just getting stuck on trivial but attainable micro-goals while the world slowly burns around us.
Unfortunately I believe that unless our economic and political systems ("grow the economy by digging stuff from the ground and making things to sell" and "don't do anything to annoy the people you need to vote for you in N years") change neither will the climate crisis, meaningfully. And this makes me sad and terrified.
I'm sure someone will say "but we need to start somewhere!". That's true, but we don't really have time for starting small. And often the alternatives are no better anyway — lots of people bought cotton bags to replace single-use plastic ones at the supermarket but that's probably worse for the environment than just continuing to use plastic (a cotton bag needs to be used hundreds of times to have a lower impact). I know that people mean well but we're all just getting stuck on trivial but attainable micro-goals while the world slowly burns around us.
Unfortunately I believe that unless our economic and political systems ("grow the economy by digging stuff from the ground and making things to sell" and "don't do anything to annoy the people you need to vote for you in N years") change neither will the climate crisis, meaningfully. And this makes me sad and terrified.
>Go back to glass bottles for things. Give subsidies to companies that use glass for inventory loss and such. Bring back the milkman who refills your empty jugs.
Shouldn't we tax the externalities of plastic and let the market decide whether it's worth it? In your example of using glass bottles: sure it gets rid of plastic, but what about the costs of glass? eg. increased weight or energy/water needed to clean them. As for bringing back the milkman, how is driving a truck door to door delivering exclusively milk more efficient than picking it up on your way to the grocery store?
Shouldn't we tax the externalities of plastic and let the market decide whether it's worth it? In your example of using glass bottles: sure it gets rid of plastic, but what about the costs of glass? eg. increased weight or energy/water needed to clean them. As for bringing back the milkman, how is driving a truck door to door delivering exclusively milk more efficient than picking it up on your way to the grocery store?
I wonder if you could combine all of these ideas. What if you had a truck that traveled around and refilled your shampoo, laundry soap, dish soap, milk, soda, etc.. bottles. I'm thinking a truck that has what looks like a bunch of tap handles on the side and just refills things. Eliminates some trips, disposable containers, etc...
Shouldn't we tax the externalities of plastic and let the market decide whether it's worth it?
If that were enacted tomorrow, every business would just eat the cost and raise prices.
but what about the costs of glass? eg. increased weight or energy/water needed to clean them.
That's what federal subsidies are for. Make it worth it to use glass, or some other material other than plastic. Subsidies are how we got cheap dairy and meat, why can't it be used for other things?
how is driving a truck door to door delivering exclusively milk more efficient than picking it up on your way to the grocery store?
I was just spitballing, more rhetorical than anything. Milkmen used to be everywhere delivering milk in glass bottles before the plastics lobby and dairy subsidies drove them to extinction.
If that were enacted tomorrow, every business would just eat the cost and raise prices.
but what about the costs of glass? eg. increased weight or energy/water needed to clean them.
That's what federal subsidies are for. Make it worth it to use glass, or some other material other than plastic. Subsidies are how we got cheap dairy and meat, why can't it be used for other things?
how is driving a truck door to door delivering exclusively milk more efficient than picking it up on your way to the grocery store?
I was just spitballing, more rhetorical than anything. Milkmen used to be everywhere delivering milk in glass bottles before the plastics lobby and dairy subsidies drove them to extinction.
I think you're missing the point. You want us to switch on the assumption that plastic is intrinsically bad and glass is intrinsically good, without going through the analysis to confirm whether it's actually the case. Sure, glass has benefits compared to plastic, but it also has costs. Should we switch to glass even if it's 2x more expensive (in dollar terms) than plastic? What about 3x? 5x? What about in terms of environmental terms (eg. energy use/water use)? If using glass produces 2x the greenhouse gasses overall, should we still use it? What about 3x? 5x?
A good point of comparison would be plastic bags vs paper bags vs cotton bags. I think most people "feel" that plastic bags are bad and should be replaced with the alternatives, but paper bags are equal to plastic bags when you only look at climate impact, but is 43x worse than LDPE bags when factoring in "all indicators". Should we still switch to paper bags in this case?
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...
A good point of comparison would be plastic bags vs paper bags vs cotton bags. I think most people "feel" that plastic bags are bad and should be replaced with the alternatives, but paper bags are equal to plastic bags when you only look at climate impact, but is 43x worse than LDPE bags when factoring in "all indicators". Should we still switch to paper bags in this case?
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...
They already have filtered water refill stations in some grocery stores, they could theoretically do the same for milk (and other products) without bringing back delivery people.
I have a friend who tried for a time to avoid all plastic in his consumption habits. Trust me when I tell you he is not a pampered individual, having once told me "as long as I'm still shivering I'm not 'too cold'". He deemed the task pretty much impossible, so wide-spread is the use of plastics.
Which is all to say that I totally agree.
Which is all to say that I totally agree.
Absolutely everything on store shelves should be in super-basic, cheap, easy to recycle cardboard (or similar) containers with a focus on how their packaging will live on in the, uh, "trash cycle". I know capitalism and "freedom" are in direct opposition to this, but the current system is just _so incredibly wasteful_ I can't help but fantasize about a better way.
Edit: there's a small glimmer of hope in the way some consumer goods are shipped from places like Amazon (in special ship-to-consumer only basic packaging). Then again those are coming from Amazon, which is ironic in its own way.
Edit: there's a small glimmer of hope in the way some consumer goods are shipped from places like Amazon (in special ship-to-consumer only basic packaging). Then again those are coming from Amazon, which is ironic in its own way.
> Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make people even believe in something that would require them to sacrifice their lifestyle, let alone actually commit to doing something about it.
There's also the major problem that history's most sophisticated propaganda machine - the PR and advertising industry - is almost entirely focused on getting people to consume more of everything. Buy a new phone each year, buy a new car, buy a new fridge, buy a new washing machine, buy new clothes every week, buy more toys, always more more more.
The truth is that it will be impossible to stop the worse effects of global warming if we don't significantly reduce consumption of most things to older rates: people used to have one fridge their entire lives. A smartphone should last at least 10 years. Furniture should last generations. Clothes should last years.
There's also the major problem that history's most sophisticated propaganda machine - the PR and advertising industry - is almost entirely focused on getting people to consume more of everything. Buy a new phone each year, buy a new car, buy a new fridge, buy a new washing machine, buy new clothes every week, buy more toys, always more more more.
The truth is that it will be impossible to stop the worse effects of global warming if we don't significantly reduce consumption of most things to older rates: people used to have one fridge their entire lives. A smartphone should last at least 10 years. Furniture should last generations. Clothes should last years.
> the continued talk about climate change is necessary
That’s been going on for fifty years at least. Personally I think we should try to come up with solutions that are more attractive to people instead of pushing the same tired asceticism stuff.
Billions of people aspire to drive a Tesla. Let’s do more of that.
That’s been going on for fifty years at least. Personally I think we should try to come up with solutions that are more attractive to people instead of pushing the same tired asceticism stuff.
Billions of people aspire to drive a Tesla. Let’s do more of that.
Buy a little land, plant some trees and enjoy them. Its cheaper than you think.
> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day.
Just remember: those same factories are operated by companies that have spent millions over decades to convince people that individual solutions exist to a systemic problem.
If you feel powerless, try looking for systemic opportunities to drive change.
Just remember: those same factories are operated by companies that have spent millions over decades to convince people that individual solutions exist to a systemic problem.
If you feel powerless, try looking for systemic opportunities to drive change.
> If you feel powerless, try looking for systemic opportunities to drive change.
After you spend several years on that, you will find an even deeper, more fundamental sense of powerlessness!
After you spend several years on that, you will find an even deeper, more fundamental sense of powerlessness!
This Podcast episode[1] and related show notes is helpful in breaking down individual actions vs systemic changes that you can support.
Personally I have gone through several bouts of feeling hopeless about the situation but sustained learning about solutions and the work others are doing has been helpful. Also, talking to family and friends about solutions helps too.
[1] https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/xjh53gn/is-yo...
Personally I have gone through several bouts of feeling hopeless about the situation but sustained learning about solutions and the work others are doing has been helpful. Also, talking to family and friends about solutions helps too.
[1] https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/xjh53gn/is-yo...
I do not own a car, I do not fly, I buy clothes used or new just once a year. My newest smartphone I bought five years ago (and I just bought a new battery for $10, so I can use it for five more years). My utility company stats says my energy consumption is overall very low. I eat meat once a month. I try to own as few things as possible. I try to write and deploy code in energy efficient languages (Go, Rust, C, ...) [1]. I self host some services on my arm board that consumes 0.79W when idle.
I do not feel, that it makes a large dent, but I feel that I'm way ahead what the average person does in order to reduce their environmental footprint.
Also, I do not feel I'm cutting myself short and I still depend on many of the niceties of modern civilization - but, I'd also be happier, if my footprint would be even lower.
[1] https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle...
I do not feel, that it makes a large dent, but I feel that I'm way ahead what the average person does in order to reduce their environmental footprint.
Also, I do not feel I'm cutting myself short and I still depend on many of the niceties of modern civilization - but, I'd also be happier, if my footprint would be even lower.
[1] https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle...
I am not saying anything negative about your lifestyle and I make similar choices. But, the perception is you need to be that extreme when the reality is different. People really don’t need to suffer to make a difference, which is critical as most people aren’t willing to suffer if they can avoid it.
For example rather than turning the heat down, buying a solar hot water heater let’s you save money, take long hot showers, and be toasty in the winter while also being more environmentally friendly. Carbon credits are poor policy vs carbon taxes for a host of reasons. However, if you really want to feel better about your personal choices effective leverage is available. At the same time a huge number of what amounts to scams are also out there.
PS: Of course lowering consumption has other environmental benefits
For example rather than turning the heat down, buying a solar hot water heater let’s you save money, take long hot showers, and be toasty in the winter while also being more environmentally friendly. Carbon credits are poor policy vs carbon taxes for a host of reasons. However, if you really want to feel better about your personal choices effective leverage is available. At the same time a huge number of what amounts to scams are also out there.
PS: Of course lowering consumption has other environmental benefits
> "People really don’t need to suffer to make a difference"…
You are 110% correct about that, and yet the most common arguments I hear from folks who argue against every proposed solution to climate change that they hear all make it sound like they actually think they're gonna have to live like cavemen if we try to do anything to fix the problem. :(
You are 110% correct about that, and yet the most common arguments I hear from folks who argue against every proposed solution to climate change that they hear all make it sound like they actually think they're gonna have to live like cavemen if we try to do anything to fix the problem. :(
FWIW That is not extreme, it is also not suffering. What would an effective leverage be?
Making positive ROI investments in solar, wind, etc manufactures or projects. The transition is economically viable but capital constrained.
PS: I try to write and deploy code in energy efficient languages (Go, Rust, C, ...) [1].. That comes off as extreme to me, it’s going to take a lot before that’s saving more energy than a single lightbulb uses.
PS: I try to write and deploy code in energy efficient languages (Go, Rust, C, ...) [1].. That comes off as extreme to me, it’s going to take a lot before that’s saving more energy than a single lightbulb uses.
[deleted]
You're perpetuating the idea though that we need to live like Ascetics in order to solve climate change.
It'd be thousands of times better to get one coal fired plant turned off in place of renewables.
It'd be thousands of times better to get one coal fired plant turned off in place of renewables.
Yes and no. I feel that not doing certain things is a very simple thing to "do" things - and I appreciate simplicity.
For example, I would probably prefer getting rid of half of the cars and trying to find ways so that people do not need to move that much, if they do not want to (for example making all possibly remote remote work actually remote) - as opposed to making all cars electric.
For example, I would probably prefer getting rid of half of the cars and trying to find ways so that people do not need to move that much, if they do not want to (for example making all possibly remote remote work actually remote) - as opposed to making all cars electric.
[deleted]
You can have frugal lifestyle in regards to the climate, but still be fullfilling. In some way it becomes part of you life to create less waste and find better ways to handle the climate. It's fun!
But you can only succeed if you also treat it like a religion were everyone else are heathens. Because if you do not convert all of society to your believes that is always going to be your biggest climte debt. My own carbon foot print is minimal compared to what I use as a part of my society. That is no fun. That's not what I want to spend my time doing..
But you can only succeed if you also treat it like a religion were everyone else are heathens. Because if you do not convert all of society to your believes that is always going to be your biggest climte debt. My own carbon foot print is minimal compared to what I use as a part of my society. That is no fun. That's not what I want to spend my time doing..
Best thing you can do is to not produce any pollution whatsoever. It’s the easiest and most ecological way to have 0 impact on Nature.
Make a list of all the things that harm Earth that you do daily (hint: using a computer and the internet is one) and just eliminate from your life. You will be better, we are going to be better and thw world will thank you
Make a list of all the things that harm Earth that you do daily (hint: using a computer and the internet is one) and just eliminate from your life. You will be better, we are going to be better and thw world will thank you
The only way to accomplish what you call the "best way" is for everyone to die.
If you have dental fillings or pacemakers, even that is still polluting.
For me, it's knowing that extensive lifestyle changes and even major policy changes in the western world will hardly make a dent as nations with less means continue to grow and increase their carbon footprint. (Yes, I understand per-person consumption in Western countries is much higher) I can't blame the people in those countries for not being able to think or plan long term while trying to make it day by day. Humanity has made tremendous strides as far as reducing extreme poverty between WWII and up until Covid hit. Maybe trying to look at the worlds issues more holistically and not with a laser focus on climate change could lead to building more countries that have the means to make the big changes the rest of the world needs to make.
That's only a problem in long term, for now every bit to lower the consumption will help. Every trick you can find that makes good life less a burden for the planet will help minimizing that long term problem.
In the last 10 years, I have installed solar on 3 houses.
I feel like that did more to help this problem than everything else I've ever done.
Furthermore: insisting my job remain remote has also been a great help. No more commute.
It's still not enough.
I feel like that did more to help this problem than everything else I've ever done.
Furthermore: insisting my job remain remote has also been a great help. No more commute.
It's still not enough.
It's interesting that your two actions you talk about also have significant benefits for yourself.
I think real change is going to require a lot of sacrifice, and won't be a win-win for everyone.
I think real change is going to require a lot of sacrifice, and won't be a win-win for everyone.
It sounds like these daily climate change disaster stories better serve those policy makers than they do you.
To that end, yes, please keep reporting on them.
To that end, yes, please keep reporting on them.
What scares me is that most marquee policies seem to focus pretty much exclusively on avoiding and limiting climate change but not on helping people to cope.
We might need programs for people to get cooling and not just better insulation, for example. In some places there is tendency to still mandate homes to be heat traps to save energy, which could also lead to really bad outcomes in very hot conditions.
We might need programs for people to get cooling and not just better insulation, for example. In some places there is tendency to still mandate homes to be heat traps to save energy, which could also lead to really bad outcomes in very hot conditions.
> In some places there is tendency to still mandate homes to be heat traps to save energy, which could also lead to really bad outcomes in very hot conditions.
Agree, but I mean, that's probably good too though. If you don't insulate homes well, they waste more energy (and emit more CO2) on all the days they aren't under an insane heat wave. And if you are Air Conditioning a house, that same insulation helps keep the place cool.
Even places that "never get cold" and therefore "don't need it", should still be reasonably well insulated both ways anyway. See the Texas Cold Snap earlier this year, and all the damage that caused (even though that weather would cause zero issues in Michigan). See the recent extreme heat wave in Seattle + Portland tearing apart roads and such (even though that weather would cause zero issues in Arizona).
Homes probably need both to be well built. They need to be able to heat trap and to quickly/efficiently cool + ventilate.
And in general, the concept of "building to match local climate" is probably going to have to be a relic of the past. There is starting to be no such thing as predictable local climates anymore. If you want something to last, it's going to have to be built as if it could get anyone's weather at a moments notice.
Agree, but I mean, that's probably good too though. If you don't insulate homes well, they waste more energy (and emit more CO2) on all the days they aren't under an insane heat wave. And if you are Air Conditioning a house, that same insulation helps keep the place cool.
Even places that "never get cold" and therefore "don't need it", should still be reasonably well insulated both ways anyway. See the Texas Cold Snap earlier this year, and all the damage that caused (even though that weather would cause zero issues in Michigan). See the recent extreme heat wave in Seattle + Portland tearing apart roads and such (even though that weather would cause zero issues in Arizona).
Homes probably need both to be well built. They need to be able to heat trap and to quickly/efficiently cool + ventilate.
And in general, the concept of "building to match local climate" is probably going to have to be a relic of the past. There is starting to be no such thing as predictable local climates anymore. If you want something to last, it's going to have to be built as if it could get anyone's weather at a moments notice.
> For all the recycling I’ve done, a single factory can undo in just a day
That's why it has to be solved by going political. Capitalism wont make companies care unless they are forced to pay for their pollution with emission taxes or whatever.
And in the same vein, a few persons driving a bit less wont matter. Instead ICE vehicles could have been basically forbidden. Of course, all this comes at a cost of somewhat limiting people's "freedom", which makes it so hard to get support for.
So a better way is policies that makes it the "rational choice" to do the right thing. Like building less roads and making stuff more walkable or reachable by public transit. That will have a far greater effect than someone voluntarily giving up their car with the status quo.
That's why it has to be solved by going political. Capitalism wont make companies care unless they are forced to pay for their pollution with emission taxes or whatever.
And in the same vein, a few persons driving a bit less wont matter. Instead ICE vehicles could have been basically forbidden. Of course, all this comes at a cost of somewhat limiting people's "freedom", which makes it so hard to get support for.
So a better way is policies that makes it the "rational choice" to do the right thing. Like building less roads and making stuff more walkable or reachable by public transit. That will have a far greater effect than someone voluntarily giving up their car with the status quo.
Also the US, Germany etc could all cut their carbon emissions drastically and it wouldn't even matter because China and India dwarf any small change by the West. Not only are you powerless, so are most countries, even the most powerful ones. What is tiresome is that the US, etc is supposed to do something drastic which would barely have any effect while China builds new coal plants constantly. They run over 50% of all plants globally. https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi...
Doesn’t the poor farmer in China deserve electricity though? US + EU got to use coal (and still do) for 150 years before we even started discussing eliminating its use.
If the West isn’t going to let the world use coal or other carbon heavy solutions, they need to pay the cost differences. It isn’t fair to impose poverty on everyone else after reaping the benefits of carbon emissions. We will never get global buy-in for the needed emission cuts if there is no recognition of this.
If the West isn’t going to let the world use coal or other carbon heavy solutions, they need to pay the cost differences. It isn’t fair to impose poverty on everyone else after reaping the benefits of carbon emissions. We will never get global buy-in for the needed emission cuts if there is no recognition of this.
You really think the US, etc should have to pay for the second largest economy (by a huge margin) in the world to go green? Your argument doesn't even really hold water. Coal etc was used because it had no real alternative at the time, now there is an alternative.
China isn’t the best example of my point. I’m talking about the developing world broadly - we should absolutely foot some of the bill for other countries to go green or pay for geoengineering so they have a longer timeframe to do so. Coal is still cheap and can be much easier to operate than alternatives - unless someone helps make the alternatives easier to install and operate.
How much of China’s energy goes towards producing goods for the West? If the coal is burned to cheaply provide goods for us, aren’t we at least partially responsible for that? Criticizing China while we have higher CO2 emissions per capita AND off source much of our emissions to them isn’t a convincing argument as evidenced by the fact that they are barely paying lip service to emission reductions.
Again, we need to make sure we have global buy-in. The plan needs to offer benefits to small villages throughout the world rather than denying the fruits of electrification and industry to them.
How much of China’s energy goes towards producing goods for the West? If the coal is burned to cheaply provide goods for us, aren’t we at least partially responsible for that? Criticizing China while we have higher CO2 emissions per capita AND off source much of our emissions to them isn’t a convincing argument as evidenced by the fact that they are barely paying lip service to emission reductions.
Again, we need to make sure we have global buy-in. The plan needs to offer benefits to small villages throughout the world rather than denying the fruits of electrification and industry to them.
If the argument currently is that solar, etc is cheaper than coal, then why would we need to subsidize this when the obvious financial choice for poorer countries is green energy? Why would the poor country use coal, etc when it costs more? The argument doesn't make sense. It's one or the other.
As far as the per-capita argument the US has been falling heavily while China is still accelerating. How much of US consumption goes the the rest of the world? That's not a solid argument for some sort of global warming reparations. The US gives tons of money in foreign aid to other countries, while other wealthy countries do nothing at all. Why is this all the US's responsibility? Why are people so hesitant to hold heavy polluters like China/India/etc responsible?
As far as the per-capita argument the US has been falling heavily while China is still accelerating. How much of US consumption goes the the rest of the world? That's not a solid argument for some sort of global warming reparations. The US gives tons of money in foreign aid to other countries, while other wealthy countries do nothing at all. Why is this all the US's responsibility? Why are people so hesitant to hold heavy polluters like China/India/etc responsible?
The dust bowl wasn’t addressed until the dust made it to Washington [1]. I suspect we’re not going to see real climate change mitigation in the US until Capitol Hill is flooded with sea water (elevation: 79ft).
Although changes to individual actions are needed to solve the climate crisis, the impact of individual actions will be minimal, and big policy changes are needed to make meaningful impacts.
The things that are actually working to produce the small policy changes we have seen so far, such as the green new deal, are protest movements like Extinction Rebellion and the Sunrise Movement [2].
I am seriously entertaining the idea of devoting much of my time to influencing policy. I believe that when it’s not just students and young people being arrested at protests but mainstream professionals, we may see some more serious changes. But I’m not terribly hopeful either.
[1] http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274
[2] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-save-a-planet/i...
Although changes to individual actions are needed to solve the climate crisis, the impact of individual actions will be minimal, and big policy changes are needed to make meaningful impacts.
The things that are actually working to produce the small policy changes we have seen so far, such as the green new deal, are protest movements like Extinction Rebellion and the Sunrise Movement [2].
I am seriously entertaining the idea of devoting much of my time to influencing policy. I believe that when it’s not just students and young people being arrested at protests but mainstream professionals, we may see some more serious changes. But I’m not terribly hopeful either.
[1] http://mallhistory.org/items/show/274
[2] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-save-a-planet/i...
The parking facilities around the capitol will be hit first, and since congressmen have pretty fancy cars, I expect the saltwater damage will change some minds. And I'm not trying to be glib or cynical. My congressman, now Senator, Ed Markey, made climate change his priority after floods damaged the basement of the building with his district office in Medford MA
> Being defeatist isn’t exactly productive,
> the only way this’ll get better is after some additional damage is seen and felt by policy makers
I do sometimes think the way to shock people into actual change is to switch from defeatist rhetoric to unhinged triumphalism:
"For decades our war against Future Earth has been stunningly successful, and we're approaching the completion of a total victory! Yes, some might argue that our tactics have been unethical, and that our willingness to cause so many civilian casualties has been irresponsible. And perhaps, as time drags us across the front, as we encounter friendly (wild)fire, we may reconsider the unique harms of our arsenal. But as you encounter the destruction we have worked so hard to bring about, if ever your heart wavers, remember! Future Earth has always been fated to stand on the grave of Past Earth. And if Past Earth must die, why should we leave behind resources for others to prosper from our passing? Our victory may not be just, but it is Victory!"
The issue isn't so much that there's nothing we can do. The issue is that we've been highly effective at pushing in the wrong direction. We've allowed ourselves to frame our impacts as almost unavoidable accidents, rather than as acts of violence and destruction. Yes, policy makers must act, but perhaps we should be talking about tribunals to consider crimes against humanity, and international legal mechanisms to address collective guilt, rather than patting politicians on the head when they announce that eventually we'll stop selling ICE cars.
> the only way this’ll get better is after some additional damage is seen and felt by policy makers
I do sometimes think the way to shock people into actual change is to switch from defeatist rhetoric to unhinged triumphalism:
"For decades our war against Future Earth has been stunningly successful, and we're approaching the completion of a total victory! Yes, some might argue that our tactics have been unethical, and that our willingness to cause so many civilian casualties has been irresponsible. And perhaps, as time drags us across the front, as we encounter friendly (wild)fire, we may reconsider the unique harms of our arsenal. But as you encounter the destruction we have worked so hard to bring about, if ever your heart wavers, remember! Future Earth has always been fated to stand on the grave of Past Earth. And if Past Earth must die, why should we leave behind resources for others to prosper from our passing? Our victory may not be just, but it is Victory!"
The issue isn't so much that there's nothing we can do. The issue is that we've been highly effective at pushing in the wrong direction. We've allowed ourselves to frame our impacts as almost unavoidable accidents, rather than as acts of violence and destruction. Yes, policy makers must act, but perhaps we should be talking about tribunals to consider crimes against humanity, and international legal mechanisms to address collective guilt, rather than patting politicians on the head when they announce that eventually we'll stop selling ICE cars.
Here is a good publication about the effectiveness of individual measures; there are indeed much more effective individual actions than recycling: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.
You can refuse to work anywhere that doesn't let you work from home fulltime.
Commuting is killing the planet and killing employees due to stress and accidents.
And a lot of employees could move somewhere a bit cheaper which would help to reduce mortgages and rents and make cities more livable.
Commuting is killing the planet and killing employees due to stress and accidents.
And a lot of employees could move somewhere a bit cheaper which would help to reduce mortgages and rents and make cities more livable.
So much this.... but I still can't stop doom scrolling...it's at the just grab popcorn phase...
There's no point anymore to conservation from a consumer perspective, really.
In utah - consumer water use is like 2% of ALL water use, they run multitudes of ads saying conserve water...but do they regulate the 98%'ers in big industry, mining, retail, etc? No. Not at all. It's exhausting to watch them do nothing and complain about our 'scraps' of water they give us...
There's no point anymore to conservation from a consumer perspective, really.
In utah - consumer water use is like 2% of ALL water use, they run multitudes of ads saying conserve water...but do they regulate the 98%'ers in big industry, mining, retail, etc? No. Not at all. It's exhausting to watch them do nothing and complain about our 'scraps' of water they give us...
"What if the 'safe' carbon budget is zero. We can't sugar-coat the potential realities of this."
Compared to what? Living without electricity? Paying 10x for energy?
The lack of a real comparison with the real life consequences of a zero carbon budget seems a bit too convenient
Compared to what? Living without electricity? Paying 10x for energy?
The lack of a real comparison with the real life consequences of a zero carbon budget seems a bit too convenient
Solar works very well and is cheaper than coal. I have it on my roof right now, producing megawatt hours of energy per year. Millions of cars on the road today run on it. Don't be hysterical with statements like, "living without electricity".
> seems a bit too convenient
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
It means that when you don't compare it with anything, most people will intuitively compare it with perfection, as if by quickly zeroing out carbon emissions there would be no negative consequences.
It seems as "if we just did X everything would be better", when actually there are mostly trade-offs
It seems as "if we just did X everything would be better", when actually there are mostly trade-offs
That statement isn't a comparison. And not part of it even remotely implies that "quickly zeroing out carbon emissions there would be no negative consequences".
What that statement is doing is communicating a real sense of dread that maybe we have to do it even though it would be incredibly difficult and costly.
What that statement is doing is communicating a real sense of dread that maybe we have to do it even though it would be incredibly difficult and costly.
There is no need to compare. The issue is that there is no safe anything.
Compared to the expense of failed crops? Mass migration of all humans to the northern most reaches of Canada?
I really don't think you get it. If temperatures rise enough, most of Central and North America won't be uninhabitable. The parts that aren't underwater will be too hot and parched. We won't be able to grow crops or desalinate enough water when the clouds and rain disappear (yes that will happen).
The 3 days of intense heat here in Portland left plants all around my yard scorched and half dead. Just 3 days. Imagine that happening regularly around the world.
I really don't think you get it. If temperatures rise enough, most of Central and North America won't be uninhabitable. The parts that aren't underwater will be too hot and parched. We won't be able to grow crops or desalinate enough water when the clouds and rain disappear (yes that will happen).
The 3 days of intense heat here in Portland left plants all around my yard scorched and half dead. Just 3 days. Imagine that happening regularly around the world.
Climate change doesn't necessarily mean everything will get hotter and scorched and we all have to move to northern Canada. It means things will be different than they were historically in ways we don't necessarily understand that well. There's plenty of evidence that past warming periods caused the Sahara to green by shifting the African monsoon patterns farther north on the continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
Current climate change seems to be messing with the jet stream in North America in ways that diverge from historical data. Then you get things like your yard scorching in Portland this summer and my hedges freezing and dying in Austin this winter. We've built a huge amount of infrastructure on assumptions about local weather patterns that may now be invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
Current climate change seems to be messing with the jet stream in North America in ways that diverge from historical data. Then you get things like your yard scorching in Portland this summer and my hedges freezing and dying in Austin this winter. We've built a huge amount of infrastructure on assumptions about local weather patterns that may now be invalid.
> won't be uninhabitable
I think you have a typo.
I think you have a typo.
compared to the inevitable drought and famine
So one question I've had for a while is if we are currently facing such a catastrophe with increased global heat why don't we go ahead and start conducting massive explosions to kick dust up into the air. When Krakatoa went off it caused global cooling throughout the entire world because of the amount of matter it introduced into the air so why don't we do the same right now at least as a stopgap measure if things are looking so dire?
I'm not trying to be argumentative I just don't understand why this is a bad idea?
I'm not trying to be argumentative I just don't understand why this is a bad idea?
Significantly reducing the sunlight that reaches the surface also has the tiny issue of killing all the plants. Most grasses will survive, but crops?
I would think that would make the air dangerous to breath, among a host of other downsides.
I think all geo-engineering is a bad idea. The least worse idea is sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
The consequences of any geo-engineering ideas are not well understood.
The consequences of any geo-engineering ideas are not well understood.
I could imagine something a bit better controlled could be ok.
Large areas of solar panels, engineered to reflect as much as they can't use, would be a good double benefit. Excess electricity could be opportunistically used for GHG capture or the panels could maybe flip over and become mirrors.
An orbital umbrella that we could modulate such that we can deal with unanticipated consequences could also be ok.
I'm sure there are tons of other approaches that give control in both directions on reasonable time scales. Obviously cutting emissions Right Now is super important, and megaprojects shouldn't distract from that.
Large areas of solar panels, engineered to reflect as much as they can't use, would be a good double benefit. Excess electricity could be opportunistically used for GHG capture or the panels could maybe flip over and become mirrors.
An orbital umbrella that we could modulate such that we can deal with unanticipated consequences could also be ok.
I'm sure there are tons of other approaches that give control in both directions on reasonable time scales. Obviously cutting emissions Right Now is super important, and megaprojects shouldn't distract from that.
I agree that geoengineering is exceptionally fraught with potential problems, but perhaps it is time to begin exploring the options at least.
from my own understanding and reading one of the few feasible cooling efforts would be high altitude aerosol dispersal, which again, has serious risk of unintended consequences.
There is also room for a bit more pressure on countries which emit excessive amounts of carbon, that show no signs of slowing down.
from my own understanding and reading one of the few feasible cooling efforts would be high altitude aerosol dispersal, which again, has serious risk of unintended consequences.
There is also room for a bit more pressure on countries which emit excessive amounts of carbon, that show no signs of slowing down.
Solar shades have great potential and the unintended consequences can at least be mitigated. Unlike aerosol dispersal they can be “turned off” semi trivially with onboard thrusters or specialized missions.
Cost estimates were at $100 Billion 10 years ago which were doubtlessly optimistic, but Starship will dramatically lower the cost of deploying a few hundred tons of shades.
One risk of not exploring geoengineering is that cheap options for it exist and most countries are technically and economically able to engage in them. If a country feels like the burdens of climate change fall unfairly on them, the option exists to do something drastic.
One risk of not exploring geoengineering is that cheap options for it exist and most countries are technically and economically able to engage in them. If a country feels like the burdens of climate change fall unfairly on them, the option exists to do something drastic.
Solar panels are mostly black. Do they reflect more sunlight back into space than what was under them?
Usually not, and certainly not as currently designed. Hence the notion of flipping to a mirrored side in case of excess electricity, or having some fancy coating stack that manages to reflect everything which is not absorbed by the cell.
Then it's time to start understanding them.
Let's start pouring money into research so we don't have to go in blind.
Climate change is at the point where there are actual consequences to people. Humans being what we are, we're not going to sit around and just accept a dramatically worse situation. People (very wealthy people with a lot to lose) are going to demand action, and action is going to be taken.
We can go in blind or we can start learning what the plusses and minuses of various approaches are now.
Let's start pouring money into research so we don't have to go in blind.
Climate change is at the point where there are actual consequences to people. Humans being what we are, we're not going to sit around and just accept a dramatically worse situation. People (very wealthy people with a lot to lose) are going to demand action, and action is going to be taken.
We can go in blind or we can start learning what the plusses and minuses of various approaches are now.
We are already geo-engineering. That's why the climate is changing.
I mean, that shouldn't be hard to answer, should it?
We can't predict the exact outcome, and risk taking on even bigger problems. Those kinds of events tend to cause crop failures and famine.
And, the only explosions of that scale are nuclear weapons.
We can't predict the exact outcome, and risk taking on even bigger problems. Those kinds of events tend to cause crop failures and famine.
And, the only explosions of that scale are nuclear weapons.
fear of unintended consequences, i imagine. unless it goes off without a hitch, there will be much blame.
for me, it's a conversation of responsibility. its obvious that we (as a species) have not been responsible with the resources of this planet (see consumer culture, disposal culture, and planned obsolescence). it makes more sense to attack the problem at its causes rather than band aids.
for me, it's a conversation of responsibility. its obvious that we (as a species) have not been responsible with the resources of this planet (see consumer culture, disposal culture, and planned obsolescence). it makes more sense to attack the problem at its causes rather than band aids.
I agree there are dangers to applying band aids.
It depends on if the band aids apply enough pressure to stop the patient from bleeding out. We don’t know how much about positive feedback loops for climate change. Things like the tundra melting and releasing more CO2 could create large inflection points which we don’t understand very well. Every day we inch closer to one of these inflection points, gambling the point is further out.
It is my belief that band aids are necessary to prevent nightmare scenarios from occurring. We can quibble about moral hazards and figure out what to do with ocean acidification once we aren’t at the precipice.
If there aren’t positive feedback loops I agree pushing back the problem for a few decades doesn’t help us that much so long as the root causes go unsolved.
[Edit] As it relates to responsibility, unfortunately those most responsible will due to their wealth carry the fewest consequences. We need a way to internalize the externalities of climate change to keep people responsible rather than leaving the global poor to suffer the largest impacts.
It depends on if the band aids apply enough pressure to stop the patient from bleeding out. We don’t know how much about positive feedback loops for climate change. Things like the tundra melting and releasing more CO2 could create large inflection points which we don’t understand very well. Every day we inch closer to one of these inflection points, gambling the point is further out.
It is my belief that band aids are necessary to prevent nightmare scenarios from occurring. We can quibble about moral hazards and figure out what to do with ocean acidification once we aren’t at the precipice.
If there aren’t positive feedback loops I agree pushing back the problem for a few decades doesn’t help us that much so long as the root causes go unsolved.
[Edit] As it relates to responsibility, unfortunately those most responsible will due to their wealth carry the fewest consequences. We need a way to internalize the externalities of climate change to keep people responsible rather than leaving the global poor to suffer the largest impacts.
1 - That was the result of sulfur dioxide more than particulates. 2 - Sulfur dioxide harms the ozone layer. 3 - Krakatoa was 4 times larger than the yield of the largest fusion/thermonuclear bomb ever. 4 - We'd have to do that ever 2 years for centuries.
It is not practical and wouldn't work even if it was practical.
It is not practical and wouldn't work even if it was practical.
You don't think that drastically increasing the amount of particulate matter in the air that we breath could be a bad idea?
What is the cost compared to mass migration of the entire world population to north of the 50th (or so) parallel? Would civilization even survive?
If we don't make serious changes the planet will get so hot that the clouds will vanish and there will be no more rain. We would be in a permanent drought.
If we don't make serious changes the planet will get so hot that the clouds will vanish and there will be no more rain. We would be in a permanent drought.
A few years ago we would make fun of people who questioned global warming when it snowed… now we claim it is in fact global warming when it’s hot out?
Edit: Politicization of individual weather events makes way for bad science no matter how extreme. In general, individual extreme weather events are not evidence of climate change and it is my opinion that everyone sounds stupid when they politicize them. Instead we should be looking at the aggregate historical trends and their weather modeling but that certainly isn’t as sexy.
Edit: Politicization of individual weather events makes way for bad science no matter how extreme. In general, individual extreme weather events are not evidence of climate change and it is my opinion that everyone sounds stupid when they politicize them. Instead we should be looking at the aggregate historical trends and their weather modeling but that certainly isn’t as sexy.
Yes. Because it broke a long standing national record by multiple degrees (celsius). This isn't a case of it being "hot out", this is brand new climate frontiers.
If we want to get technical, too, the "snow" or "polar vortex" weather is because of the global warming induced breakdown in the arctic circumpolar vortex. That is the same reason that is snowed in Texas this past winter.
We are extremely seriously fucked.
If we want to get technical, too, the "snow" or "polar vortex" weather is because of the global warming induced breakdown in the arctic circumpolar vortex. That is the same reason that is snowed in Texas this past winter.
We are extremely seriously fucked.
While there's evidence that our usage of fossil fuels is certainly impacting the environment in a way that may alter certain aspects of climate there is really no reason to believe in catastrophic climate change. I think Plato's quote about death is equally applicable to climate change.
> To fear death is nothing other than to think oneself wise when one is not; for it is to think one knows what one does not know. No man knows whether death may not even turn out to be the greatest blessing for a human being; and yet people fear it as if they knew for certain that is is the greatest of evil.
> To fear death is nothing other than to think oneself wise when one is not; for it is to think one knows what one does not know. No man knows whether death may not even turn out to be the greatest blessing for a human being; and yet people fear it as if they knew for certain that is is the greatest of evil.
A more energetic atmosphere results in more energetic weather - some will be cold, some will be hot, as weather always is, but more so, because more energy. Hurricanes and thunderstorms start with warm air but they can create hailstones. The weather is complex. I can't believe we still need to explain this stuff.
More heat energy trapped in the atmosphere results in more chaotic weather. But 'global chaosing' didn't have the same ring to it when we needed to coin a term.
More heat energy trapped in the atmosphere results in more chaotic weather. But 'global chaosing' didn't have the same ring to it when we needed to coin a term.
No? It's the trend of warmer and warmer temperatures that's concerning. Not a random hot day.
Global warming causes changes in weather. Experiencing record high temperates most years is down to it.
It snowing every year is down to seasons.
It snowing every year is down to seasons.
Modern news is all propaganda, all the time. Start with the narrative and shoehorn the events until they fit the narrative. Depending on the company, you get a different starting narrative, but the playbook is the same.
And everyone stopped trying to link events through any sort of rationale. Hurricane? Climate change. Wild fire? Not forest management. Climate change. 100 year freeze? It's only happened once in our lifetime, and once in the early 1900s, but climate change! Heat wave. Climate change.
Basically just replace climate change with "God is angry" because science has nothing to do with it, otherwise you'd hear attempts to link the freak weather events with climate patterns.
Pro tip. the more sporadic the weather event, the less likely it has to do with climate.
Basically just replace climate change with "God is angry" because science has nothing to do with it, otherwise you'd hear attempts to link the freak weather events with climate patterns.
Pro tip. the more sporadic the weather event, the less likely it has to do with climate.
Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington and chief scientist of the Northwest Modeling Consortium mentioned in his recent blog posts that the heat wave was a perfect storm of factors like compression from sinking air coming off the West slopes of the Cascades. He also said (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/06/incredible-temperatur...):
> Is global warming contributing to this heatwave? The answer is certainly yes. Would we have had a record heatwave without global warming. The answer is yes as well.
He also said in the same article:
> Let me end with the golden rule of temperature extremes: the bigger the temperature extreme the SMALLER the contribution of global warming. Think about that.
Even the Associated Press has fallen to this tendency to attribute everything solely to climate change. They wrote an article (https://apnews.com/article/climate-climate-change-science-en...) about a new study that came with a sensationalist headline, even though the actual contents of the study (https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/N...) show this was a rare event (1 in 1000 years) with only a few degrees of contribution to temperature from climate change.
> Is global warming contributing to this heatwave? The answer is certainly yes. Would we have had a record heatwave without global warming. The answer is yes as well.
He also said in the same article:
> Let me end with the golden rule of temperature extremes: the bigger the temperature extreme the SMALLER the contribution of global warming. Think about that.
Even the Associated Press has fallen to this tendency to attribute everything solely to climate change. They wrote an article (https://apnews.com/article/climate-climate-change-science-en...) about a new study that came with a sensationalist headline, even though the actual contents of the study (https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/N...) show this was a rare event (1 in 1000 years) with only a few degrees of contribution to temperature from climate change.
> So without global warming, a location that was 104F would have been 102F. Still a severe heat wave, just slightly less intense.
So he claims global warming is contributing to the heatwave (by increasing it by 2 degrees, not causing it). He got to report the science and keep his grant. Smart!
So he claims global warming is contributing to the heatwave (by increasing it by 2 degrees, not causing it). He got to report the science and keep his grant. Smart!
The only thing that can save us from the cataclysm of climate change is technology. It's too late for social engineering and politics.
It seems like it’s too late for technology, given that there are no large scale solutions.
Technology also has a tendency to cause its own, new, set of problems, which can be worse than problems they’re trying to solve.
It’s not a panacea, and I would not recommend counting on technology to solve it either.
Technology also has a tendency to cause its own, new, set of problems, which can be worse than problems they’re trying to solve.
It’s not a panacea, and I would not recommend counting on technology to solve it either.
Interesting. And technology is what brought on the cataclysm of climate change.
Or technology will just add new demand.
Fracking did manage to drop our emissions phasing out coal. But politics gets in the way of natural gas all the time. Politics got in the way of nuclear as well.
Also, if you truly want to cut emissions, stop caring about "per capita" and force your politicians to start holding the biggest polluters accountable and the countries not decreasing their emissions.
Also, if you truly want to cut emissions, stop caring about "per capita" and force your politicians to start holding the biggest polluters accountable and the countries not decreasing their emissions.
Who is to blame for outsourced manufacturing then? If one country consumes a vast amount of goods from another, are they not also accountable for that other country’s emissions?
If you truly believe it's this dire, does it matter?
It's up to that country to cut emissions even if they accept that job on behalf of other countries.
But first, lets start on just not dumping plastic into oceans, building more coal plants, and generally not cutting emissions at all (China)
Then we can worry on the manufacturing like cement and steel (I believe we should make our own steel anyway)
The more stuff we make, the more control we have over the emissions during the process. Because apparently, other countries don't give a shit.
Go look at the countries that have cut emissions. https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/climate-change-co2-emissions...
That's the only metric that matters, anything else is propaganda for those who aren't.
It's up to that country to cut emissions even if they accept that job on behalf of other countries.
But first, lets start on just not dumping plastic into oceans, building more coal plants, and generally not cutting emissions at all (China)
Then we can worry on the manufacturing like cement and steel (I believe we should make our own steel anyway)
The more stuff we make, the more control we have over the emissions during the process. Because apparently, other countries don't give a shit.
Go look at the countries that have cut emissions. https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/climate-change-co2-emissions...
That's the only metric that matters, anything else is propaganda for those who aren't.
What makes you think the US gives a shit either? Companies have spent the last forty years moving manufacturing out of the country because it lets them profit a bit more. They don’t give a shit about climate change unless they can make more money off it. I’m all for bringing manufacturing back on-shore, but what makes you think the lobbyists will stop trying to undermine environmental regulations if we do?
I consider it propaganda to blame China for all its emissions, when how much of them are to build and manufacture junk for the west? No, raw emissions numbers are not “the only metric that matters” because we live in a complex world with a complex web of trade. Sure, China can and should do a much better job cutting emissions. Though if that causes production prices to go up, the American companies will just move production somewhere else that is further behind in environmental regulations.
Nobody in power gives a shit about the climate and emissions. The words you’re hearing from them don’t match their actions, and we in the US are nowhere near a sustainable level even if you ignore our outsourced energy usage.
I consider it propaganda to blame China for all its emissions, when how much of them are to build and manufacture junk for the west? No, raw emissions numbers are not “the only metric that matters” because we live in a complex world with a complex web of trade. Sure, China can and should do a much better job cutting emissions. Though if that causes production prices to go up, the American companies will just move production somewhere else that is further behind in environmental regulations.
Nobody in power gives a shit about the climate and emissions. The words you’re hearing from them don’t match their actions, and we in the US are nowhere near a sustainable level even if you ignore our outsourced energy usage.
> What makes you think the US gives a shit either?
Because we cut our emissions by a lot while increasing energy output & manufacturing, and it's many people's #1 issue.
I don't remember hearing about climate change in the CCP's 100 year anniversary speech, just bloody head bashing rhetoric.
Other countries outsource to China as well, why haven't they been cutting their emissions, there's only 12 countries or so that have.
You can hand-wave China away ignoring the numbers, or how much we send over there, what they are creating, how they are creating it, but you aren't doing the Earth any favor.
All of that doesn't address their new coal factories or plastic dumping either. Let's get a handle on that. Then let's worry about the manufacturing emissions as we don't even have alternative solutions for concrete or steel yet. Fair?
Because we cut our emissions by a lot while increasing energy output & manufacturing, and it's many people's #1 issue.
I don't remember hearing about climate change in the CCP's 100 year anniversary speech, just bloody head bashing rhetoric.
Other countries outsource to China as well, why haven't they been cutting their emissions, there's only 12 countries or so that have.
You can hand-wave China away ignoring the numbers, or how much we send over there, what they are creating, how they are creating it, but you aren't doing the Earth any favor.
All of that doesn't address their new coal factories or plastic dumping either. Let's get a handle on that. Then let's worry about the manufacturing emissions as we don't even have alternative solutions for concrete or steel yet. Fair?
I’m not hand waving China’s emissions away, and explicitly said they can and should do more. If and when they decide to deal with the problem, I expect they’ll make a lot more progress than we have.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree that America is trying to cut emissions. There seems to be neither political nor corporate will to do so. Furthermore Americans have zero desire for reducing their standard of living to help the planet.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree that America is trying to cut emissions. There seems to be neither political nor corporate will to do so. Furthermore Americans have zero desire for reducing their standard of living to help the planet.
> If and when they decide to deal with the problem I expect they’ll make a lot more progress than we have.
Sure. I will update my stance if or when the CCP decides to do something, especially if they shoot past everyone in reduced emissions.
I won't hold my breath though, unless I'm in Shanghai's smog.
Sure. I will update my stance if or when the CCP decides to do something, especially if they shoot past everyone in reduced emissions.
I won't hold my breath though, unless I'm in Shanghai's smog.
Seems like your reason to be here is to point the finger at China while ignoring the problems in the US.
Personally, I'll focus on the US since it's a massive contributor to global warming and is the place I have the most leverage of any. Not that I have any real leverage, given the rampant corruption in American politics, but it's a better place to spend my energy.
Personally, I'll focus on the US since it's a massive contributor to global warming and is the place I have the most leverage of any. Not that I have any real leverage, given the rampant corruption in American politics, but it's a better place to spend my energy.
No, I personally think the US should manufacture more at home so we can control the process and reduce as many emissions as we can. I believe we are doing an okay job, and the numbers show, but we could be doing even more if politicians tried.
I also think we should invest more in natural gas and nuclear to wean off of coal entirely. While continuing investments in renewables in areas that make sense (wind in Texas, solar in Arizona, geo thermal, hydro, etc.) In addition to continuing researching new materials to replace others that may cause more emissions.
I'd just like to see the largest emissions tackled as well since time is off the essence apparently.
Also not a huge fan of plastic dumping, and anyone who does that should be sanctioned.
I criticize US politicians every damn day, but I can call the CCP out in this thread at the same time. It's not a countries fault, it's the leaders, and the CCP is authoritarian, they could do these things if they wanted to.
As far as US leaders... Democrats need to embrace the nat. gas pipelines, fracking, nuclear, and domestic manufacturing. Republicans need to embrace renewables in areas that make sense. Republicans have warmed up to renewables, Texas runs on 100% wind some days, but we need nat. gas for peak periods. Both parties need to support nuclear and sanctioning polluters.
Don't get me started on Europe...
I also think we should invest more in natural gas and nuclear to wean off of coal entirely. While continuing investments in renewables in areas that make sense (wind in Texas, solar in Arizona, geo thermal, hydro, etc.) In addition to continuing researching new materials to replace others that may cause more emissions.
I'd just like to see the largest emissions tackled as well since time is off the essence apparently.
Also not a huge fan of plastic dumping, and anyone who does that should be sanctioned.
I criticize US politicians every damn day, but I can call the CCP out in this thread at the same time. It's not a countries fault, it's the leaders, and the CCP is authoritarian, they could do these things if they wanted to.
As far as US leaders... Democrats need to embrace the nat. gas pipelines, fracking, nuclear, and domestic manufacturing. Republicans need to embrace renewables in areas that make sense. Republicans have warmed up to renewables, Texas runs on 100% wind some days, but we need nat. gas for peak periods. Both parties need to support nuclear and sanctioning polluters.
Don't get me started on Europe...
This is an global issue it's up to everyone to lower emissions, exporting all your factories to China has been the solution for all of those countries. We can not blame China for that.
Again, I support moving more manufacturing to the US for sure.
And we can demand our politicians to do that so we can control emissions, as well as try to hold countries accountable through sanctions. (don't buy any slave-made products, don't buy any coal-made products)
We can certainly blame China for building coal factories, dumping plastic in the ocean, and generally just not giving a fuck about human rights or environmental rights.
I don't take anyone serious who advocates green policies without holding the biggest polluters accountable who aren't changing their ways.
The "per capita" and "outsourcing" points are propaganda used to deflect responsibility. Unless you have a stat how much emissions come from that outsourcing you are waiving their responsibility via a talking point.
Also, we're not talking about making emissions zero, we're talking about LOWERING. So even if they didn't cut emissions for the stuff they make for us, cutting domestic emissions should still lower their overall emissions. China isn't getting more factories, factories are moving out, so we should see a decrease.
And we can demand our politicians to do that so we can control emissions, as well as try to hold countries accountable through sanctions. (don't buy any slave-made products, don't buy any coal-made products)
We can certainly blame China for building coal factories, dumping plastic in the ocean, and generally just not giving a fuck about human rights or environmental rights.
I don't take anyone serious who advocates green policies without holding the biggest polluters accountable who aren't changing their ways.
The "per capita" and "outsourcing" points are propaganda used to deflect responsibility. Unless you have a stat how much emissions come from that outsourcing you are waiving their responsibility via a talking point.
Also, we're not talking about making emissions zero, we're talking about LOWERING. So even if they didn't cut emissions for the stuff they make for us, cutting domestic emissions should still lower their overall emissions. China isn't getting more factories, factories are moving out, so we should see a decrease.
[deleted]
I recommend the book “Unsettled” by Steven Koonan for a more empirical look at how these computer models work, and the deficiencies of trying to predict catastrophe with them. For instance, every climate model is wildly off when it tries to predict the climate changes starting in 1950.
This article reads like a typical scare piece. The truth is, there’s just so many feedback loops in climate that we just don’t know what’s “responsible” for any particular event. It may not even be a reasonable question to ask.
There are things we know: greenhouse gases are rising because of human activity, and their presence will cause an increase in global average temperature at equilibrium. Beyond that, there is so much we can’t predict.
For instance, higher temps will cause more water vapor in the air, and therefore more cloud cover. That increases the earth’s albedo by some percentage, which is a powerful effect. Enough to hold off further warming for a while? We don’t know. No climate models agree.
This article reads like a typical scare piece. The truth is, there’s just so many feedback loops in climate that we just don’t know what’s “responsible” for any particular event. It may not even be a reasonable question to ask.
There are things we know: greenhouse gases are rising because of human activity, and their presence will cause an increase in global average temperature at equilibrium. Beyond that, there is so much we can’t predict.
For instance, higher temps will cause more water vapor in the air, and therefore more cloud cover. That increases the earth’s albedo by some percentage, which is a powerful effect. Enough to hold off further warming for a while? We don’t know. No climate models agree.
There are many other feedback effects too, for example plants grow more massive faster in warmer temperatures and with higher fractions of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Despite many hysterical media reports conflating global climate change with regional droughts this can not be a global effect, higher temperatures, instead, lead to greater percipation from greater water vapour production. Thus higher temperatures at lower lattitudes could result in icecap growth in polar regions increasing albedo and thermal inertia. These are just a few of the countervailing feedback effects. The bottom line is the that the climate system as whole is extremely complicated and has been self-rebalancing for literally billions of years. I seriously doubt that a few 10s of decades of burning fossils will result in an earth that was uninhabitable.
Chixculub impactor in Yucatan 65 million years ago vaporised a huge amount of carbonate rock (eg limestone) due to the particular geology of where it hit. I wonder how that compared to the amount of carbon humans have emmited over the past several hundred years from coal and burning marine algae fossils carbon (oil, natural gas).
It is clear to me that what is really driving the "climate crisis" is rent seeking by politicians, media, scientists. Special interests always love a crisis they can benefit from.
Despite many hysterical media reports conflating global climate change with regional droughts this can not be a global effect, higher temperatures, instead, lead to greater percipation from greater water vapour production. Thus higher temperatures at lower lattitudes could result in icecap growth in polar regions increasing albedo and thermal inertia. These are just a few of the countervailing feedback effects. The bottom line is the that the climate system as whole is extremely complicated and has been self-rebalancing for literally billions of years. I seriously doubt that a few 10s of decades of burning fossils will result in an earth that was uninhabitable.
Chixculub impactor in Yucatan 65 million years ago vaporised a huge amount of carbonate rock (eg limestone) due to the particular geology of where it hit. I wonder how that compared to the amount of carbon humans have emmited over the past several hundred years from coal and burning marine algae fossils carbon (oil, natural gas).
It is clear to me that what is really driving the "climate crisis" is rent seeking by politicians, media, scientists. Special interests always love a crisis they can benefit from.
You think climate science being driven by vague interests from every boogeyman the right gives you is more credible than the trillion dollar a year fossil fuel industry funding climate change denialism?
None of what you said is sourced. You are not a climatologist, nor are you a meteorologist. Unless you have some credential that allows you to speak from a position of authority, your words have zero value unless you have the sources to back them up. All of the science backs up climate change. Politicians and “tHe mEdIa” don’t have any interest at all in advancing policies to mitigate climate change beside a personal interest in enjoying a livable climate in the latter part of this century, as shown by how little they actually pay attention to this issue.
None of what you said is sourced. You are not a climatologist, nor are you a meteorologist. Unless you have some credential that allows you to speak from a position of authority, your words have zero value unless you have the sources to back them up. All of the science backs up climate change. Politicians and “tHe mEdIa” don’t have any interest at all in advancing policies to mitigate climate change beside a personal interest in enjoying a livable climate in the latter part of this century, as shown by how little they actually pay attention to this issue.
I don't need to be a meterologist or climate scientist to know that higher average temperatures mean more water vapor production (see high school physics vapor pressure is a function of temperature) and since what goes up must come down more vapor means more percipation on a global scale. So we can categorically say climate change does not cause drought on a global scale. It may cause regional droughts.
Increased percipitation as snow in polar regions increases the albedo of the earth. Clouds may increas the albedo of the earth depending on their altitude and composition.
You also provide no scientific sources and basically appeal to the supposed scientific authority of the media. The media is not a scientific authority. It is propaganda and entertainment. Anyway I don't have time for a flamewar. People should know though that the feedback effects of global warming and increased CO2 are unknown and difficult to model.
Increased percipitation as snow in polar regions increases the albedo of the earth. Clouds may increas the albedo of the earth depending on their altitude and composition.
You also provide no scientific sources and basically appeal to the supposed scientific authority of the media. The media is not a scientific authority. It is propaganda and entertainment. Anyway I don't have time for a flamewar. People should know though that the feedback effects of global warming and increased CO2 are unknown and difficult to model.
If you want to stand behind the science, then you must also stand behind the fact that our climate models are faulty and inaccurate. I say that as a climate activist myself.
Koonin's book is highly misleading. You'd be better off spending your time reading IPCC reports, or, frankly, staring at a wall and picking your nose, than reading that contrarian drivel.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/that-obama-scient...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/that-obama-scient...
Most of Koonin’s sources are directly from the IPCC reports, in fact they are what the book is based around.
Yes, but they are often taken out of context in a misleading way. His statements about melting in Greenland being slower than 80 years ago, for example, are highly misleading, presented in a way to lead the reader to believe that melting in Greenland is decelerating when in fact it is accelerating, it just happened to be exceptionally high for a single year, 80 years ago. Other misleading techniques are the straw-man, there he says something like tornados are not increasing in frequency, leaving the reader to assume that climate models predict increasing tornado frequency when in fact they do not predict that.
First of all, I will point out that he brings up the “context” of facts as a vehicle for an agenda early in the book. The book can essentially be described as a critical reading and overview of the IPCC reports.
And, yes, I do not agree with every point he makes. I think some of the things he says are misleading. That said, he does raise points that climate action advocates, myself included, need to address. For instance, our faulty climate models. This is not climate denial. It’s climate action, from a realistic perspective.
And, yes, I do not agree with every point he makes. I think some of the things he says are misleading. That said, he does raise points that climate action advocates, myself included, need to address. For instance, our faulty climate models. This is not climate denial. It’s climate action, from a realistic perspective.
Climate journalism is often unscientific and this heat wave seems to have triggered numerous alarmist headlines from journalists, who are falsely drawing strong causation between climate change and this event despite a lack of evidence. In this article it seems the author is alarmed due to the temperatures reached, even though climate change likely contributed only a few degrees to the peak temperature.
Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington and chief scientist of the Northwest Modeling Consortium analyzed this West coast heatwave event from a global warming perspective, in a post titled "Was Global Warming The Cause of the Great Northwest Heatwave? Science Says No." (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-ca...):
> The evidence for a predominantly natural origin of the high temperatures records of last week is compelling, with global warming marginally increasing the peak temperatures by perhaps a few degrees. Without global warming, we still would have experienced the most severe heatwave of the past century.
Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington and chief scientist of the Northwest Modeling Consortium analyzed this West coast heatwave event from a global warming perspective, in a post titled "Was Global Warming The Cause of the Great Northwest Heatwave? Science Says No." (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-ca...):
> The evidence for a predominantly natural origin of the high temperatures records of last week is compelling, with global warming marginally increasing the peak temperatures by perhaps a few degrees. Without global warming, we still would have experienced the most severe heatwave of the past century.
Fearmongering and gaslighting.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1410961875899146249
Edit. Please read this and factor it into your understanding: https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_...
Edit 2. For the people downvoting me (certainly without considering what I've presented) and others, consider the phrasing here... "killer" heat, "scares" me. It's intentionally emotionally manipulative.
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1410961875899146249
Edit. Please read this and factor it into your understanding: https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_...
Edit 2. For the people downvoting me (certainly without considering what I've presented) and others, consider the phrasing here... "killer" heat, "scares" me. It's intentionally emotionally manipulative.
A downvote is too polite. The Pacific Northwest heatwave literally killed dozens of people (https://www.oregonlive.com/data/2021/07/oregons-heat-wave-de...). Pick a less stupid hill to die on; preferably one with trees and shade, and remember to drink water.
If you point out recent coldness records, you will be lectured about the difference between weather and climate. I think the real issue may be the human delusion that things staying the same is normal (perhaps because of the short life span of humans), and more recently in scientific terms, that averages are normal.
About this article I find it odd that it cites Thatcher, of all people. Surely the information she used in the 80ies is outdated by now, and she presumably never was a climate researcher.
About this article I find it odd that it cites Thatcher, of all people. Surely the information she used in the 80ies is outdated by now, and she presumably never was a climate researcher.
Localized coldness records that are the result of the polar vortex breaking apart over the arctic and sending masses of cold air south. They are accompanied by heat waves and records in the arctic. The 80s information and forecasts were actually pretty decent in terms of the observed warming levels so far. What is a shame is that they were not pessimistic enough regarding the feedback loops we are now aware of.
Especially if you can pick just the forecasts that are not already wrong, and forget about the rest.
According to this article in nature, there is rather a tendency to use worst case scenarios that are no longer probable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
According to this article in nature, there is rather a tendency to use worst case scenarios that are no longer probable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
Both events are caused by the jet stream changing its usual patterns due to climate change. Your strawman is a poor one.
I guess no matter what happens, it is always due to climate change.
In general I think local records are to be expected, because of variance. Maybe they become more frequent because of changing jet streams or whatever, but you can not go in the other direction and claim every record is because of climate change.
In general I think local records are to be expected, because of variance. Maybe they become more frequent because of changing jet streams or whatever, but you can not go in the other direction and claim every record is because of climate change.
Well obviously things generally are not static. However I'm afraid you have forget to include scale there.
In what sense? Because global warming happens faster than expected? Maybe - but such local heat events are not a good way to determine that.
You say the ocean's rising like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey, it already did
You're not gonna slow it, Heaven knows you tried
Got it? Good, now get inside
It's all well and good for us folks in the West to talk about reducing consumption, but the reality check we need to hear is that the "West" is no more than 20% of humanity (give or take, depending on how you count).
Like it or not, the remainder of humanity is rapidly industrializing. First, no amount of lifestyle changes in the West is going to offset the pollution and environmental degradation this could cause. Second, neither you nor me are in a position to tell them that they can't also have the trappings of a Western-level middle-class lifestyle once they can afford it.
If humanity wants to get serious about climate change, we need to think big. Really big. Global-scale big.
First: energy. How can we get the whole world converted to 100% solar and geothermal in the next 10 years? No more oil, no more gas, no more coal, no more ICEs -- there needs to be a global moratorium on fossil fuel tech to stop CO2 emissions. We should be mass-producing and deploying solar panels like there's no tomorrow. We should be giving them away to people (and countries) who will install and use them. Let's help industrializing countries leap-frog fossil fuels and go straight to renewables.
Second: water. Once we solve the energy problem, we're gonna need large-scale desalinization plants. We'll want to make so much green energy that desalinizing and pumping ocean water will be cheaper than pumping it from aquifers and rivers.
Third: food. Forget about "organic" food -- we need GMOs that resist pests, take less water to grow, and can put up with higher heat and lower quality soil. We'll need either a green way of producing meats, or a really high quality meat substitute, because humanity's appetite for it isn't gonna decrease anytime soon. At the same time, it needs to become "cool" to be vegetarian or vegan, in the way that Teslas made EVs "cool."
Fourth: shelter. Find your local NIMBYs and run them out of town. We're gonna need lots of high quality and high density housing to reduce the carbon footprint required to keep modern civilization running. It's cheaper and greener to supply water, air conditioning, electricity and sewage to 100 people in 1 building than 100 people in 100 houses. We should be building every single human being a condo in a high rise for free.
Fifth: manufacturing. Power all factories with renewable energy. If it can't be plugged in, make it battery-powered. If it produces waste, find a way to throw green energy at the waste to render it inert (or recycle it).
We can achieve all of the above today. Solar is cheap and getting cheaper, and you don't need that much of the earth's surface area to supply electricity for the whole of humanity. Once you have basically limitless solar energy, you can get cheap desalinization and cheap water pumping, which unlocks mass irrigation and with it, farming capacity.
Housing sounds like a tough political problem at first, but few people will say no to a policy of "everyone -- rich or poor -- gets a free condo." Even existing homeowners would take a second home in a big city, even if all they do is use it for storage or weekend visits.
Manufacturing can be made greener and greener as more and more energy becomes available. If energy isn't your limiting factor, then you can divert energy towards safe waste disposal -- for example, you could convert carbon dioxide back molecular oxygen and carbon with enough energy. This I think will be key to manufacturing the goods and services that 7+ billion people will want in a sustainable way.
Like it or not, the remainder of humanity is rapidly industrializing. First, no amount of lifestyle changes in the West is going to offset the pollution and environmental degradation this could cause. Second, neither you nor me are in a position to tell them that they can't also have the trappings of a Western-level middle-class lifestyle once they can afford it.
If humanity wants to get serious about climate change, we need to think big. Really big. Global-scale big.
First: energy. How can we get the whole world converted to 100% solar and geothermal in the next 10 years? No more oil, no more gas, no more coal, no more ICEs -- there needs to be a global moratorium on fossil fuel tech to stop CO2 emissions. We should be mass-producing and deploying solar panels like there's no tomorrow. We should be giving them away to people (and countries) who will install and use them. Let's help industrializing countries leap-frog fossil fuels and go straight to renewables.
Second: water. Once we solve the energy problem, we're gonna need large-scale desalinization plants. We'll want to make so much green energy that desalinizing and pumping ocean water will be cheaper than pumping it from aquifers and rivers.
Third: food. Forget about "organic" food -- we need GMOs that resist pests, take less water to grow, and can put up with higher heat and lower quality soil. We'll need either a green way of producing meats, or a really high quality meat substitute, because humanity's appetite for it isn't gonna decrease anytime soon. At the same time, it needs to become "cool" to be vegetarian or vegan, in the way that Teslas made EVs "cool."
Fourth: shelter. Find your local NIMBYs and run them out of town. We're gonna need lots of high quality and high density housing to reduce the carbon footprint required to keep modern civilization running. It's cheaper and greener to supply water, air conditioning, electricity and sewage to 100 people in 1 building than 100 people in 100 houses. We should be building every single human being a condo in a high rise for free.
Fifth: manufacturing. Power all factories with renewable energy. If it can't be plugged in, make it battery-powered. If it produces waste, find a way to throw green energy at the waste to render it inert (or recycle it).
We can achieve all of the above today. Solar is cheap and getting cheaper, and you don't need that much of the earth's surface area to supply electricity for the whole of humanity. Once you have basically limitless solar energy, you can get cheap desalinization and cheap water pumping, which unlocks mass irrigation and with it, farming capacity.
Housing sounds like a tough political problem at first, but few people will say no to a policy of "everyone -- rich or poor -- gets a free condo." Even existing homeowners would take a second home in a big city, even if all they do is use it for storage or weekend visits.
Manufacturing can be made greener and greener as more and more energy becomes available. If energy isn't your limiting factor, then you can divert energy towards safe waste disposal -- for example, you could convert carbon dioxide back molecular oxygen and carbon with enough energy. This I think will be key to manufacturing the goods and services that 7+ billion people will want in a sustainable way.
> Housing sounds like a tough political problem at first, but few people will say no to a policy of "everyone -- rich or poor -- gets a free condo." Even existing homeowners would take a second home in a big city, even if all they do is use it for storage or weekend visits.
The problem is almost always local opposition. Looking at California, we see huge moneyed sue-happy NIMBYism that fights rabidly against any new building, even going as far as having dilapidated buildings and their parking lots declared “historical” to avoid redevelopment. The most progressive state in the nation with a Democratic supermajority trifecta is currently fighting tooth and nail to allow single family homes to be split into duplexes. How do you think this fight is going to go in red states?
Cities are built out. We can’t build condos without bulldozing something else, and that requires someone else to be displaced. Those someones vote for a city council members which ban apartments, condos, and anything that isn’t a SFH with at least three parking spaces.
We’ve under-built 5.6 million housing units since 2008, and as a result, housing prices are now unaffordable even in southern cities like Dallas. The housing crisis is exactly as tough of a political problem as it sounds.
The problem is almost always local opposition. Looking at California, we see huge moneyed sue-happy NIMBYism that fights rabidly against any new building, even going as far as having dilapidated buildings and their parking lots declared “historical” to avoid redevelopment. The most progressive state in the nation with a Democratic supermajority trifecta is currently fighting tooth and nail to allow single family homes to be split into duplexes. How do you think this fight is going to go in red states?
Cities are built out. We can’t build condos without bulldozing something else, and that requires someone else to be displaced. Those someones vote for a city council members which ban apartments, condos, and anything that isn’t a SFH with at least three parking spaces.
We’ve under-built 5.6 million housing units since 2008, and as a result, housing prices are now unaffordable even in southern cities like Dallas. The housing crisis is exactly as tough of a political problem as it sounds.
That's why I advocate for running the NIMBYs out of town. I meant it literally.
NIMBYs are not only pro-homelessness and pro-urban-decay, but also pro-climate-apocalypse and anti-growth. In my mind, the only difference between NIMBYs and Big Oil executives is the scale of impact, and the only difference between NIMBYs and terrorists is the means of violence. We should act accordingly.
NIMBYs are not only pro-homelessness and pro-urban-decay, but also pro-climate-apocalypse and anti-growth. In my mind, the only difference between NIMBYs and Big Oil executives is the scale of impact, and the only difference between NIMBYs and terrorists is the means of violence. We should act accordingly.
While it is important to be good stewards and not pollute etc, I don't think we are competent to solve climate issues as a whole, when we can't trust each other to keep our word (so much of the time), and especially when we have rejected much specific advice of the planet's Creator.
At the same time, things can be OK for us in the long run, if we really try to learn what we should do, and do that. I would include praying, honesty, kindness and humility (willingness to learn) among those things. Really there is good reason for hope for the best; these problems are expected now.
At the same time, things can be OK for us in the long run, if we really try to learn what we should do, and do that. I would include praying, honesty, kindness and humility (willingness to learn) among those things. Really there is good reason for hope for the best; these problems are expected now.
Being defeatist isn’t exactly productive, but hearing that calamities are happening on a daily basis doesn’t help much either. I really do think the only way this’ll get better is after some additional damage is seen and felt by policy makers. Until then, I’ll use my resources wisely and encourage others to do the same.