7 ms·

When will we start sacrificing to prevent climate catastrophe? There isn't enough global concern. Especially in the US. Everything else aside no President shoul

When will we start sacrificing to prevent climate catastrophe? There isn't enough global concern. Especially in the US. Everything else aside no President should be able to deny reality.

irrational 8y ago
"We" can start right now. The general populace however is pretty much subsisting at a level where that question wouldn't even be considered for a millisecond.
- jsilence 8y ago
  70% of global farmland is used to produce fodder for beef. A significant share of strong greenhouse gas methane is produced by cattle. You can start today by sacrificing your finger lickin bbq beef eating habit.
interfixus 8y ago
If by 'sacrificing' you mean voluntarily letting go of some materal assets, then not for a long, long time, and probably never. In the older, darker, and more fundamental sense of the word, I shudder to think that the way irrationality is growing, probably soon.
themagician 8y ago
When Manhattan or Miami get hit by two mega storms back to back in consecutive years. When the damage is such that we can’t rebuild fast enough then it will be a wake up call.
- ars 8y ago
  > When the damage is such that we can’t rebuild fast enough Never gonna happen. People are far far far more resilient and capable than that.
  - themagician 8y ago
    It definitely will. Sandy caused so much damage to southern Manhattan that it took 6 months just to get back to functional. Had another storm happened the next year it would have destroyed things still being rebuilt. And once the pumps fail on Miami Beach it’s game over for a while. Hit it twice in a row and who knows what will happen. Miami Beach will likely be the first wealthy city in the US that will have to be abandoned. They’ll build a wall to protect Manhattan and the subway, but no one is building a wall for Miami Beach. And look at Puerto Rico. If it gets hit again this year you might as well just evacuate the island. The power grid is still being repaired as we speak from last year. Another massive storm and certain areas can expect to have no power or running water for years.
- Joeri 8y ago
  Likely it still won’t change pollution attitudes, because these are two distinct domains. One part of government will be implementing disaster recovery strategies like building dikes and relocating people, a wholly different part will still be encouraging dead dino use, ironically because the economy will be in a tough spot and “the damage is already done”. What will change attitudes is cost. The cost of fossil fuels is only going up, the cost of renewables is only going down. They will cross over.
- bitanarch 8y ago
  That is too optimistic a view on humanity. For people to "wake up" from this... they i. Have to be able to reason and select the correct explanation among many possible explanations to why it happened. ii. Have to accept the (correct) explanation that flatly places the blame on themselves, rather than other soothing options. The base case in my mind is really more like inland people would point to the flooded coastal cities (including those along the south - logical consistency doesn't matter) and say it's God's punishment for being liberal. There can be many variations... you can easily invent excuses that don't involve God or politics. But the point is, it has nothing to do with them. That's the perfect kind of explanation for people to move on, because it places no blame on them.
everdev 8y ago
I wonder if there's some game theory at play where people know it's happening but if you can get by sacrificing the least while the majority sacrifices just enough to fight it then you've successfully optimized for minimal effort in a victory condition. I know misinformation is a driving factor for non-believers but I still get stumped why people who believe in climate change are not always environmentally friendly.
- lovich 8y ago
  You're describing something like the tragedy of the commons. We have a shared resource so it's in everyone's personal interest to use as much of it as they possibly can, while trying to get everyone else to use it sustainably
- jl2718 8y ago
  This is what virtue signaling is all about. Magnify your tiny sacrifice so you won’t be asked to do more. It’s hard to calculate your personal global warming impact directly, but luckily economists have found that there is an incredibly reliable 100% correlation between monetary velocity and natural resource usage. So if you want to calculate your impact on global warming, just multiply your spending times your PPP. Spending more on virtue-signaling brands has the opposite effect your going for. Sorry. So if you want to actually do better instead of feel better, just spend less. It’s really that simple.
ars 8y ago
> When will we start sacrificing to prevent climate catastrophe? Never. You want this changed? Figure out other energy sources. Nothing else will work. The reason is that every individual has basically zero effect. So no one is motivated to make any changes. > Everything else aside no President should be able to deny reality. The President is irrelevant. He has very little on-the-ground effect. Maybe some media noise, which maybe might influence some. That's about it. Either other energy sources are cheaper, or they are not. And that's about it. A CO2 tax can't work unless it was implemented globally INCLUDING developing countries. (Which is a non-starter of course.) Because otherwise people will just ship industry and manufacturing elsewhere. So there isn't much the president can do. I guess some subsidies, but there's a limit to how much of that you can do before they cause more harm than good.
- bumholio 8y ago
  The successful phase out of CFCs, despite the fact that no comparable refrigerents were available at the time, shows that political solutions can work, even in the face of adverse economics. The success of Europe in reducing emissions shows that even unilateral solutions have important impact, and they do not mean deindustrialization. Carbon taxes work exceptionally well. The developing world is surprisingly dependent on the west, because that's where their carbon embodying products are sold. They need leadership and soft pressure. The thing that's missing is a united front of developed nations, and the most important piece of that is the US, that's to busy devolving into the middle ages.
  - ars 8y ago
    > The successful phase out of CFCs, despite the fact that no comparable refrigerents were available at the time, shows that political solutions can work, even in the face of adverse economics. It actually shows exactly the opposite: That it only works when technological solutions exist. If there had been no effective replacement for CFC's, we'd still be using them now.
    - bumholio 8y ago
      The replacements were technically and economically inferior. Just like carbon neutral sources of energy. And the phase-out stimulated research for viable substitutes. It's a vicious/virtuous circle, we aren't hostages of an implacable march of science, we are in the driver's seat. If we want to go to the Moon, we go there, and if we decide it's not worth it, the Moon tech does not magically get better over time. So "we don't have the technology alternative" is just code word for "let's do nothing"; if better energy sources were magically available, the economics would simply work by itself and the problem of global warming would disappear. (That's not to say anything politicians think up is possible, but that political and scientific forces go hand in hand in such endeavors)
bumholio 8y ago
People are easy to scare. We will begin taking climate change seriously when we will see wide scale effects that threaten our own future. By that time, the impact on the natural world will be ireversibile and dramatic.
masonic 8y ago
When Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio stop taking separate private jets to climate talks.
DKnoll 8y ago
I don't think there is evidence either way that human sacrifice influences the weather.
- nickserv 8y ago
  More human sacrifice => less people => less pollution => less global warming.
  - jl2718 8y ago
    I think the main problem with this is that we’d have to believe in some kind of god, which is obviously not going to fit the narrative.
xor1 8y ago
We won't. I'll see you all in Western Antarctica. https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/future/images/3/39/%21.jpg https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/future/images/3/39/%21.j...
topmonk 8y ago
I think Scott Adam's has the right idea on this. This is a slow moving disaster, and we can easily defeat those. If and when it gets to a breaking point, humanity will put their attention to the problem and come up with a solution. This will probably mean blocking some of the sun's rays in some way. But, in any case, it's not a disaster that will kill us all. Just make life inconvenient until it gets the proper attention to fix it.
- nickserv 8y ago
  Kill off the entire species, probably not. Kill off a good percentage of us, most likely if nothing is done. Thankfully there are enough people in the world that don't think like Scott Adams, and are trying to do something about it right now, rather than when it's far, far too late. Because it's already too late to avoid major damage, at this point it's about avoiding cataclysmic damage.
  - topmonk 8y ago
    > Kill off the entire species, probably not. Kill off a good percentage of us, most likely if nothing is done. What do you base that assertion on? It sounds chicken-littlish to me.
    - nickserv 8y ago
      Many of the most densely populated areas of the world are coastal areas, and at risk of being completely flooded by sea level rise. Many of the world's best agricultural land is at risk of desertification. What happens when NYC, Miami, LA are under water, and the Midwest is too hot and dry to grow wheat? Will anyone help the US, knowing we did nothing to avert catastrophe? Probably easier to invade Canada...
      - topmonk 8y ago
        How long do you think it will take for our coastal lands to be flooded or our farming lands to become deserts? 10, 20 years? What do you think we'll be doing during that time? Just sitting around? > Will anyone help the US, knowing we did nothing to avert catastrophe? Just to be sure we're on the same page here, you predict we'll do nothing while all those cities start to flood, over the course of years to decades. Then, the rest of the world (who is as guilty as we are of your “sin” of ignoring the issue) will be required to save us from what sounds like damnation, and they will cast us down to suffer our self deserved fate (even though they depend on us as much or more than we do on them)? Oh yes, sounds completely reasonable... /s What really will happen, is if the climate models are correct, then it will become no question to anybody that there are big problems with the climate, and at that point we will have the motivation, and years to decades to solve it. I don't claim to know what the solution will be, but I have the feeling that given all of earth's population working toward a solution can succeed. And this will happen once it can't be denied that it exists (if it will actually be a problem. Yes, models can be wrong)
jl2718 8y ago
Just read the article. Air conditioning. If you’re in an air conditioned building or vehicle, it’s not Trump or Exxon that is destroying the world, it is you. I foresee an underground movement of anti-AC hacktivists shutting down systems much like the anti-TV movement.

When will we start sacrificing to prevent climate catastrophe? There isn't enough global concern. Especially in the US. Everything else aside no President should be able to deny reality.

irrational 8y ago

"We" can start right now. The general populace however is pretty much subsisting at a level where that question wouldn't even be considered for a millisecond.

jsilence 8y ago
70% of global farmland is used to produce fodder for beef. A significant share of strong greenhouse gas methane is produced by cattle. You can start today by sacrificing your finger lickin bbq beef eating habit.

interfixus 8y ago

If by 'sacrificing' you mean voluntarily letting go of some materal assets, then not for a long, long time, and probably never. In the older, darker, and more fundamental sense of the word, I shudder to think that the way irrationality is growing, probably soon.

themagician 8y ago

When Manhattan or Miami get hit by two mega storms back to back in consecutive years. When the damage is such that we can’t rebuild fast enough then it will be a wake up call.

ars 8y ago
> When the damage is such that we can’t rebuild fast enough Never gonna happen. People are far far far more resilient and capable than that.
- themagician 8y ago
  It definitely will. Sandy caused so much damage to southern Manhattan that it took 6 months just to get back to functional. Had another storm happened the next year it would have destroyed things still being rebuilt. And once the pumps fail on Miami Beach it’s game over for a while. Hit it twice in a row and who knows what will happen. Miami Beach will likely be the first wealthy city in the US that will have to be abandoned. They’ll build a wall to protect Manhattan and the subway, but no one is building a wall for Miami Beach. And look at Puerto Rico. If it gets hit again this year you might as well just evacuate the island. The power grid is still being repaired as we speak from last year. Another massive storm and certain areas can expect to have no power or running water for years.
Joeri 8y ago
Likely it still won’t change pollution attitudes, because these are two distinct domains. One part of government will be implementing disaster recovery strategies like building dikes and relocating people, a wholly different part will still be encouraging dead dino use, ironically because the economy will be in a tough spot and “the damage is already done”. What will change attitudes is cost. The cost of fossil fuels is only going up, the cost of renewables is only going down. They will cross over.
bitanarch 8y ago
That is too optimistic a view on humanity. For people to "wake up" from this... they i. Have to be able to reason and select the correct explanation among many possible explanations to why it happened. ii. Have to accept the (correct) explanation that flatly places the blame on themselves, rather than other soothing options. The base case in my mind is really more like inland people would point to the flooded coastal cities (including those along the south - logical consistency doesn't matter) and say it's God's punishment for being liberal. There can be many variations... you can easily invent excuses that don't involve God or politics. But the point is, it has nothing to do with them. That's the perfect kind of explanation for people to move on, because it places no blame on them.

everdev 8y ago

I wonder if there's some game theory at play where people know it's happening but if you can get by sacrificing the least while the majority sacrifices just enough to fight it then you've successfully optimized for minimal effort in a victory condition. I know misinformation is a driving factor for non-believers but I still get stumped why people who believe in climate change are not always environmentally friendly.

lovich 8y ago
You're describing something like the tragedy of the commons. We have a shared resource so it's in everyone's personal interest to use as much of it as they possibly can, while trying to get everyone else to use it sustainably
jl2718 8y ago
This is what virtue signaling is all about. Magnify your tiny sacrifice so you won’t be asked to do more. It’s hard to calculate your personal global warming impact directly, but luckily economists have found that there is an incredibly reliable 100% correlation between monetary velocity and natural resource usage. So if you want to calculate your impact on global warming, just multiply your spending times your PPP. Spending more on virtue-signaling brands has the opposite effect your going for. Sorry. So if you want to actually do better instead of feel better, just spend less. It’s really that simple.

ars 8y ago

> When will we start sacrificing to prevent climate catastrophe? Never. You want this changed? Figure out other energy sources. Nothing else will work. The reason is that every individual has basically zero effect. So no one is motivated to make any changes. > Everything else aside no President should be able to deny reality. The President is irrelevant. He has very little on-the-ground effect. Maybe some media noise, which maybe might influence some. That's about it. Either other energy sources are cheaper, or they are not. And that's about it. A CO2 tax can't work unless it was implemented globally INCLUDING developing countries. (Which is a non-starter of course.) Because otherwise people will just ship industry and manufacturing elsewhere. So there isn't much the president can do. I guess some subsidies, but there's a limit to how much of that you can do before they cause more harm than good.

bumholio 8y ago
The successful phase out of CFCs, despite the fact that no comparable refrigerents were available at the time, shows that political solutions can work, even in the face of adverse economics. The success of Europe in reducing emissions shows that even unilateral solutions have important impact, and they do not mean deindustrialization. Carbon taxes work exceptionally well. The developing world is surprisingly dependent on the west, because that's where their carbon embodying products are sold. They need leadership and soft pressure. The thing that's missing is a united front of developed nations, and the most important piece of that is the US, that's to busy devolving into the middle ages.
- ars 8y ago
  > The successful phase out of CFCs, despite the fact that no comparable refrigerents were available at the time, shows that political solutions can work, even in the face of adverse economics. It actually shows exactly the opposite: That it only works when technological solutions exist. If there had been no effective replacement for CFC's, we'd still be using them now.
  - bumholio 8y ago
    The replacements were technically and economically inferior. Just like carbon neutral sources of energy. And the phase-out stimulated research for viable substitutes. It's a vicious/virtuous circle, we aren't hostages of an implacable march of science, we are in the driver's seat. If we want to go to the Moon, we go there, and if we decide it's not worth it, the Moon tech does not magically get better over time. So "we don't have the technology alternative" is just code word for "let's do nothing"; if better energy sources were magically available, the economics would simply work by itself and the problem of global warming would disappear. (That's not to say anything politicians think up is possible, but that political and scientific forces go hand in hand in such endeavors)

bumholio 8y ago

People are easy to scare. We will begin taking climate change seriously when we will see wide scale effects that threaten our own future. By that time, the impact on the natural world will be ireversibile and dramatic.

masonic 8y ago

When Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio stop taking separate private jets to climate talks.

DKnoll 8y ago

I don't think there is evidence either way that human sacrifice influences the weather.

nickserv 8y ago
More human sacrifice => less people => less pollution => less global warming.
- jl2718 8y ago
  I think the main problem with this is that we’d have to believe in some kind of god, which is obviously not going to fit the narrative.

xor1 8y ago

We won't. I'll see you all in Western Antarctica. https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/future/images/3/39/%21.jpg https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/future/images/3/39/%21.j...

topmonk 8y ago

I think Scott Adam's has the right idea on this. This is a slow moving disaster, and we can easily defeat those. If and when it gets to a breaking point, humanity will put their attention to the problem and come up with a solution. This will probably mean blocking some of the sun's rays in some way. But, in any case, it's not a disaster that will kill us all. Just make life inconvenient until it gets the proper attention to fix it.

nickserv 8y ago
Kill off the entire species, probably not. Kill off a good percentage of us, most likely if nothing is done. Thankfully there are enough people in the world that don't think like Scott Adams, and are trying to do something about it right now, rather than when it's far, far too late. Because it's already too late to avoid major damage, at this point it's about avoiding cataclysmic damage.
- topmonk 8y ago
  > Kill off the entire species, probably not. Kill off a good percentage of us, most likely if nothing is done. What do you base that assertion on? It sounds chicken-littlish to me.
  - nickserv 8y ago
    Many of the most densely populated areas of the world are coastal areas, and at risk of being completely flooded by sea level rise. Many of the world's best agricultural land is at risk of desertification. What happens when NYC, Miami, LA are under water, and the Midwest is too hot and dry to grow wheat? Will anyone help the US, knowing we did nothing to avert catastrophe? Probably easier to invade Canada...
    - topmonk 8y ago
      How long do you think it will take for our coastal lands to be flooded or our farming lands to become deserts? 10, 20 years? What do you think we'll be doing during that time? Just sitting around? > Will anyone help the US, knowing we did nothing to avert catastrophe? Just to be sure we're on the same page here, you predict we'll do nothing while all those cities start to flood, over the course of years to decades. Then, the rest of the world (who is as guilty as we are of your “sin” of ignoring the issue) will be required to save us from what sounds like damnation, and they will cast us down to suffer our self deserved fate (even though they depend on us as much or more than we do on them)? Oh yes, sounds completely reasonable... /s What really will happen, is if the climate models are correct, then it will become no question to anybody that there are big problems with the climate, and at that point we will have the motivation, and years to decades to solve it. I don't claim to know what the solution will be, but I have the feeling that given all of earth's population working toward a solution can succeed. And this will happen once it can't be denied that it exists (if it will actually be a problem. Yes, models can be wrong)

jl2718 8y ago

Just read the article. Air conditioning. If you’re in an air conditioned building or vehicle, it’s not Trump or Exxon that is destroying the world, it is you. I foresee an underground movement of anti-AC hacktivists shutting down systems much like the anti-TV movement.