5 ms·

>>We need to fundamentally change how humans live on this planet If anyone wonders why some resist accepting climate change as a fact, the above statement gets

>>We need to fundamentally change how humans live on this planet If anyone wonders why some resist accepting climate change as a fact, the above statement gets to a big piece of the underlying puzzle. I strongly suspect that if climate change was merely a scientific topic, there would be little-to-no resistance to accepting it as fact. But it's not just a scientific question, it's (been made into) a question of how humans fundamentally live on the planet. And so of course a subset of society is going to resist societal change. It's not that people are particularly stupid, it's that they don't like the fundamental changes to how they live that they believe will follow. Of course, we all know all of this, but for some reason we like to pretend we don't. In my personal opinion, if you truly care about stopping climate change, you should be spending our effort developing solutions that do NOT require fundamental changes in how humans live on this planet. That path is much more likely to be successful in the political realm and thus more likely to actually save the planet.

RangerScience 10y ago
I think Tesla and Solar City are excellent examples of this. They're not "stop driving, turn off your house lights, etc", they're "keep doing what you do, only now greener" Of course, issues with the greenlieness of electric cars, etc etc - but remember when solar panels were a net negative? AFAIK, that sure as hell didn't last.
- the8472 10y ago
  > "keep doing what you do, only now greener" that only works temporarily. business as usual still means consuming exponentially more resources over time, which is not sustainable.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    Unless you begin to also produce exponentially greater resources over time. Also, temporarily is still a good thing, and will make new resources stretch longer. #eatthesolarsystem
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_mH8R0KTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_mH8R0KTM It's logical, it's clear - there's only one way to go from here Without a doubt, the only way to go from here is out!
    - mozey 10y ago
      But it is not just the solar system, and the time frame is a bit tight... http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
      - RangerScience 10y ago
        We can only hope that at some scale, it's an escalator, and we can pull off acting like a slinky, a la Asimov's "The Gods Themselves".
  - taneq 10y ago
    Population growth is leveling out and even dropping in countries with higher living standards. Maybe once everyone's living in tech paradise, the human population will stop growing altogether. We'll still probably have more stuff per capita than today, but it won't continue to grow unbounded as people seem to think today.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    So far, so good. Goods substitution happens, and it happens so fast you hardly notice it.
- mojomark 10y ago
  > I think Tesla and Solar City...They're not "stop driving, turn off your house lights, etc", they're "keep doing what you do, only now greener" Agree 100%! A few years ago Chevron ran an add campaign in DC metro depicting people saying things like "I will use less water" and "I will bike to work" and that shit made my blood boil. Every day I thought to myself "No assholes - how about you supply energy that isn't filthy!"
  - pg314 10y ago
    You can do both: limit your energy consumption and make your energy cleaner. One does not preclude the other. Given that pretty much all of our current energy sources have a carbon cost (e.g. in the production of solar panels), it makes sense to try to limit our consumption too.
    - mojomark 10y ago
      > You can do both I do agree. My issue was with the single-sidedness of Chevron's campaign. To me it implied that energy consumers are the primary cause of environmental woes. Speaking for my industry only (commercial shipping), if companies were willing to sacrifice some profit & growth, commercial ships could all operate virtually free of harmful GhG emissions. This is technically possible today. However, given the fragmentation and overcapacity that currently exists, the international competition is too fierce for any company to make such a leap for the general good. This is why IMO MARPOL emission regulations to include Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and Emission Control Areas (ECAs) are so critical - because it says to companies "hey, it's o.k. to spend a little extra on CAPEX and OPEX, because everyone else has to also." (1) Given what is possible today with available technology, however, I think the emission control cap tiers are far too conservative. The final tier (in a few decades) should be zero GhG emissions for all shipping. It is feasible - and really with overcapacity where it is, now is the best time to take the plunge because the reliant markets (e.g. virtually every market) will hardly feel the impact. Shipping is a very tiny percentage (1.5%) of global GHG emissions (2), so I'd be interested to hear if experts in other fields that are larger emitters (e.g. aviation, automotive, etc) feel about the feasibility of hitting zero GHG emissions. 1. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/pages/air-pollution.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionpreventio... 2. http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/MarineShipping http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/MarineShipping
- nihonde 10y ago
  It's strange to me that Toyota has a hydrogen fuel car in production and for sale today, but it gets almost no attention in discussions like this one. Why is that? Are the CO2 effects of liquid hydrogen extraction a barrier? Or maybe the need to establish a network of hydrogen fuel delivery?
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    Knowing nothing, my bets would be: 1) There is nothing sexy about the car. Tesla cars aren't just electric cars - they're also fantastic cars. Tesla makes a great (amazing?) car that is electric, rather than a an electric that may be a great car. 2) Yep, fueling infrastructure. You can charge your electric cars at home, at the office; the supercharger and battery swap stations; that Tesla (AFAIK?) charges your car for free... Where do you need to go to get hydrogen fuel? There's also an analysis - maybe in the Wait, But Why? on Tesla - as to how you can't sell alternative vehicle stock from normal dealerships; it just doesn't make enough sense to the dealer, but ATM I don't remember the reasoning. Also AFAIK, Mr Musk has a good write-up on why hydrogen fuel isn't The Thing. But mostly #1, IMO.
    - ajdlinux 10y ago
      My local government is doing deals to build a hydrogen electrolyser facility and car fuelling stations in my city, which is... interesting. http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/growth-in-the-clean-economy/hydrogen-power-coming-to-canberra http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/growth-in-the-clean...
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    The fuel cell in Toyota's car is expensive enough that it's an expensive, not very nice, and not very performant car. Combine that with the inconvenience of few hydrogen filling stations, and you've got lack of interest from consumers and the press.
  - nl 10y ago
    Hydrogen fueled cars got a lot of attention a few years ago (five? Before Tesla started shipping big numbers anyway). It was always a stupid idea. The economics don't make any sense at all.
Aqueous 10y ago
Indeed - it goes against everything we know about human nature. Have humans ever spontaneously and independently changed their own behavior, at their own inconvenience, en masse? No - not without strong economic, social, or legal incentives to do so. The gains we make in these areas are pretty much all going to be technological, not behavioral. As you point out the technologies are going to need to minimize the cost and inconvenience to human activity. The day it becomes economically irrational to not use renewable energy is the day that we beat climate change.
- 7952 10y ago
  Yes, in response to strong social pressure. Look at how peoples reaction to tobacco has changed. We need the same feeling of disgust abput dirty diesal engines as a smoker at a kids birthday party.
capkutay 10y ago
> But it's not just a scientific question, it's (been made into) a question of how humans fundamentally live on the planet. I agree with your first point but disagree with the above in quotes. Climate change fundamentally changes the way many global hegemonies do business and make money. That trickles into politics via lobbying and influences what people think because of who they vote for. That's why Elon Musk's (and maybe the tech industry as a whole) capitalist approach to climate change is the best hope we have.
sgustard 10y ago
Humans have some success in changing their behavior, for example in moving from 5-6 children per family to 2. That change has staved off much more catastrophic effects of population growth and its impact on climate. But it needed technology advances to happen first, namely birth control. Various other environmental advances have happened through technology without requiring behavioral changes: removing lead from gasoline, removing CFCs from aerosols and so on.
- guftagu 10y ago
  People not living in the developed world still average much more than 2 children. I think the number is reducing there but it has a way to go to reach average 2 per family.
  - henrikschroder 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate We're globally at 2.36 births per woman, it dropped below 3.0 in the 90's. We'll probably reach world population stagnation in the 2050's.
  - taneq 10y ago
    And we're in the process of rapidly developing the 'undeveloped' world. It's not unreasonable to assume that within 50 years everyone on the planet will live in 'first world' conditions.
henrikschroder 10y ago
> if you truly care about stopping climate change, you should be spending our effort developing solutions that do NOT require fundamental changes in how humans live on this planet Yes! If you make the most environmentally friendly alternative the cheapest, people will choose it, as if by magic. If you make electric cars cheaper to own and operate than ICE cars, people will switch. If you make solar power cheaper than coal, energy providers will switch. If you make synthetic meat cheaper than real meat, there won't be any more factory farms and livestock slaughter. If an at-home 3D printer can make your clothes and toys and stuff cheaper, you won't need to ship enormous amounts of containers with manufactured goods from China.

RangerScience 10y ago

I think Tesla and Solar City are excellent examples of this. They're not "stop driving, turn off your house lights, etc", they're "keep doing what you do, only now greener" Of course, issues with the greenlieness of electric cars, etc etc - but remember when solar panels were a net negative? AFAIK, that sure as hell didn't last.

the8472 10y ago
> "keep doing what you do, only now greener" that only works temporarily. business as usual still means consuming exponentially more resources over time, which is not sustainable.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Unless you begin to also produce exponentially greater resources over time. Also, temporarily is still a good thing, and will make new resources stretch longer. #eatthesolarsystem
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_mH8R0KTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_mH8R0KTM It's logical, it's clear - there's only one way to go from here Without a doubt, the only way to go from here is out!
  - mozey 10y ago
    But it is not just the solar system, and the time frame is a bit tight... http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      We can only hope that at some scale, it's an escalator, and we can pull off acting like a slinky, a la Asimov's "The Gods Themselves".
- taneq 10y ago
  Population growth is leveling out and even dropping in countries with higher living standards. Maybe once everyone's living in tech paradise, the human population will stop growing altogether. We'll still probably have more stuff per capita than today, but it won't continue to grow unbounded as people seem to think today.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  So far, so good. Goods substitution happens, and it happens so fast you hardly notice it.
mojomark 10y ago
> I think Tesla and Solar City...They're not "stop driving, turn off your house lights, etc", they're "keep doing what you do, only now greener" Agree 100%! A few years ago Chevron ran an add campaign in DC metro depicting people saying things like "I will use less water" and "I will bike to work" and that shit made my blood boil. Every day I thought to myself "No assholes - how about you supply energy that isn't filthy!"
- pg314 10y ago
  You can do both: limit your energy consumption and make your energy cleaner. One does not preclude the other. Given that pretty much all of our current energy sources have a carbon cost (e.g. in the production of solar panels), it makes sense to try to limit our consumption too.
  - mojomark 10y ago
    > You can do both I do agree. My issue was with the single-sidedness of Chevron's campaign. To me it implied that energy consumers are the primary cause of environmental woes. Speaking for my industry only (commercial shipping), if companies were willing to sacrifice some profit & growth, commercial ships could all operate virtually free of harmful GhG emissions. This is technically possible today. However, given the fragmentation and overcapacity that currently exists, the international competition is too fierce for any company to make such a leap for the general good. This is why IMO MARPOL emission regulations to include Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and Emission Control Areas (ECAs) are so critical - because it says to companies "hey, it's o.k. to spend a little extra on CAPEX and OPEX, because everyone else has to also." (1) Given what is possible today with available technology, however, I think the emission control cap tiers are far too conservative. The final tier (in a few decades) should be zero GhG emissions for all shipping. It is feasible - and really with overcapacity where it is, now is the best time to take the plunge because the reliant markets (e.g. virtually every market) will hardly feel the impact. Shipping is a very tiny percentage (1.5%) of global GHG emissions (2), so I'd be interested to hear if experts in other fields that are larger emitters (e.g. aviation, automotive, etc) feel about the feasibility of hitting zero GHG emissions. 1. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/pages/air-pollution.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionpreventio... 2. http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/MarineShipping http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/MarineShipping
nihonde 10y ago
It's strange to me that Toyota has a hydrogen fuel car in production and for sale today, but it gets almost no attention in discussions like this one. Why is that? Are the CO2 effects of liquid hydrogen extraction a barrier? Or maybe the need to establish a network of hydrogen fuel delivery?
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Knowing nothing, my bets would be: 1) There is nothing sexy about the car. Tesla cars aren't just electric cars - they're also fantastic cars. Tesla makes a great (amazing?) car that is electric, rather than a an electric that may be a great car. 2) Yep, fueling infrastructure. You can charge your electric cars at home, at the office; the supercharger and battery swap stations; that Tesla (AFAIK?) charges your car for free... Where do you need to go to get hydrogen fuel? There's also an analysis - maybe in the Wait, But Why? on Tesla - as to how you can't sell alternative vehicle stock from normal dealerships; it just doesn't make enough sense to the dealer, but ATM I don't remember the reasoning. Also AFAIK, Mr Musk has a good write-up on why hydrogen fuel isn't The Thing. But mostly #1, IMO.
  - ajdlinux 10y ago
    My local government is doing deals to build a hydrogen electrolyser facility and car fuelling stations in my city, which is... interesting. http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/growth-in-the-clean-economy/hydrogen-power-coming-to-canberra http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/growth-in-the-clean...
- greglindahl 10y ago
  The fuel cell in Toyota's car is expensive enough that it's an expensive, not very nice, and not very performant car. Combine that with the inconvenience of few hydrogen filling stations, and you've got lack of interest from consumers and the press.
- nl 10y ago
  Hydrogen fueled cars got a lot of attention a few years ago (five? Before Tesla started shipping big numbers anyway). It was always a stupid idea. The economics don't make any sense at all.

Aqueous 10y ago

Indeed - it goes against everything we know about human nature. Have humans ever spontaneously and independently changed their own behavior, at their own inconvenience, en masse? No - not without strong economic, social, or legal incentives to do so. The gains we make in these areas are pretty much all going to be technological, not behavioral. As you point out the technologies are going to need to minimize the cost and inconvenience to human activity. The day it becomes economically irrational to not use renewable energy is the day that we beat climate change.

7952 10y ago
Yes, in response to strong social pressure. Look at how peoples reaction to tobacco has changed. We need the same feeling of disgust abput dirty diesal engines as a smoker at a kids birthday party.

capkutay 10y ago

> But it's not just a scientific question, it's (been made into) a question of how humans fundamentally live on the planet. I agree with your first point but disagree with the above in quotes. Climate change fundamentally changes the way many global hegemonies do business and make money. That trickles into politics via lobbying and influences what people think because of who they vote for. That's why Elon Musk's (and maybe the tech industry as a whole) capitalist approach to climate change is the best hope we have.

sgustard 10y ago

Humans have some success in changing their behavior, for example in moving from 5-6 children per family to 2. That change has staved off much more catastrophic effects of population growth and its impact on climate. But it needed technology advances to happen first, namely birth control. Various other environmental advances have happened through technology without requiring behavioral changes: removing lead from gasoline, removing CFCs from aerosols and so on.

guftagu 10y ago
People not living in the developed world still average much more than 2 children. I think the number is reducing there but it has a way to go to reach average 2 per family.
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate We're globally at 2.36 births per woman, it dropped below 3.0 in the 90's. We'll probably reach world population stagnation in the 2050's.
- taneq 10y ago
  And we're in the process of rapidly developing the 'undeveloped' world. It's not unreasonable to assume that within 50 years everyone on the planet will live in 'first world' conditions.

henrikschroder 10y ago

> if you truly care about stopping climate change, you should be spending our effort developing solutions that do NOT require fundamental changes in how humans live on this planet Yes! If you make the most environmentally friendly alternative the cheapest, people will choose it, as if by magic. If you make electric cars cheaper to own and operate than ICE cars, people will switch. If you make solar power cheaper than coal, energy providers will switch. If you make synthetic meat cheaper than real meat, there won't be any more factory farms and livestock slaughter. If an at-home 3D printer can make your clothes and toys and stuff cheaper, you won't need to ship enormous amounts of containers with manufactured goods from China.