5 ms·

I find it very unlikely that we'll "solve" this problem. At best we'll just deal with the effects and survive accordingly. 1. The majority of the world isn't e

by tabeth 10y ago

I find it very unlikely that we'll "solve" this problem. At best we'll just deal with the effects and survive accordingly. 1. The majority of the world isn't even on par with say, France, in terms of their contribution to this problem. It's only going to get worse as they develop (finally). 2. Those living in the countries that contribute the most aren't going to pay the price, figuratively or literally. Would you take an 80% paycut to eradicate this problem? Probably not. Would you not have children (who will comparatively consume, and therefore contribute far more than 3rd world children)? Probably not. This line of thinking is obviously a part of the problem.

agd 10y ago
> Would you take an 80% paycut to eradicate this problem? Where do you get this from? I haven't seen anything suggesting that such a paycut would be necessary and/or follow from the required CO2 reduction.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  If you're an oil company executive you may need to take a 100% pay cut :) But in general I think* that sustainable energy and technology will actually make high quality of life cheaper and more achievable. * No sources cited, take with grain of salt
- tabeth 10y ago
  I guess I wasn't clear -- the point I was trying to make isn't about the paycut, or even the percentage, but rather just conveying that a huge lifestyle change would be necessary. One I'm skeptical that most would be willing, and able to make.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    I for one is scared of this lifestyle change... How am I ever going to live with electric cars with instantaneous torque that drive themselves? Or all the electricity I can get from the sun? I really don't know how I'm going to deal with paying almost nothing to heat my house in the winter due to geothermal heating instead of this nice gas fire that is currently burning in my furnace. And I'm going to miss having all those plastic bags from the grocery store under my sink. It will be so inconvenient having to reuse the same durable bag every time. And it's too bad I'm going to have to have a 1/2 cm thin high efficiency OLED 4k TV instead of having a 20 lbs monstrocity hanging from my wall. I'm being snarky and a bit of an ass but I see a world gone green as a world of opportunity not a world of sacrifice. And free fertilizer from compost instead of paying a small fortune for it at the store is a real drag. We really can have our cake and eat it to. In many many cases green technology is both better for the environment and just plain better all around. Well unless you're invested in dirty energy.
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      We don't have nearly enough renewable energy yet to replace coal and oil based electricity
      - ben_w 10y ago
        Check what happened in the UK in 2016 for the first time since the Industrial Revolution. And then look how far north the UK is compared to the USA. If the UK can do it, almost every nation is guaranteed to be able to do it. (Those that aren't guaranteed, have other options).
        RugnirViking 10y ago
        As someone from the UK, what are you referring to? We have a pretty poor environmental record as things go, especially as what little there is is propped up by scotland
        ben_w 10y ago
        For a few days in 2016, the UK burned zero coal. This is was the first time on record, and those go back to the first coal fired power station in 1882: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/13/uk-energy-from-coal-hits-zero-for-first-time-in-over-100-years https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/13/uk-energ... Edit: Yes I do know this didn't continue permanently, but as recently as 2013, coal was the UK's largest single source of electricity. Change is faster than most people realise. :)
    - throwaway2016a 10y ago
      > We don't have nearly enough renewable energy yet to replace coal and oil based electricity "Yet" Because people keep fighting it. Meanwhile I bet you that Elon Musk is going to make a fortune off of clean technology. A smart business person who is highly capitalized should be jumping on the opportunity to turn "not yet" into "now"
throwaway2016a 10y ago
> Would you not have children (who will comparatively consume, and therefore contribute far more than 3rd world children Anecdotally, I know many people who are doing just that. Not having kids for ethical reasons related to climate change. Not saying I agree or disagree, just presenting an anecdote from the group of people I know.
- PitchBlackFox 10y ago
  That's how Idiocracy starts
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    There is quite a bit you'd have to state to justify this belief.
    - cazum 10y ago
      Idiocracy is a 2006 movie by Mike Judge. The plot of the film starts with intelligent people declining to reproduce.
      - yequalsx 10y ago
        Oh. I did not know this was a reference to a movie. Thank you!
    - jobigoud 10y ago
      Here is the (classic) opening scene of Idiocracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E
      - yequalsx 10y ago
        Thanks. I did not get the reference.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Floegipoky 10y ago
In response to your first point, you don't account for the very real possibility that these developing countries, which are already disproportionately affected by climate issues, will instead invest heavily in sustainable energy sources as they continue to become cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives.
- earthtolazlo 10y ago
  They'll invest in whatever is cheapest. For the foreseeable future, that means oil, coal and natural gas.
  - ben_w 10y ago
    Solar's the cheapest these days. The rest are only backups.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  The issue with energy, especially electrical, isn't strictly about cost per KWH. There's the fixed cost of existing power plants that are expected to return a (highly regulated) profit, the problem of getting enough baseline power to run the grid, and also the fact that some sources of fossil fuels are cheaper to extract than others. These are huge problems that can't be fixed by any one group and are going to need solved in the next 10 years before we can replace most or all of our existing power plants with renewables.
api 10y ago
There's a third reason that I've thought about for a while. I call it "it's better to reign in hell." Extreme poverty is worse than most natural disasters. I wouldn't be surprised if infant mortality is substantially lower in a developed nation during a category five hurricane than it is in a poor nation during calm weather. It's better to reign in hell. The benefits of development may actually outweigh the cost of, say, losing one's coastal cities.
- Diederich 10y ago
  I wonder how strongly correlated poverty is with the quality of life impact associated with natural disasters.
- mrfusion 10y ago
  You're going against the narrative there ... no amount of progress is worth sea level rise.
  - seiferteric 10y ago
    If only sea level rise was the only problem.
  - api 10y ago
    I wasn't saying it's a good thing, just that it's a fact. Wealth brings the luxury of caring about the environment. Poverty is absolute desperation. If you are dirt poor the only thing that matters is not being dirt poor. This is also why what I call "abstinence based" solutions to environmental problems are doomed. This refers to the use of shame and ideology to convince people to accept a lower standard of living. Telling people to forego the benefits of energy consumption is going to work about as well as telling them not to have sex. The only solution to climate change is large scale renewable and/or nuclear energy sufficient to economically replace fossil fuels. All else is futile.
    - nikdaheratik 10y ago
      I kind of agree, in that it's not an individual action problem but a collective action problem. You want to reduce emissions in the aggregate, you need something like a carbon tax which encourages people and companies at the margin into making the choice that emits less carbon.
scarmig 10y ago
There are two things that have to happen in tandem: 1) Mitigating the effects 2) Minimizing the effects Going all in on one or the other is a fools' errand. The appropriate solution, IMO, is a substantial carbon tax, with some proportion of it going to funding mitigation and the rest going toward a citizens' dividend. A pro of this arrangement: to the degree that it's easy to cut down on carbon pollution, it will drive people in that direction. And in the areas where it's really hard to cut down on carbon pollution, it'll act as an economically efficient tax that's passed on to consumers and then rebated to the people. There're almost no losers (except for the many people who disproportionately benefit right now from offloading their carbon pollution onto other people).

by tabeth 10y ago

agd 10y ago

> Would you take an 80% paycut to eradicate this problem? Where do you get this from? I haven't seen anything suggesting that such a paycut would be necessary and/or follow from the required CO2 reduction.

throwaway2016a 10y ago
If you're an oil company executive you may need to take a 100% pay cut :) But in general I think* that sustainable energy and technology will actually make high quality of life cheaper and more achievable. * No sources cited, take with grain of salt
tabeth 10y ago
I guess I wasn't clear -- the point I was trying to make isn't about the paycut, or even the percentage, but rather just conveying that a huge lifestyle change would be necessary. One I'm skeptical that most would be willing, and able to make.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  I for one is scared of this lifestyle change... How am I ever going to live with electric cars with instantaneous torque that drive themselves? Or all the electricity I can get from the sun? I really don't know how I'm going to deal with paying almost nothing to heat my house in the winter due to geothermal heating instead of this nice gas fire that is currently burning in my furnace. And I'm going to miss having all those plastic bags from the grocery store under my sink. It will be so inconvenient having to reuse the same durable bag every time. And it's too bad I'm going to have to have a 1/2 cm thin high efficiency OLED 4k TV instead of having a 20 lbs monstrocity hanging from my wall. I'm being snarky and a bit of an ass but I see a world gone green as a world of opportunity not a world of sacrifice. And free fertilizer from compost instead of paying a small fortune for it at the store is a real drag. We really can have our cake and eat it to. In many many cases green technology is both better for the environment and just plain better all around. Well unless you're invested in dirty energy.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    We don't have nearly enough renewable energy yet to replace coal and oil based electricity
    - ben_w 10y ago
      Check what happened in the UK in 2016 for the first time since the Industrial Revolution. And then look how far north the UK is compared to the USA. If the UK can do it, almost every nation is guaranteed to be able to do it. (Those that aren't guaranteed, have other options).
      - RugnirViking 10y ago
        As someone from the UK, what are you referring to? We have a pretty poor environmental record as things go, especially as what little there is is propped up by scotland
        ben_w 10y ago
        For a few days in 2016, the UK burned zero coal. This is was the first time on record, and those go back to the first coal fired power station in 1882: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/13/uk-energy-from-coal-hits-zero-for-first-time-in-over-100-years https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/13/uk-energ... Edit: Yes I do know this didn't continue permanently, but as recently as 2013, coal was the UK's largest single source of electricity. Change is faster than most people realise. :)
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    > We don't have nearly enough renewable energy yet to replace coal and oil based electricity "Yet" Because people keep fighting it. Meanwhile I bet you that Elon Musk is going to make a fortune off of clean technology. A smart business person who is highly capitalized should be jumping on the opportunity to turn "not yet" into "now"

throwaway2016a 10y ago

> Would you not have children (who will comparatively consume, and therefore contribute far more than 3rd world children Anecdotally, I know many people who are doing just that. Not having kids for ethical reasons related to climate change. Not saying I agree or disagree, just presenting an anecdote from the group of people I know.

PitchBlackFox 10y ago
That's how Idiocracy starts
- yequalsx 10y ago
  There is quite a bit you'd have to state to justify this belief.
  - cazum 10y ago
    Idiocracy is a 2006 movie by Mike Judge. The plot of the film starts with intelligent people declining to reproduce.
    - yequalsx 10y ago
      Oh. I did not know this was a reference to a movie. Thank you!
  - jobigoud 10y ago
    Here is the (classic) opening scene of Idiocracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E
    - yequalsx 10y ago
      Thanks. I did not get the reference.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Floegipoky 10y ago

In response to your first point, you don't account for the very real possibility that these developing countries, which are already disproportionately affected by climate issues, will instead invest heavily in sustainable energy sources as they continue to become cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives.

earthtolazlo 10y ago
They'll invest in whatever is cheapest. For the foreseeable future, that means oil, coal and natural gas.
- ben_w 10y ago
  Solar's the cheapest these days. The rest are only backups.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
The issue with energy, especially electrical, isn't strictly about cost per KWH. There's the fixed cost of existing power plants that are expected to return a (highly regulated) profit, the problem of getting enough baseline power to run the grid, and also the fact that some sources of fossil fuels are cheaper to extract than others. These are huge problems that can't be fixed by any one group and are going to need solved in the next 10 years before we can replace most or all of our existing power plants with renewables.

api 10y ago

There's a third reason that I've thought about for a while. I call it "it's better to reign in hell." Extreme poverty is worse than most natural disasters. I wouldn't be surprised if infant mortality is substantially lower in a developed nation during a category five hurricane than it is in a poor nation during calm weather. It's better to reign in hell. The benefits of development may actually outweigh the cost of, say, losing one's coastal cities.

Diederich 10y ago
I wonder how strongly correlated poverty is with the quality of life impact associated with natural disasters.
mrfusion 10y ago
You're going against the narrative there ... no amount of progress is worth sea level rise.
- seiferteric 10y ago
  If only sea level rise was the only problem.
- api 10y ago
  I wasn't saying it's a good thing, just that it's a fact. Wealth brings the luxury of caring about the environment. Poverty is absolute desperation. If you are dirt poor the only thing that matters is not being dirt poor. This is also why what I call "abstinence based" solutions to environmental problems are doomed. This refers to the use of shame and ideology to convince people to accept a lower standard of living. Telling people to forego the benefits of energy consumption is going to work about as well as telling them not to have sex. The only solution to climate change is large scale renewable and/or nuclear energy sufficient to economically replace fossil fuels. All else is futile.
  - nikdaheratik 10y ago
    I kind of agree, in that it's not an individual action problem but a collective action problem. You want to reduce emissions in the aggregate, you need something like a carbon tax which encourages people and companies at the margin into making the choice that emits less carbon.

scarmig 10y ago

There are two things that have to happen in tandem: 1) Mitigating the effects 2) Minimizing the effects Going all in on one or the other is a fools' errand. The appropriate solution, IMO, is a substantial carbon tax, with some proportion of it going to funding mitigation and the rest going toward a citizens' dividend. A pro of this arrangement: to the degree that it's easy to cut down on carbon pollution, it will drive people in that direction. And in the areas where it's really hard to cut down on carbon pollution, it'll act as an economically efficient tax that's passed on to consumers and then rebated to the people. There're almost no losers (except for the many people who disproportionately benefit right now from offloading their carbon pollution onto other people).