4 ms·

> 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

> 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
  - graeme 8y ago
    We might as wel try though. It's possible that if we had a carbon tax someone might come up with: * very cheap energy * a somewhat effective way to sequester carbon We'd obviously lose a massive amount of energy putting back all the energy we burned but that would be the price of survival. I don't know if this is possible. But we should at least try. Currently our lack of carbon pricing isn't giving us full incentive to try.
    - LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
      Well, here is the thing- our cooperate overlords have created the perfect system to shirk regulations by shifting production to whoever is the most desperat. My money is not on goverments or companys here. My money is on some plague drastically reducing the number of humans capable to produce carbon dioxide. It looks containable now, but contain something like Ebola with millions on the move and the UN-Institutions collapsing under this circumstances. You can not enforce quarantine, if a whole country decides to walk.

mandrake-c-papi 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
- graeme 8y ago
  We might as wel try though. It's possible that if we had a carbon tax someone might come up with: * very cheap energy * a somewhat effective way to sequester carbon We'd obviously lose a massive amount of energy putting back all the energy we burned but that would be the price of survival. I don't know if this is possible. But we should at least try. Currently our lack of carbon pricing isn't giving us full incentive to try.
  - LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
    Well, here is the thing- our cooperate overlords have created the perfect system to shirk regulations by shifting production to whoever is the most desperat. My money is not on goverments or companys here. My money is on some plague drastically reducing the number of humans capable to produce carbon dioxide. It looks containable now, but contain something like Ebola with millions on the move and the UN-Institutions collapsing under this circumstances. You can not enforce quarantine, if a whole country decides to walk.