6 ms·

So zero political solutions here? Just a list of technological aspects of a solution? How can people not know that the problem here is getting people to do som

So zero political solutions here? Just a list of technological aspects of a solution? How can people not know that the problem here is getting people to do something, it is definitely not that we don't know what to do which is a minor problem in comparison. What about a group who have starving children and will clear-cut a forest to feed them no matter what agreements are in place? How much violence is used to enforce this plan and how is it organized? How are these projects funded, where does the money come from and what is done with those who are powerful and won't cooperate? It is hard enough to get international cooperation now, and as climate related refugee problems multiply exponentially it will not get easier. Technocrats are not saving us here.

colordrops 9y ago
Doesn't it seem though that politics is a deadlock, with nations playing a game of chicken that has no winner? It's a case of the tragedy of the commons. No power broker is going to sacrifice their economy or political backers enough to make a difference, as there would always be someone else with a more short term view take advantage of their temporary weakness. It seems that there is no feasible solution other than technical, however unlikely a technical solution is.
- yulaow 9y ago
  The problem is that the economical background of our society is based on exploiting all resources and pushing the limits of the society itself (both with high reproduction rates and in mass production of goods). If we want to change the climate situation, we first need to change the whole economic system and related political measures.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    I agree with you, but my point is that is impossible, because of said power brokers not willing to risk their power.
    - evanlivingston 9y ago
      If history relied on those in power giving up their power, rather than people taking power away from them, we would be living in a very different world. Political vs. technological is a false dichotomy. There are many other dimensions to the world. Personally, I think we need a monumental social breakthrough akin to the enlightenment to solve climate change.
      - colordrops 9y ago
        But people don't rebel until some force was clearly threatening their survival. If people rebel only when their immediate survival is threatened by global warming, it will already be too late.
  - guscost 9y ago
    Speaking more as an engineer than as a contrarian here: If that's your plan, you're going to fail at it.
    - freshhawk 9y ago
      That's definitely what Kings used to say. And chieftains of hunter/gatherer tribes before them.
  - dane-pgp 9y ago
    When you say "our society is based on ... high reproduction rates", which society are you talking about, and which reproduction rates? Currently most of humanity has less than replacement level of fertility: http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 Are you saying that the economy is failing because of low reproduction rates?
- lumberjack 9y ago
  The Paris Agreement was an attempt at fixing that problem. I think it's still the way forward.
  - sgc 9y ago
    No it wasn't. It was an attempt to start thinking about the problem. Everyone knows it is completely insufficient. I agree that we need it, even dearly, but we do need to focus on creating easier and more commercially advantageous solutions to reduce the amount of force (political or otherwise) required to implement an effective solution. Otherwise, frankly, forget it. People are going to be kicking and screaming against it and we just don't have the time for their bs. So studies like these are also insufficient, but in my opinion one of the more important aspects of moving forward with just getting this done rather than talking about it.
    - melling 9y ago
      The Drawdown looks like it’s trying to help the policy makers on how to effectively reduce CO2. Different countries are making different decisions that work for them. I’m not sure why someone is complaining about this book. It seems like it would quite helpful. The Paris Agreement, for example, lets countries decide what’s best for them. For instance, according to the site, onshore wind turbines appear to be one of the better solutions for generating electricity. 84.6 GIGATONS REDUCED CO2 $1.23 TRILLION NET IMPLEMENTATION COST $7.43 TRILLION NET OPERATIONAL SAVINGS
- freshhawk 9y ago
  You are right, but only if you discount the more extreme solutions to those tragedy of the commons/power broker problems. There is a historically effective solution to those problems, the one we all hate to think about, that has a high likelihood of failure, causes massive amounts of suffering and has multi-generation length unintended consequences: violence.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    As I mentioned in another comment, by the time it is clear to the common person that their immediate suffering is due to climate change that could have been prevented by political means, it will have been too late. Mass uprisings typically do not overthrow governments until immediate survival is threatened.
    - freshhawk 9y ago
      Oh definitely, realistically it's not going to happen, certainly not in time. I was treating that more as a hypothetical.
dlwdlw 9y ago
I have a pet theory that there is some self indulgent delusion in not recognizing the real issue in order to preemptively take the high ground for an "I told you so." In many multiplayer games for example, I've seen many support or healer character be the most toxic. By playing the non-fun helper healer, he or she takes the high ground to blame the rest of the team, oblivious that the toxicity is destroying the real thing that matters. I sense something similar in some developers I work with and some in this proposal as well. Which isn't to say that technical experts giving technical advice and political experts giving political advice isn't good. It's just a similarity I feel.
- im3w1l 9y ago
  Counter theory: People who really really want to win play less-fun more-important characters. EDIT: And then when they don't win they get upset.
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    And are aware that they are more serious and have put more thought into their ideas. So they are much more likely to say "I told you so" because, often, they literally did.
awinder 9y ago
Climate refugees have a large shot at flipping the cost / benefit ratio here. If we can get someone to enthusiastically explain we need to solve this problem by paying labor in OH, PA etc to work together with scientists and businesses right now. Or else we are gonna pay relocating a bunch of people, paying for wars, and generally just wasting a ton of bad money. It’s a problem with solutions that could really unite a bunch of people who are really divided right now, and history is calling for someone to step up and seize it
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  All serious estimates I've seen suggest dealing with climate change is much cheaper than ignoring it (this Drawdown book agrees, and suggest 70 Trillion in benefits on a 20 Trillion investment). I wouldn't be surprised if climate migration was included in those costs, though I guess in terms of human death and misery translated into monetary terms, rather than "ooh scary immigrants". It's kind of weird how that has been successfully kept out of the conversation. Reminds me of all the headlines I read, even from sympathetic sources about the "high cost" of single payer healthcare, when again, serious estimates suggest it's cheaper overall.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
This is a political solution. This provides lists of actions that countries would probably want to do anyway, and provides estimates of carbon savings. When trying to meet international treaties for reducing carbon emissions the countries now have a long list of positive actions they can take to make their countries stronger, cleaner and wealthier while meeting their goals.
tim333 9y ago
Political arguing about CO2 and warming has been going on for 20 years or so and the atmospheric CO2 levels keep rising. If there is going to be a fix it will probably have a big tech aspect like solar + batteries becoming really cheap.

colordrops 9y ago

Doesn't it seem though that politics is a deadlock, with nations playing a game of chicken that has no winner? It's a case of the tragedy of the commons. No power broker is going to sacrifice their economy or political backers enough to make a difference, as there would always be someone else with a more short term view take advantage of their temporary weakness. It seems that there is no feasible solution other than technical, however unlikely a technical solution is.

yulaow 9y ago
The problem is that the economical background of our society is based on exploiting all resources and pushing the limits of the society itself (both with high reproduction rates and in mass production of goods). If we want to change the climate situation, we first need to change the whole economic system and related political measures.
- colordrops 9y ago
  I agree with you, but my point is that is impossible, because of said power brokers not willing to risk their power.
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    If history relied on those in power giving up their power, rather than people taking power away from them, we would be living in a very different world. Political vs. technological is a false dichotomy. There are many other dimensions to the world. Personally, I think we need a monumental social breakthrough akin to the enlightenment to solve climate change.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      But people don't rebel until some force was clearly threatening their survival. If people rebel only when their immediate survival is threatened by global warming, it will already be too late.
- guscost 9y ago
  Speaking more as an engineer than as a contrarian here: If that's your plan, you're going to fail at it.
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    That's definitely what Kings used to say. And chieftains of hunter/gatherer tribes before them.
- dane-pgp 9y ago
  When you say "our society is based on ... high reproduction rates", which society are you talking about, and which reproduction rates? Currently most of humanity has less than replacement level of fertility: http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 Are you saying that the economy is failing because of low reproduction rates?
lumberjack 9y ago
The Paris Agreement was an attempt at fixing that problem. I think it's still the way forward.
- sgc 9y ago
  No it wasn't. It was an attempt to start thinking about the problem. Everyone knows it is completely insufficient. I agree that we need it, even dearly, but we do need to focus on creating easier and more commercially advantageous solutions to reduce the amount of force (political or otherwise) required to implement an effective solution. Otherwise, frankly, forget it. People are going to be kicking and screaming against it and we just don't have the time for their bs. So studies like these are also insufficient, but in my opinion one of the more important aspects of moving forward with just getting this done rather than talking about it.
  - melling 9y ago
    The Drawdown looks like it’s trying to help the policy makers on how to effectively reduce CO2. Different countries are making different decisions that work for them. I’m not sure why someone is complaining about this book. It seems like it would quite helpful. The Paris Agreement, for example, lets countries decide what’s best for them. For instance, according to the site, onshore wind turbines appear to be one of the better solutions for generating electricity. 84.6 GIGATONS REDUCED CO2 $1.23 TRILLION NET IMPLEMENTATION COST $7.43 TRILLION NET OPERATIONAL SAVINGS
freshhawk 9y ago
You are right, but only if you discount the more extreme solutions to those tragedy of the commons/power broker problems. There is a historically effective solution to those problems, the one we all hate to think about, that has a high likelihood of failure, causes massive amounts of suffering and has multi-generation length unintended consequences: violence.
- colordrops 9y ago
  As I mentioned in another comment, by the time it is clear to the common person that their immediate suffering is due to climate change that could have been prevented by political means, it will have been too late. Mass uprisings typically do not overthrow governments until immediate survival is threatened.
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    Oh definitely, realistically it's not going to happen, certainly not in time. I was treating that more as a hypothetical.

dlwdlw 9y ago

I have a pet theory that there is some self indulgent delusion in not recognizing the real issue in order to preemptively take the high ground for an "I told you so." In many multiplayer games for example, I've seen many support or healer character be the most toxic. By playing the non-fun helper healer, he or she takes the high ground to blame the rest of the team, oblivious that the toxicity is destroying the real thing that matters. I sense something similar in some developers I work with and some in this proposal as well. Which isn't to say that technical experts giving technical advice and political experts giving political advice isn't good. It's just a similarity I feel.

im3w1l 9y ago
Counter theory: People who really really want to win play less-fun more-important characters. EDIT: And then when they don't win they get upset.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  And are aware that they are more serious and have put more thought into their ideas. So they are much more likely to say "I told you so" because, often, they literally did.

awinder 9y ago

Climate refugees have a large shot at flipping the cost / benefit ratio here. If we can get someone to enthusiastically explain we need to solve this problem by paying labor in OH, PA etc to work together with scientists and businesses right now. Or else we are gonna pay relocating a bunch of people, paying for wars, and generally just wasting a ton of bad money. It’s a problem with solutions that could really unite a bunch of people who are really divided right now, and history is calling for someone to step up and seize it

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
All serious estimates I've seen suggest dealing with climate change is much cheaper than ignoring it (this Drawdown book agrees, and suggest 70 Trillion in benefits on a 20 Trillion investment). I wouldn't be surprised if climate migration was included in those costs, though I guess in terms of human death and misery translated into monetary terms, rather than "ooh scary immigrants". It's kind of weird how that has been successfully kept out of the conversation. Reminds me of all the headlines I read, even from sympathetic sources about the "high cost" of single payer healthcare, when again, serious estimates suggest it's cheaper overall.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

This is a political solution. This provides lists of actions that countries would probably want to do anyway, and provides estimates of carbon savings. When trying to meet international treaties for reducing carbon emissions the countries now have a long list of positive actions they can take to make their countries stronger, cleaner and wealthier while meeting their goals.

tim333 9y ago

Political arguing about CO2 and warming has been going on for 20 years or so and the atmospheric CO2 levels keep rising. If there is going to be a fix it will probably have a big tech aspect like solar + batteries becoming really cheap.