6 ms·

The scary thing about this (well, one scary thing) is that we, as a worldwide community, needed to be making hard decisions about the climate two or three decad

The scary thing about this (well, one scary thing) is that we, as a worldwide community, needed to be making hard decisions about the climate two or three decades ago, to stave off the worst of the impact of climate change. We're several years too late to stop it, and we still have half of our government (in the US) utterly denying the problem even exists. The decisions that need to be made now to stave off complete disaster are too extreme for even the non-insane elements in our government to support, because there's a whole segment of the population that still believes in fairy tales spun by the oil and gas industry. The human mind is just terrible at grasping problems on the scale and timeline of global climate change, and it's plausible that it'll be the end of life as we know it in another few decades. All the assholes who denied it was happening will be dead, already, of course...so they won't care. I just don't see any significant movement on solving these problems; despite cool stuff like electric cars and renewable power becoming cheaper than coal, emissions are still increasing worldwide, not decreasing (and, again, it needed to begin decreasing decades ago). I'm an optimist in the general case, but when it comes to climate and the environment, I see little reason to be optimistic.

monk_e_boy 10y ago
I keep thinking that capitalism, the pursuit of money above all else, can't be the correct way forward. Not with weak governments that refuse to correctly TAX pollution and non-recyclable items. [edit] Down votes, OK. But why do you disagree? I can't think of a solution other than having Guido van Rossum as our benevolent dictator for life for the entire globe.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Capitalistic democracies are the only thing likely to solve the problem. The dictatorships are among the worlds worst offenders in terms of pollution and overall environmental protection.
  - zbyte64 10y ago
    Was curious about the data on this, here is green house gasses per capita (circa 2000): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous... Does anyone have more recent data then this? Canada, America and Australia were some of the worse offenders back in 2000. It would be interesting to see how this has changed.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    Democracy doesn't require capitalism. Even free markets are possible without capitalism (as we currently practice it). I'm not making any argument about whether we want a democracy or a market without capitalism, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the alternative to capitalism is a dictatorship.
    - tpm 10y ago
      Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism), because with only illiquid types of capital (land, social ties etc), there is no freedom and mobility. Other types of democracy may not require it, but they are not used much currently.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism), "Capitalism" is not named for or defined by the existence of liquid capital (which both predates and exists outside of capitalism.)
        tpm 10y ago
        Correct, it is named for accumulation of capital. However I don't know of any systems that are liberal (which is a nice feature) and democratic, without being also capitalistic. Maybe there some theoretical ones.
strommen 10y ago
There's definitely reason to be optimistic. Emissions have started decreasing majorly in Europe [1], slightly in the USA [2], and are even leveling off in China [3]. Those three entities account for half the world's emissions. Solar power has become cheap enough now that it's reasonable for developing countries (especially India) to rely on it heavily as they become fully electrified. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/National_Security_Implications_of_Changing_Climate_Final_051915.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/National... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/chinas-carbon-emissions-may-have-peaked-already-says-lord-stern https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/chinas-c...
- danieltillett 10y ago
  The problem is the real, unbiased, can't be faked data shows that the CO2 level is rising the most it has in recorded history. It has jumped 4 ppm in the last year alone [1]. 1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
  - strommen 10y ago
    3.75ppm, but yes - to be clear, worldwide emissions are continuing to increase, so the CO2 level should be rising by more and more every year. If we can level off our greenhouse emissions (and we're very close), the CO2 level should continue to rise each year, but at a roughly-constant rate. And if the world can get approach net-zero greenhouse emissions (a reasonable goal for 2050), the CO2 level should stop growing. And then, we would need a few centuries of negative greenhouse emissions to get back to pre-industrial temperatures. I suspect we'll never bother to do this.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      According to the NOAA link I provided the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa rose from 402.80 ppm in June 2015 to 406.81 ppm in June 2016 (most recent data) which is 4.01 ppm in a year :( I think you mean the growth rate of CO2 emission is starting to level (actually looking at the data not even this is true), not growth of CO2. We are still headed for disaster if the CO2 goes up by 4ppm every year. I see no sign that emissions of CO2 are slowing, or that we are doing anything serious to stop emitting GHG. Just look at the growth of CH4 which is continuing to increase [1]. 1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/
objectivistbrit 10y ago
We're several years too late to stop it, and we still have half of our government (in the US) utterly denying the problem even exists. I suggest looking up what people on the opposite side of the debate actually believe, rather than lumping them all together as "denying the problem even exists". C02 levels are rising (currently 0.04%, will be 0.05% by 2060) and cause a greenhouse effect. We don't know how strong this effect is, but we do know the effect is logarithmic (every additional unit of C02 causes less warming). Many predictions of knock-on effects of climate change are highly speculative (e.g., gulf stream shutdown) or products of distorted incentives (much more money is allocated for climate science research than for other environmental studies, incentivising researchers to exaggerate links between climate change and other environmental issues). Every indication is that we're facing changes which we can adapt to or mitigate with technology. What's also clear is that cutting emissions by more than 80% (as is often advocated) would cripple energy production, which would cripple industrial civilisation. We're talking people going back to living in tiny smoke-filled cottages (no AC or central heating), in small villages (no commuting), mostly working on farms (no diesel-powered farm equipment). Fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro power are currently the only viable options to keep modern civilisation running. Hopefully we eventually find an alternative, but it's insane to risk mass suicide to avoid a manageable change in the climate, on the utopian hope that wind/solar will somehow leap forwards in efficiency. Anyway, that's what I (and many other rational anti-environmentalists) believe. there's a whole segment of the population that still believes in fairy tales spun by the oil and gas industry. If you're implying people are in hock to propaganda, the amount spent by the fossil fuel industry on advocacy is dwarfed by the amount spent on pro-environmentalist advocacy by governments, liberal foundations and the big environmentalist NGOs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/#2d1523c148e9 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-mone... The human mind is just terrible at grasping problems on the scale and timeline of global climate change, and it's plausible that it'll be the end of life as we know it in another few decades. Nice combination of speculation about why people disagree (their minds just can't "grasp" it) followed by ungrounded catastrophism. Even the IPCC thinks we're facing a sea level rise of between 20 and 60 centimetres by 2100. That is not "the end of life as we know it".
- 10y ago
bcheung 10y ago
I've always been heavily involved in permaculture and aquaponics. One of the things I've learned is that there is no such thing as waste in nature. Nature will always seek balance. Combine that with the fact that technologies grow at an exponential rate and CO2 is much more linear in comparison, and it becomes a technology problem and less of a government / political issue. We will have technology that takes CO2 as an input and produces something of value for us. We're seeing it already but it just isn't implemented on large scales. Things like algae farms converting CO2 to energy, or even bioengineering organisms for artificial photosynthesis. CO2 will be a non-issue once technology grows more. Especially if you believe a "singularity is near". Hell, even switching from beef to fish would be a huge savings. Fish require a lot less water per pound of edible flesh and require around 1/10th the feed. Combine that with duckweed which depollutes water, consumes CO2, and produces feed for the fish all at the same time. There are so many technologies and solutions available even now. It's hard to not be optimistic in my opinion. I think water shortages are a much bigger threat and we need to consider a way to desalinate water from the ocean and pump it inland. Variants of ram pumps that use the kinetic force of waves can pump water uphill without any external energy input. And then you just point a bunch of mirrors at a water tower for desalination. Not sure why it isn't being done more.

monk_e_boy 10y ago

I keep thinking that capitalism, the pursuit of money above all else, can't be the correct way forward. Not with weak governments that refuse to correctly TAX pollution and non-recyclable items. [edit] Down votes, OK. But why do you disagree? I can't think of a solution other than having Guido van Rossum as our benevolent dictator for life for the entire globe.

ams6110 10y ago
Capitalistic democracies are the only thing likely to solve the problem. The dictatorships are among the worlds worst offenders in terms of pollution and overall environmental protection.
- zbyte64 10y ago
  Was curious about the data on this, here is green house gasses per capita (circa 2000): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous... Does anyone have more recent data then this? Canada, America and Australia were some of the worse offenders back in 2000. It would be interesting to see how this has changed.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Democracy doesn't require capitalism. Even free markets are possible without capitalism (as we currently practice it). I'm not making any argument about whether we want a democracy or a market without capitalism, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the alternative to capitalism is a dictatorship.
  - tpm 10y ago
    Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism), because with only illiquid types of capital (land, social ties etc), there is no freedom and mobility. Other types of democracy may not require it, but they are not used much currently.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism), "Capitalism" is not named for or defined by the existence of liquid capital (which both predates and exists outside of capitalism.)
      - tpm 10y ago
        Correct, it is named for accumulation of capital. However I don't know of any systems that are liberal (which is a nice feature) and democratic, without being also capitalistic. Maybe there some theoretical ones.

strommen 10y ago

There's definitely reason to be optimistic. Emissions have started decreasing majorly in Europe [1], slightly in the USA [2], and are even leveling off in China [3]. Those three entities account for half the world's emissions. Solar power has become cheap enough now that it's reasonable for developing countries (especially India) to rely on it heavily as they become fully electrified. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/National_Security_Implications_of_Changing_Climate_Final_051915.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/National... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/chinas-carbon-emissions-may-have-peaked-already-says-lord-stern https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/chinas-c...

danieltillett 10y ago
The problem is the real, unbiased, can't be faked data shows that the CO2 level is rising the most it has in recorded history. It has jumped 4 ppm in the last year alone [1]. 1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
- strommen 10y ago
  3.75ppm, but yes - to be clear, worldwide emissions are continuing to increase, so the CO2 level should be rising by more and more every year. If we can level off our greenhouse emissions (and we're very close), the CO2 level should continue to rise each year, but at a roughly-constant rate. And if the world can get approach net-zero greenhouse emissions (a reasonable goal for 2050), the CO2 level should stop growing. And then, we would need a few centuries of negative greenhouse emissions to get back to pre-industrial temperatures. I suspect we'll never bother to do this.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    According to the NOAA link I provided the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa rose from 402.80 ppm in June 2015 to 406.81 ppm in June 2016 (most recent data) which is 4.01 ppm in a year :( I think you mean the growth rate of CO2 emission is starting to level (actually looking at the data not even this is true), not growth of CO2. We are still headed for disaster if the CO2 goes up by 4ppm every year. I see no sign that emissions of CO2 are slowing, or that we are doing anything serious to stop emitting GHG. Just look at the growth of CH4 which is continuing to increase [1]. 1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/

objectivistbrit 10y ago

We're several years too late to stop it, and we still have half of our government (in the US) utterly denying the problem even exists. I suggest looking up what people on the opposite side of the debate actually believe, rather than lumping them all together as "denying the problem even exists". C02 levels are rising (currently 0.04%, will be 0.05% by 2060) and cause a greenhouse effect. We don't know how strong this effect is, but we do know the effect is logarithmic (every additional unit of C02 causes less warming). Many predictions of knock-on effects of climate change are highly speculative (e.g., gulf stream shutdown) or products of distorted incentives (much more money is allocated for climate science research than for other environmental studies, incentivising researchers to exaggerate links between climate change and other environmental issues). Every indication is that we're facing changes which we can adapt to or mitigate with technology. What's also clear is that cutting emissions by more than 80% (as is often advocated) would cripple energy production, which would cripple industrial civilisation. We're talking people going back to living in tiny smoke-filled cottages (no AC or central heating), in small villages (no commuting), mostly working on farms (no diesel-powered farm equipment). Fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro power are currently the only viable options to keep modern civilisation running. Hopefully we eventually find an alternative, but it's insane to risk mass suicide to avoid a manageable change in the climate, on the utopian hope that wind/solar will somehow leap forwards in efficiency. Anyway, that's what I (and many other rational anti-environmentalists) believe. there's a whole segment of the population that still believes in fairy tales spun by the oil and gas industry. If you're implying people are in hock to propaganda, the amount spent by the fossil fuel industry on advocacy is dwarfed by the amount spent on pro-environmentalist advocacy by governments, liberal foundations and the big environmentalist NGOs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/#2d1523c148e9 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-mone... The human mind is just terrible at grasping problems on the scale and timeline of global climate change, and it's plausible that it'll be the end of life as we know it in another few decades. Nice combination of speculation about why people disagree (their minds just can't "grasp" it) followed by ungrounded catastrophism. Even the IPCC thinks we're facing a sea level rise of between 20 and 60 centimetres by 2100. That is not "the end of life as we know it".

10y ago

bcheung 10y ago

I've always been heavily involved in permaculture and aquaponics. One of the things I've learned is that there is no such thing as waste in nature. Nature will always seek balance. Combine that with the fact that technologies grow at an exponential rate and CO2 is much more linear in comparison, and it becomes a technology problem and less of a government / political issue. We will have technology that takes CO2 as an input and produces something of value for us. We're seeing it already but it just isn't implemented on large scales. Things like algae farms converting CO2 to energy, or even bioengineering organisms for artificial photosynthesis. CO2 will be a non-issue once technology grows more. Especially if you believe a "singularity is near". Hell, even switching from beef to fish would be a huge savings. Fish require a lot less water per pound of edible flesh and require around 1/10th the feed. Combine that with duckweed which depollutes water, consumes CO2, and produces feed for the fish all at the same time. There are so many technologies and solutions available even now. It's hard to not be optimistic in my opinion. I think water shortages are a much bigger threat and we need to consider a way to desalinate water from the ocean and pump it inland. Variants of ram pumps that use the kinetic force of waves can pump water uphill without any external energy input. And then you just point a bunch of mirrors at a water tower for desalination. Not sure why it isn't being done more.