5 ms·

I'm just back from Antarctica, and chatted with a number of scientists from McMurdo & Vernadsky stations - while stood outside wearing shorts and a shirt (appar

I'm just back from Antarctica, and chatted with a number of scientists from McMurdo & Vernadsky stations - while stood outside wearing shorts and a shirt (apparently this is not normal Antarctic apparel, but it was hot), and their outlook is dour. They're not talking in terms of prevention or reversal, rather, mitigation - how can human life survive in a vastly changed biosphere? Animal behaviour was all sorts of weird too - Orca and humpbacks in abnormally large groupings (hundreds of individuals), salps flourishing in the water just below the rotted away feet of glaciers, penguins nesting and mating at exactly the wrong time of year. The only way to lessen the disaster will be to subvert existing systems to the purpose - make it financially rewarding to leave oil in the ground, to use renewables, to not burn down forests for short-lived ranch-land. Doing this on a global scale can only be achieved through capitalism - it's the one constant across borders, as its increasingly clear governments either cannot or will not respond to this crisis. Don't ask me for specifics - I haven't figured that much out yet, but it seems to be the only viable pathway.

_red 10y ago
I have a friend who works for Exxon material science division. His goal in life is to find "the next oil", obviously Exxon is willing to hedge its bets and fund some alternative energy research so they can position themselves if a new breakthrough is discovered. Here is the problem: Oil is currently the most energy packed material that humans easily have access to. And its not even really close, wind / solar / etc are not just 40% less efficient, more like orders of magnitude. I think the demonization of oil may be causing more total CO2 than just burning it. A craze starts which convinces everyone to buy electric cars - except those rare earth materials for the batteries are really hard to find. They require millions of tons of mining to gather enough a usable quantity for one electric vehicle. How does all that mining get accomplished? Certainly not in a CO2 friendly manner. Where does the electricity come from to charge those batteries? Many reasonable people in the energy industry are eager to find a "better oil" but realize that rushing off into hysterical tulip manias is probably doing more harm to the enviroment than just using the 'cheap / easy' oil that we have.
- macawfish 10y ago
  The viable alternatives aren't so simple as replacing one product with another that's just as energy dense. They involve things like biking instead of driving, not making frequent trips across the country, spending less time doing busy work and more time taking care (cooking, mending, gardening, walking, studying, adapting). The global economic norms are predicated on a simplified models of humans, in which we are needy, pathetic little hungry creatures who must be managed and trained, sorted and extracted. But really, we are 8 billion capable, creative individuals who, free of our doubts and demons, could really make the world more livable for ourselves and each other. Do you realize how many capable hands are among us? I see it clearly on a good day. We need to realize it, and I believe we will, but probably not without some fire.
- 7952 10y ago
  I think those claims about total CO2 have been repeatedly debunked in the past. And materials are readily recyclable anyway even if they are energy intensive to, source. But really we are in a transitional state. And the constant search for the "next oil" could have serious opportunity costs.
intended 10y ago
For people who haven't read this article - http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sa... Climate scientists are depressed because of the results they are seeing.
- bamboozled 10y ago
  Wow, this is was a really interesting, albeit sad read. Thanks.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

_red 10y ago

I have a friend who works for Exxon material science division. His goal in life is to find "the next oil", obviously Exxon is willing to hedge its bets and fund some alternative energy research so they can position themselves if a new breakthrough is discovered. Here is the problem: Oil is currently the most energy packed material that humans easily have access to. And its not even really close, wind / solar / etc are not just 40% less efficient, more like orders of magnitude. I think the demonization of oil may be causing more total CO2 than just burning it. A craze starts which convinces everyone to buy electric cars - except those rare earth materials for the batteries are really hard to find. They require millions of tons of mining to gather enough a usable quantity for one electric vehicle. How does all that mining get accomplished? Certainly not in a CO2 friendly manner. Where does the electricity come from to charge those batteries? Many reasonable people in the energy industry are eager to find a "better oil" but realize that rushing off into hysterical tulip manias is probably doing more harm to the enviroment than just using the 'cheap / easy' oil that we have.

macawfish 10y ago
The viable alternatives aren't so simple as replacing one product with another that's just as energy dense. They involve things like biking instead of driving, not making frequent trips across the country, spending less time doing busy work and more time taking care (cooking, mending, gardening, walking, studying, adapting). The global economic norms are predicated on a simplified models of humans, in which we are needy, pathetic little hungry creatures who must be managed and trained, sorted and extracted. But really, we are 8 billion capable, creative individuals who, free of our doubts and demons, could really make the world more livable for ourselves and each other. Do you realize how many capable hands are among us? I see it clearly on a good day. We need to realize it, and I believe we will, but probably not without some fire.
7952 10y ago
I think those claims about total CO2 have been repeatedly debunked in the past. And materials are readily recyclable anyway even if they are energy intensive to, source. But really we are in a transitional state. And the constant search for the "next oil" could have serious opportunity costs.

intended 10y ago

For people who haven't read this article - http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sa... Climate scientists are depressed because of the results they are seeing.

bamboozled 10y ago
Wow, this is was a really interesting, albeit sad read. Thanks.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]