4 ms·

I have a feeling that one of the biggest blockers to actually doing something about climate change is how easily the conversation gets derailed. Almost everyone

I have a feeling that one of the biggest blockers to actually doing something about climate change is how easily the conversation gets derailed. Almost everyone agrees on clean energy, but once you get into specifics people lose their cohesion(people are pro- or anti-nuclear power, or for or against wind energy(birds, off-peak power, etc.)). I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't. I have heard for years, and at various times expounded myself, of the virtues of nuclear. But the public in most industrialized countries cannot stand the thought of it near them, so looking at a more balanced approach makes sense.

btrettel 8y ago
> I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't. I agree that a mixture is necessary. With that being said, the examples you give are entirely technological, which I think is likely insufficient to solve climate change. I think we need a combination of technological, psychological, and political approaches. For example, as a cyclist, I'm continually disappointed by the reasons people tell me they'd never be able to adopt cycling for transportation. I'm told that they wouldn't be able to do X, Y, or Z, or that they'd feel very restricted, etc. But when I tell them that most cyclists do X no problem and they could rent a car if they wanted to do Y and Z (which are done infrequently), they aren't convinced. It seems to me that many people face a false dilemma here because they see cycling as far more difficult than it actually would be. If you design your life to make cycling possible, it's perfectly acceptable, even preferable in my case because I want the exercise. Most people pick where they live based at least in part on their driving commute, so it would only be fair to do the same for a cycling commute. Population reduction is another area which you could mention as part of a combination of solutions. In my experience those conversations are often counterproductive. But it seems clear to me that population can't keep increasing if we only have one planet, and we might prefer to have less people with a higher quality of life. (My views on population ethics are not fully formed for what it's worth.) My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal.
- mandrake-c-papi 8y ago
  > My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal. I hate this attitude. You may be doing everything possible as an individual to prevent further climate change, but the majority of people I hear spouting this attitude do not. It's based on the premise that there will actually be some sort of "new normal" that is worth surviving for. The ongoing impact of our actions is indeterminable - we could end up with something so inconceivably bad that all your adaptation efforts are pointless, or that you simply cannot live a life of any value when compared to the early 21st century. Also, it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You assume that the impact of climate change are survivable, apparent by the fact that you want to focus on adaptation, but this attitude ignores the fact that there are billions of other people on the planet. Maybe climate change can be survived by us in our situation with all our first world advantages, but there are millions, possibly billions, who don't have that choice. Focus on adaptation for all you like, but please don't forget that prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late.
  - tim333 8y ago
    It seems over negative as well. There are a couple of simple things that may help with CO2: 1) Exponential improvements with wind solar and batteries. They are all getting like 50% better / year. Project that and you can fix things 2) Re the confusion over different approaches, we have a solution and its called the market. Just have a global $50/ton tax/credit on emissions/sequestration. Politically hard but otherwise would likely fix rising CO2.
  - Bendingo 8y ago
    > it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You're projecting. Parent's attitude is completely rational. > prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late Not sure exactly what you think it's not too late for, however it is delusional to believe we will stabilise, let alone reduce, greenhouse gas levels.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Last time I checked we breezed past the symbolic point-of-no-return at 400 ppm CO2... so it kinda is too late. We can try some damage prevention if you feel like it.
hndamien 8y ago
Nuclear was a fantastic solution, then we wasted a lot of time, and they take a long time to come online, and renewables got a lot better. If it makes sense then go for it, but I doubt it makes sense any more.
- ergothus 8y ago
  Not an expert, but I was convinced to switch from "nuke is a bad idea" to "nuke asap is a less bad idea than any other current option" when I was pointed to the ridiculously messy situation we have and the transmission problem 1) the situation now is that, as longterm as nuke waste is, it pales in comparison to the long-term of coal and natural gas extraction, transport, and burning. 2) renewables are great and where we want to go...but the tech is not at a place where we can get 100% yet and we have no efficient way to transmit power long distances nor store power, so we can't have solar in a desert in Arizona power Fargo Minnesota. Why do you think nuke power likely doesn't make sense anymore?
  - hndamien 8y ago
    A nuclear power plant will take 10 years to come online, and will last for about 50 years. You then have the transmission problems, toxic waste problem and risks. I'm willing to largely ignore the toxic waste and risks because they are addressing a far bigger problem. So let's call them negligible (even though they aren't) and I still think nuclear today is a hard case to make. Getting these approved are large capital expenditures of around $9 billion that come online all at once. Then you have the transmission problems as mentioned. I have not done the math but it seems that it would be faster, and more politically tenable to use decentralised solar virtual power plants and wind such that individual households become largely responsible for their own power and act in concert as the grid supplier and battery. The main thing preventing this seems to be capital investment, regulation and political will.

btrettel 8y ago

> I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't. I agree that a mixture is necessary. With that being said, the examples you give are entirely technological, which I think is likely insufficient to solve climate change. I think we need a combination of technological, psychological, and political approaches. For example, as a cyclist, I'm continually disappointed by the reasons people tell me they'd never be able to adopt cycling for transportation. I'm told that they wouldn't be able to do X, Y, or Z, or that they'd feel very restricted, etc. But when I tell them that most cyclists do X no problem and they could rent a car if they wanted to do Y and Z (which are done infrequently), they aren't convinced. It seems to me that many people face a false dilemma here because they see cycling as far more difficult than it actually would be. If you design your life to make cycling possible, it's perfectly acceptable, even preferable in my case because I want the exercise. Most people pick where they live based at least in part on their driving commute, so it would only be fair to do the same for a cycling commute. Population reduction is another area which you could mention as part of a combination of solutions. In my experience those conversations are often counterproductive. But it seems clear to me that population can't keep increasing if we only have one planet, and we might prefer to have less people with a higher quality of life. (My views on population ethics are not fully formed for what it's worth.) My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal.

mandrake-c-papi 8y ago
> My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal. I hate this attitude. You may be doing everything possible as an individual to prevent further climate change, but the majority of people I hear spouting this attitude do not. It's based on the premise that there will actually be some sort of "new normal" that is worth surviving for. The ongoing impact of our actions is indeterminable - we could end up with something so inconceivably bad that all your adaptation efforts are pointless, or that you simply cannot live a life of any value when compared to the early 21st century. Also, it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You assume that the impact of climate change are survivable, apparent by the fact that you want to focus on adaptation, but this attitude ignores the fact that there are billions of other people on the planet. Maybe climate change can be survived by us in our situation with all our first world advantages, but there are millions, possibly billions, who don't have that choice. Focus on adaptation for all you like, but please don't forget that prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late.
- tim333 8y ago
  It seems over negative as well. There are a couple of simple things that may help with CO2: 1) Exponential improvements with wind solar and batteries. They are all getting like 50% better / year. Project that and you can fix things 2) Re the confusion over different approaches, we have a solution and its called the market. Just have a global $50/ton tax/credit on emissions/sequestration. Politically hard but otherwise would likely fix rising CO2.
- Bendingo 8y ago
  > it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You're projecting. Parent's attitude is completely rational. > prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late Not sure exactly what you think it's not too late for, however it is delusional to believe we will stabilise, let alone reduce, greenhouse gas levels.
- zaarn 8y ago
  Last time I checked we breezed past the symbolic point-of-no-return at 400 ppm CO2... so it kinda is too late. We can try some damage prevention if you feel like it.

hndamien 8y ago

Nuclear was a fantastic solution, then we wasted a lot of time, and they take a long time to come online, and renewables got a lot better. If it makes sense then go for it, but I doubt it makes sense any more.

ergothus 8y ago
Not an expert, but I was convinced to switch from "nuke is a bad idea" to "nuke asap is a less bad idea than any other current option" when I was pointed to the ridiculously messy situation we have and the transmission problem 1) the situation now is that, as longterm as nuke waste is, it pales in comparison to the long-term of coal and natural gas extraction, transport, and burning. 2) renewables are great and where we want to go...but the tech is not at a place where we can get 100% yet and we have no efficient way to transmit power long distances nor store power, so we can't have solar in a desert in Arizona power Fargo Minnesota. Why do you think nuke power likely doesn't make sense anymore?
- hndamien 8y ago
  A nuclear power plant will take 10 years to come online, and will last for about 50 years. You then have the transmission problems, toxic waste problem and risks. I'm willing to largely ignore the toxic waste and risks because they are addressing a far bigger problem. So let's call them negligible (even though they aren't) and I still think nuclear today is a hard case to make. Getting these approved are large capital expenditures of around $9 billion that come online all at once. Then you have the transmission problems as mentioned. I have not done the math but it seems that it would be faster, and more politically tenable to use decentralised solar virtual power plants and wind such that individual households become largely responsible for their own power and act in concert as the grid supplier and battery. The main thing preventing this seems to be capital investment, regulation and political will.