4 ms·

It sounds bad but I'm very unoptomistic about our chances of stopping this. There is just too much pollution and too little meaningful global cooperation. Just

by orf 11y ago

It sounds bad but I'm very unoptomistic about our chances of stopping this. There is just too much pollution and too little meaningful global cooperation. Just imagine if Trump did get into office as well...

api 11y ago
IMHO the problem with stopping this and many other forms of environmental degradation is that it's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven so to speak. Poverty is worse than all but the most severe natural disasters. Infant mortality in many poor countries is probably a lot higher than it is in Miami during a hurricane. Poverty is worse than pollution or storms. Even if the sea level rises it would be better to be forced to uproot cities and move them inland than it would be to go without modern sanitation, health care, food availability, education, etc. Only acute natural disasters like severe earthquakes and tornadoes approach chronic poverty in their destructive power. As a result it is in the self-interest of everyone on Earth to prioritize some level of wealth -- say the achievement of a basic first-world middle class standard of living -- over any environmental problem save the most immediate, acute, and apocalyptic. That's why the response of the developing world to suggestions like CO2 reduction or limiting overfishing has so far been "screw you, we're poor." This is also why I really think that what I call "abstinence based solutions" to these problems are dead on arrival. Telling people to forego the benefits of energy consumption or modern technology is like telling teenagers not to have sex. The only hope we have is to develop the world to the point that people can afford the luxury of caring about the future beyond the next 48 hours. Only then will we be able to transition to anything more sustainable. Desperate people can't afford to care. It's also a total non-starter to try to sell first world people on regressing their standard of living. They're not stupid.
- mindslight 11y ago
  > The only hope we have is to develop the world to the point that people can afford the luxury of caring about the future beyond the next 48 hours. Only then will we be able to transition to anything more sustainable This condition still exists in the "developed" first world. We haven't gotten off the treadmill. Artificially stimulating the economy into the unnatural state of inflation made sense when we had a scarcity of food and physical goods. Now it's just extremely wasteful, from both individual and global perspectives.
- fmihaila 11y ago
  Desperate people living in poverty are not those most responsible for climate change. The developed countries, most prominently the US (in absolute terms), contributed most to the problem and have the economic power to start addressing it. The reason Canada (to take another example) hasn't done more to prevent climate change has more to do with greed and misallocation of resources than with poverty eradication. The choice between lifting people out of poverty and addressing climate change is a false dilemma. Both can, and should, be worked on. Energy abstinence is not the solution. Instituting a carbon tax, ending the monopoly of rent-seeking energy utilities like NV Energy (who do all they can to stop renewables in their track, see [1] and [2]), and letting the market work would be far more effective. All that is needed is political will. [1] http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-price-solar-energy-beyond-residents/ http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-price-... [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/01/review-of-net-metering-studies-finds-utilities-underpaying-for-solar-electricity/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/01/review-of-net-metering-s...
  - api 11y ago
    Desperate people living in poverty will be just as responsible as those living in developed countries as soon as they can work their way out of poverty. Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same.
    - fmihaila 11y ago
      > Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. Of course not, nor should they. > I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same. Understood, and I agree to a certain point, although I think a lot of the strident tone on the environmentalist side is more the result of sheer panic than a desire to moralize. Be that as it may, we can choose to filter out the tone and look at the substance, and when we do that the positions on both sides are not as irreconcilable as they appear (as you seem to agree).
- rybosome 11y ago
  I have this debate with my parents from time to time. They're big readers of James Kunstler, who seems to advocate for reverting to a primarily agrarian society as the only sensible and correct response to the impending climate crisis. My argument is primarily that the planet cannot support 7 billion people with 19th century technology, so best case we'd still be looking at a decimation of the human population. Additionally, as you said, people simply won't give up the security and comfort which technology provides for them (for which Kunstler deems them morons). Technology got us into this mess, but only more advanced technology (along with good government policy and cooperation) will get us out of it.
  - api 11y ago
    Kuntsler has valid and good points about aesthetics but beyond that he's a kook. He's also rather reactionary when you peel back the layers.
flubert 11y ago
I don't know if anyone else is like this, but I can't help but be slightly amused, when in the same thread that some people are thinking that this is a lost cause, other's are claiming the the exponential growth of solar and wind power will ensure nuclear's niche status (and which seems to imply that the problem is essentially already solved, we just have to wait a decade or two, "global cooperation" or not).
- nikdaheratik 11y ago
  The problem of us using fossil fuels is essentially solved over a long enough timeline (60-100 years). The issue with global warming is that the amount of warming that can happen before it triggers certain irreversible events is on a shorter timeline than this (25-40 years).
brc 11y ago
There is no 'solution' to climate change becaus the climate changes. It's not even always a problem, either. It's like strong/weak currencies. Some people want a strong currency, others want a weak currency. Adaptation to climate is what humans have always done and what humans will always do. The richer we are, the better we can adapt. It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable. The problems faced by humans 100 years ago are mostly not problems anymore, because of the use of technology and greater productivity. Framing productivity and technology as the problems simply is code for trying to freeze progress. The greater issue is people using fear to try and gain more power. Fear of terrorism and fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power. Mostly this is by people who think they can reduce the chaos of life though better planning. While that is possible at the margin and at the micro level (better city planning results in better cities) at a level above that it breaks down and makes things worse. Central planning is, has been and always will be a disaster. Whenever you hear a politician advocating giving them more power so they can plan a better life for you, know that while they may sincerely believe it, it is more likely to make things worse for you.
- orf 11y ago
  > It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable. You sound like a climate change denier? There is most definitely a solution to pumping massive quantities of emissions into the air, and it involves not doing that. > fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power Except as far as I can see it those in power (at least in the US) are doing their best to deny climate change. And my whole point is the people in power are not doing enough, hence... you know, climate change.
  - brc 11y ago
    What is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. In the same way stopping people killing each other solves the murder problem. Most people are tryin to talk beyond a pat level of posturing. I'm not ready to throw all my devices and vehicles and climate control in landfill to try and subtely change the weather 100 years hence. Nor do I think that intentionally retarding productivity and growth for the same hope. In this I am intellectually honest.

by orf 11y ago

api 11y ago

IMHO the problem with stopping this and many other forms of environmental degradation is that it's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven so to speak. Poverty is worse than all but the most severe natural disasters. Infant mortality in many poor countries is probably a lot higher than it is in Miami during a hurricane. Poverty is worse than pollution or storms. Even if the sea level rises it would be better to be forced to uproot cities and move them inland than it would be to go without modern sanitation, health care, food availability, education, etc. Only acute natural disasters like severe earthquakes and tornadoes approach chronic poverty in their destructive power. As a result it is in the self-interest of everyone on Earth to prioritize some level of wealth -- say the achievement of a basic first-world middle class standard of living -- over any environmental problem save the most immediate, acute, and apocalyptic. That's why the response of the developing world to suggestions like CO2 reduction or limiting overfishing has so far been "screw you, we're poor." This is also why I really think that what I call "abstinence based solutions" to these problems are dead on arrival. Telling people to forego the benefits of energy consumption or modern technology is like telling teenagers not to have sex. The only hope we have is to develop the world to the point that people can afford the luxury of caring about the future beyond the next 48 hours. Only then will we be able to transition to anything more sustainable. Desperate people can't afford to care. It's also a total non-starter to try to sell first world people on regressing their standard of living. They're not stupid.

mindslight 11y ago
> The only hope we have is to develop the world to the point that people can afford the luxury of caring about the future beyond the next 48 hours. Only then will we be able to transition to anything more sustainable This condition still exists in the "developed" first world. We haven't gotten off the treadmill. Artificially stimulating the economy into the unnatural state of inflation made sense when we had a scarcity of food and physical goods. Now it's just extremely wasteful, from both individual and global perspectives.
fmihaila 11y ago
Desperate people living in poverty are not those most responsible for climate change. The developed countries, most prominently the US (in absolute terms), contributed most to the problem and have the economic power to start addressing it. The reason Canada (to take another example) hasn't done more to prevent climate change has more to do with greed and misallocation of resources than with poverty eradication. The choice between lifting people out of poverty and addressing climate change is a false dilemma. Both can, and should, be worked on. Energy abstinence is not the solution. Instituting a carbon tax, ending the monopoly of rent-seeking energy utilities like NV Energy (who do all they can to stop renewables in their track, see [1] and [2]), and letting the market work would be far more effective. All that is needed is political will. [1] http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-price-solar-energy-beyond-residents/ http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-price-... [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/01/review-of-net-metering-studies-finds-utilities-underpaying-for-solar-electricity/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/01/review-of-net-metering-s...
- api 11y ago
  Desperate people living in poverty will be just as responsible as those living in developed countries as soon as they can work their way out of poverty. Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same.
  - fmihaila 11y ago
    > Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. Of course not, nor should they. > I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same. Understood, and I agree to a certain point, although I think a lot of the strident tone on the environmentalist side is more the result of sheer panic than a desire to moralize. Be that as it may, we can choose to filter out the tone and look at the substance, and when we do that the positions on both sides are not as irreconcilable as they appear (as you seem to agree).
rybosome 11y ago
I have this debate with my parents from time to time. They're big readers of James Kunstler, who seems to advocate for reverting to a primarily agrarian society as the only sensible and correct response to the impending climate crisis. My argument is primarily that the planet cannot support 7 billion people with 19th century technology, so best case we'd still be looking at a decimation of the human population. Additionally, as you said, people simply won't give up the security and comfort which technology provides for them (for which Kunstler deems them morons). Technology got us into this mess, but only more advanced technology (along with good government policy and cooperation) will get us out of it.
- api 11y ago
  Kuntsler has valid and good points about aesthetics but beyond that he's a kook. He's also rather reactionary when you peel back the layers.

flubert 11y ago

I don't know if anyone else is like this, but I can't help but be slightly amused, when in the same thread that some people are thinking that this is a lost cause, other's are claiming the the exponential growth of solar and wind power will ensure nuclear's niche status (and which seems to imply that the problem is essentially already solved, we just have to wait a decade or two, "global cooperation" or not).

nikdaheratik 11y ago
The problem of us using fossil fuels is essentially solved over a long enough timeline (60-100 years). The issue with global warming is that the amount of warming that can happen before it triggers certain irreversible events is on a shorter timeline than this (25-40 years).

brc 11y ago

There is no 'solution' to climate change becaus the climate changes. It's not even always a problem, either. It's like strong/weak currencies. Some people want a strong currency, others want a weak currency. Adaptation to climate is what humans have always done and what humans will always do. The richer we are, the better we can adapt. It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable. The problems faced by humans 100 years ago are mostly not problems anymore, because of the use of technology and greater productivity. Framing productivity and technology as the problems simply is code for trying to freeze progress. The greater issue is people using fear to try and gain more power. Fear of terrorism and fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power. Mostly this is by people who think they can reduce the chaos of life though better planning. While that is possible at the margin and at the micro level (better city planning results in better cities) at a level above that it breaks down and makes things worse. Central planning is, has been and always will be a disaster. Whenever you hear a politician advocating giving them more power so they can plan a better life for you, know that while they may sincerely believe it, it is more likely to make things worse for you.

orf 11y ago
> It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable. You sound like a climate change denier? There is most definitely a solution to pumping massive quantities of emissions into the air, and it involves not doing that. > fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power Except as far as I can see it those in power (at least in the US) are doing their best to deny climate change. And my whole point is the people in power are not doing enough, hence... you know, climate change.
- brc 11y ago
  What is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change? Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. In the same way stopping people killing each other solves the murder problem. Most people are tryin to talk beyond a pat level of posturing. I'm not ready to throw all my devices and vehicles and climate control in landfill to try and subtely change the weather 100 years hence. Nor do I think that intentionally retarding productivity and growth for the same hope. In this I am intellectually honest.