4 ms·

> "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels." Climate change is a problem of

> "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels." Climate change is a problem of grave concern but isn't doomsaying a hyperbole? Most countries plan to make transportation fully electric by 2040. But even without that, the cost of green energy is going down every year. The moment—which might be forthcoming in a few years—when owning a fossil fuel vehicle becomes an exorbitant deal, people will switch in droves.

StavrosK 9y ago
And it will still be too late. It's already too late. That's the point of the article.
- anvandare 9y ago
  Like being in a car going 60 mph and there's a cliff 100 feet away... But we're not talking about braking, we're arguing about by how much we should take our foot off the gas pedal.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    That's a great analogy.
gremlinsinc 9y ago
It's not hyperbole when it's an absolute... we've passed a point where we can't come back from without some MAJOR scientific breakthroughs -- think a huge megastructure like a dyson sphere that controls how much 'heat' hits the earth and acts as a thermometer basically... Or something that can filter all air in the entire world for carbon and remove it 100%... Even then we'll need to figure out a way to rebuild the arctic and antarctica so the permafrost doesn't escape--the gas in the permafrost will unleash a huge cycle of warming that will be hard to stop once it starts.
- ghthor 9y ago
  Wouldn't a large forest act like a carbon filter? Something we could easily start with our current level of technology.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    Forests can be carbon sinks, but they'll need water and sunlight, as well as fertile soils.
afpx 9y ago
Could be; we will see. But, let’s say we get past this, and in a few decades or hundred years, a large asteroid (or similarly existential imminent threat) appears. I surely hope that Humanity doesn’t opt, again, to assume that the market will solve it. [That would be a good comedy skit though.]
netsharc 9y ago
Targets in 2040 or 2050 make me laugh, for one it's just politicians making statements to make some people feel good, and for another, in 20 years it'll be a bit late.
- gepi79 9y ago
  Targets for 2040 and 2050 are required. The problem is what targets will be determined for 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050. Several Trillions of dollars have been wasted just to finance war in the Middle East. Support of the fossil fuel industry and wars and military and waste of time and money and lack of technological investment is the shame and inexcusable guilt of politicians and the democratic majority worldwide for the last 50 years.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    > Targets for 2040 and 2050 are required. Unless politicians of 2030 decide it's 2050 and 2060. This is one generation of politicians making commitments the next couple generations of politicians will have to honor.
adrianN 9y ago
If we want to have any chance of limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees we would need to stop emitting any carbon dioxide at all a lot sooner than that.[1] I'm really pessimistic that we'll manage to do that. [1] http://trillionthtonne.org/ http://trillionthtonne.org/
- PeterisP 9y ago
  We won't limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees, and we won't stop emitting any carbon dioxide any time soon, that's not likely to happen. The question is how do we adapt to living in a warmer world, and what actions we might take, say, 30 years later when we'll have actually moved away from fossil fuels, to reduce the damage further on. While it'd be preferable to take a large action now instead of much, much larger corrective actions in the future; the former is so extremely unlikely that we should plan for the latter.
zaarn 9y ago
That would have been great 20 or 30 years ago. As the article mentions, even if we went zero emission right in this instant, it is unlikely that the feedback loop we have started will stop (some models predict an ice age or a delay as the heat exchange between equator and poles stops)
chumali 9y ago
>But even without that, the cost of green energy is going down every year. The moment—which might be forthcoming in a few years—when owning a fossil fuel vehicle becomes an exorbitant deal, people will switch in droves. This is one case where the market based approach simply cannot deliver. The objectives of continued growth and reduced emissions cannot be reconciled. Energy consumption is directly tied to global consumption and hence growth. [1] The fallacy that increasing energy efficiency will somehow allow us to mitigate climate change whilst maintaining the growth rates we're accustomed to has no empirical or theoretical basis. Classical economics failed to recognise that energy is a factor of production akin to labour and land. Once we account for this growth becomes endogenous and there is no longer any reason to assume that perpetual growth is sustainable. [2] As long as economic growth remains the primary goal any efficiency gains (manifesting as lower energy prices) will simply be cannibalised through increased consumption. [3] Simply put, we are past the point where 'sustainable growth' is a possibility; as long as growth remains paramount and economic incentives do not change then the choice between growth and sustainability has already been made. The cake is disappearing slice by slice. [1] http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Economic_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
PeterStuer 9y ago
"Green enery'. Realize that much of it is just a greenwash. Example: in my country there is now an assault on every last tree. Why? Well, 'biomass' lobbies succeeded in having 'wood-pellets' declared as 'renewable' (they aren't, even appart from the ludicrous lag in the process still >30% is 'wasted' in the cycle). This means that in order to avoid a European fine tied to the government reaching a certain level of renewables by 2020, they are now strip clearing all public land and turning into wood-pellets for burning. The minister in charge has even admitted it is ludicrous, but he will not change the policy as he does not want to risk the EU fine.

StavrosK 9y ago

And it will still be too late. It's already too late. That's the point of the article.

anvandare 9y ago
Like being in a car going 60 mph and there's a cliff 100 feet away... But we're not talking about braking, we're arguing about by how much we should take our foot off the gas pedal.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  That's a great analogy.

gremlinsinc 9y ago

It's not hyperbole when it's an absolute... we've passed a point where we can't come back from without some MAJOR scientific breakthroughs -- think a huge megastructure like a dyson sphere that controls how much 'heat' hits the earth and acts as a thermometer basically... Or something that can filter all air in the entire world for carbon and remove it 100%... Even then we'll need to figure out a way to rebuild the arctic and antarctica so the permafrost doesn't escape--the gas in the permafrost will unleash a huge cycle of warming that will be hard to stop once it starts.

ghthor 9y ago
Wouldn't a large forest act like a carbon filter? Something we could easily start with our current level of technology.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Forests can be carbon sinks, but they'll need water and sunlight, as well as fertile soils.

afpx 9y ago

Could be; we will see. But, let’s say we get past this, and in a few decades or hundred years, a large asteroid (or similarly existential imminent threat) appears. I surely hope that Humanity doesn’t opt, again, to assume that the market will solve it. [That would be a good comedy skit though.]

netsharc 9y ago

Targets in 2040 or 2050 make me laugh, for one it's just politicians making statements to make some people feel good, and for another, in 20 years it'll be a bit late.

gepi79 9y ago
Targets for 2040 and 2050 are required. The problem is what targets will be determined for 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050. Several Trillions of dollars have been wasted just to finance war in the Middle East. Support of the fossil fuel industry and wars and military and waste of time and money and lack of technological investment is the shame and inexcusable guilt of politicians and the democratic majority worldwide for the last 50 years.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  > Targets for 2040 and 2050 are required. Unless politicians of 2030 decide it's 2050 and 2060. This is one generation of politicians making commitments the next couple generations of politicians will have to honor.

adrianN 9y ago

If we want to have any chance of limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees we would need to stop emitting any carbon dioxide at all a lot sooner than that.[1] I'm really pessimistic that we'll manage to do that. [1] http://trillionthtonne.org/ http://trillionthtonne.org/

PeterisP 9y ago
We won't limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees, and we won't stop emitting any carbon dioxide any time soon, that's not likely to happen. The question is how do we adapt to living in a warmer world, and what actions we might take, say, 30 years later when we'll have actually moved away from fossil fuels, to reduce the damage further on. While it'd be preferable to take a large action now instead of much, much larger corrective actions in the future; the former is so extremely unlikely that we should plan for the latter.

zaarn 9y ago

That would have been great 20 or 30 years ago. As the article mentions, even if we went zero emission right in this instant, it is unlikely that the feedback loop we have started will stop (some models predict an ice age or a delay as the heat exchange between equator and poles stops)

chumali 9y ago

>But even without that, the cost of green energy is going down every year. The moment—which might be forthcoming in a few years—when owning a fossil fuel vehicle becomes an exorbitant deal, people will switch in droves. This is one case where the market based approach simply cannot deliver. The objectives of continued growth and reduced emissions cannot be reconciled. Energy consumption is directly tied to global consumption and hence growth. [1] The fallacy that increasing energy efficiency will somehow allow us to mitigate climate change whilst maintaining the growth rates we're accustomed to has no empirical or theoretical basis. Classical economics failed to recognise that energy is a factor of production akin to labour and land. Once we account for this growth becomes endogenous and there is no longer any reason to assume that perpetual growth is sustainable. [2] As long as economic growth remains the primary goal any efficiency gains (manifesting as lower energy prices) will simply be cannibalised through increased consumption. [3] Simply put, we are past the point where 'sustainable growth' is a possibility; as long as growth remains paramount and economic incentives do not change then the choice between growth and sustainability has already been made. The cake is disappearing slice by slice. [1] http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-consumption-are-inseparable.html http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Economic_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

PeterStuer 9y ago

"Green enery'. Realize that much of it is just a greenwash. Example: in my country there is now an assault on every last tree. Why? Well, 'biomass' lobbies succeeded in having 'wood-pellets' declared as 'renewable' (they aren't, even appart from the ludicrous lag in the process still >30% is 'wasted' in the cycle). This means that in order to avoid a European fine tied to the government reaching a certain level of renewables by 2020, they are now strip clearing all public land and turning into wood-pellets for burning. The minister in charge has even admitted it is ludicrous, but he will not change the policy as he does not want to risk the EU fine.