3 ms·

> the world has finally recognized and united around solving the single greatest threat to our civilization If it's CO2 you are talking about, Trump already sa

> the world has finally recognized and united around solving the single greatest threat to our civilization If it's CO2 you are talking about, Trump already said he doesn't give a shit. EDIT: sorry for citing wrong ("world" instead of "majority of the world", wasn't intentional), but even then, you don't get a majority without the USA.

tempestn 10y ago
Well, technically you can easily get the majority of the world without the US, but I do agree with you that this does appear to be a step backwards. A huge problem with climate change is that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere today doesn't have an immediate impact on the climate. It just adjust the balance between energy being added to the earth (mostly visible sunlight and UV) and the energy being radiated away (mostly heat). It takes time - decades potentially - to reach a new steady state. That's why you hear that even if we stopped ALL CO2 release today (which is obviously impossible), warming would continue for a period of time. The end result is, even let alone the difficulty in perceiving global shifts in average temperature amidst the significant noise, we shouldn't even expect to see the majority of the shift immediately. But it appears that isn't fully understood, so many people take the lack of an obvious difference year to year as evidence against climate change.
akiselev 10y ago
> EDIT: sorry for citing wrong ("world" instead of "majority of the world", wasn't intentional), but even then, you don't get a majority without the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... The United States isn't even in the top five for CO2 production per capita and it's completely dwarfed in absolute terms by China which contributes 30% of the world's CO2 compared to the US's 15%. The United States is the last major holdout so yes, there is a very clear majority and American anti-intellectualism is the last major political obstacle. Regardless, all of the worst polluters on that list are rapidly adopting renewable energy and even profit-at-all-costs capitalism can't stop demonstrably cheaper and more sustainable energy sources from taking over.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >...and even profit-at-all-costs capitalism can't stop demonstrably cheaper and more sustainable energy sources from taking over. That makes no sense. Profit-at-all-costs capitalism is agnostic on power sources and will make no attempt to stop solar and wind when they become cheaper.
soundwave106 10y ago
In my opinion, barring some serious nationalistic policies that I can't see at the moment... no matter what Trump says or does, technological progress on this issue will move onward regardless. This even includes progress in the United States. Even now, it's hard to see one of the worst CO2-emitting sources of energy (coal) gaining that much traction with natural gas being quite a bit cheaper here. If solutions that emit less CO2 than natural gas get even cheaper, those start becoming no-brainers to implement. I'm sure that some states will try to nudge more from a government level (see: California), but even in states that don't, if economics dictates that the CO2-less solution is better, it will most likely be implemented regardless of political bluster. For example, Oklahoma is long known for being a traditional oil and gas stalwart. Yet as of 2015, 18% of electricity in Oklahoma is generated by wind. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Oklahoma)

tempestn 10y ago

Well, technically you can easily get the majority of the world without the US, but I do agree with you that this does appear to be a step backwards. A huge problem with climate change is that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere today doesn't have an immediate impact on the climate. It just adjust the balance between energy being added to the earth (mostly visible sunlight and UV) and the energy being radiated away (mostly heat). It takes time - decades potentially - to reach a new steady state. That's why you hear that even if we stopped ALL CO2 release today (which is obviously impossible), warming would continue for a period of time. The end result is, even let alone the difficulty in perceiving global shifts in average temperature amidst the significant noise, we shouldn't even expect to see the majority of the shift immediately. But it appears that isn't fully understood, so many people take the lack of an obvious difference year to year as evidence against climate change.

akiselev 10y ago

> EDIT: sorry for citing wrong ("world" instead of "majority of the world", wasn't intentional), but even then, you don't get a majority without the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... The United States isn't even in the top five for CO2 production per capita and it's completely dwarfed in absolute terms by China which contributes 30% of the world's CO2 compared to the US's 15%. The United States is the last major holdout so yes, there is a very clear majority and American anti-intellectualism is the last major political obstacle. Regardless, all of the worst polluters on that list are rapidly adopting renewable energy and even profit-at-all-costs capitalism can't stop demonstrably cheaper and more sustainable energy sources from taking over.

gozur88 10y ago
>...and even profit-at-all-costs capitalism can't stop demonstrably cheaper and more sustainable energy sources from taking over. That makes no sense. Profit-at-all-costs capitalism is agnostic on power sources and will make no attempt to stop solar and wind when they become cheaper.

soundwave106 10y ago

In my opinion, barring some serious nationalistic policies that I can't see at the moment... no matter what Trump says or does, technological progress on this issue will move onward regardless. This even includes progress in the United States. Even now, it's hard to see one of the worst CO2-emitting sources of energy (coal) gaining that much traction with natural gas being quite a bit cheaper here. If solutions that emit less CO2 than natural gas get even cheaper, those start becoming no-brainers to implement. I'm sure that some states will try to nudge more from a government level (see: California), but even in states that don't, if economics dictates that the CO2-less solution is better, it will most likely be implemented regardless of political bluster. For example, Oklahoma is long known for being a traditional oil and gas stalwart. Yet as of 2015, 18% of electricity in Oklahoma is generated by wind. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Oklahoma)