6 ms·

There was a set of articles in the newspaper yesterday in this aftermath of a month of tropical heat in temperate Europe. Climate scientists are now more inclin

There was a set of articles in the newspaper yesterday in this aftermath of a month of tropical heat in temperate Europe. Climate scientists are now more inclined to publicly link this extreme weather type (and many other structural changes in the weather) to climate change. Good, because for a lot of people it stopped being some abstract thing. But a painful observation made in the op/ed pages is that the general feeling is that this is just how it is; we can't do anything about it. That sense of being able to tackle problems and shape the world and society in a way that benefits us — it is gone. Many people just submit to the notion that they can't do anything about it. Usually because 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries (consume less, buy less, stop flying half way around the world for a holiday twice a year, reduce your energy footprint). Climate change is an inconvenient truth, and a lot of folk seem quite content to just give up — consequences be damned, or rather, ignored. Some flee into convenient falsehoods. Claiming that, yes, climate change is happening, but we don't have any influence on that, and did you know that [insert denialist trope]. A lot of people do continue to do what they reasonably can — balancing their modern comfortable lifestyle with genuine attempts at affecting change. Even if it means just lowering their own personal footprint and voting for the politicians are at least willing to explore solutions. But it's not enough, and that risks making one feel that all efforts are pointless. We're clever and resourceful enough as a race to deal with this problem. We're also too self-centred (on a national, tribal, and personal level) to actually do more than take the absolute bare minimum of measures; and even those attempts are watered down time and time again by the leaders of the world's nations. Because either they don't understand the problem, or because they do and don't care. It's all so very sad.

agentultra 8y ago
But we can do things even they're small things. If enough people do small things together we can make a change. And if we keep making small changes over time maybe our attitudes, habits, and social norms will change too. Commit to two days a week as a vegetarian (if you normally consume meat). If everyone did that it would be huge. Industrial agriculture is a large source of pollution that affects not only the health of our ecosystems but our health directly as well. Little things make a difference.
- ataturk 8y ago
  How about I just start killing 1-2 people every week? Wouldn't that help more?
kristopolous 8y ago
What needs to happen to create political will is to connect the dots and not object to the verbaige being scientifically impure. For instance, every time the weather is on and there's a terrible storm, they need to say "because we haven't taken the steps to curb CO2, this disaster is far more terrible then it would have been" or "that's the 30th day over 100 degrees this year. Our voluntary inaction on climate change and our refusal to do anything is causing more dramatically hot days each year" or "the migration problem is due partially to food and resource scarcity because we have chosen to not care about climate change" or "these terrible fires are record breaking because we are refusing to switch to renewables". We could even make it a budget item, earmarking the disaster response, increased disease, increase emergency room visits and all the rest as the taxpayer burden of not doing anything. It needs to be visceral, direct, repeated, and a daily experience. The lines clearly need to be drawn connecting the dots. If this was said, every single time it's partially true in non-scientific casual language that the general public understands, things will start happening
- liamzebedee 8y ago
  I recently watched Google's internal leaked documentary, The Selfish Ledger [1], I think it has a really interesting perspective on this. Halfway through, the user is able to make a choice between two competing products, based on their preference (let's say it's reducing CO2). This is actionable because the supply chain of the product is available through public, transparent ledgers. This is a faint idea, but what if we could achieve better collective leverage / incentive alignment through something like this? We already have brand boycott campaigns based on similar notions of environmental awareness, but I think there's a finite energy for being aware of these. On an individual level, we have small economic influence. Collectively, we [can] have leverage. If we are effortlessly aware of both, there is that "visceral" daily experience where the lines are drawn between our basic split-second purchases (meat vs. vegan mince) and their impacts. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUSZfEBTwRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUSZfEBTwRc
hutzlibu 8y ago
"We're clever and resourceful enough as a race to deal with this problem." In theory. But in reality the bigger challenge is to actually work together as humanity for a common goal. And given our history the current amount of cooperation is allready impressive - so it might be a good challenge to unite humanity in general. I am quite optimistic in the long run. I mean, the internet is barely 20 years old for the common people ... it just takes time to grow together, when we have a history (and probably genetic heritage) of caring only about the immediate things around us. And the more drastic the droughts etc. get ... the more people see it as a problem and act. And yes, the great barrier riff and the polar bears might die out, but there are worse things, that can and probably will also happen. But we as humanity will survive, maybe on a slightly different planet, though. So I don't think it makes sense to fall into depression, when the expectations were simply unrealistic. I mean, sure, I would like to stop coal and fracking rather tomorrow and get power from solar plants in the desert ... but we simply are not there yet, as the challenge is big and not only technically.
- ux-app 8y ago
  > And given our history the current amount of cooperation is already impressive People cooperate fantastically when there is economic gain to be had. We're fucking atrocious at cooperating if one (or both) sides are set to lose out (as is the case wrt reduced consumption). Cooperating when all/most parties are better off isn't impressive. Real cooperation would be something like the Saudis announcing over night that "you know what, climate change sucks so we're going to stop pulling oil out of the desert regardless of how much it hurts us". How likely is that?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    That's not cooperation, that's self-sacrifice. Cooperation would be the Saudis announcing they wouldn't pull more oil, and in exchange the other countries announcing they would compensate for part of those lost revenues.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
Sol- 8y ago
At this point the likely adverse effects are so obvious you would think that the elite of the leading polluters such as the US and China would act even if only for their own self-interest. They won't get away unharmed if the climate changes - large parts of their respective countries may desertify and 1930s Dust Bowls could be common. What's the backup plan, for instance for the US? Invade Canada where climate change may make arable land accessible? It's not the 1950s anymore where people knew about climate change but only speculated that it will only become relevant some time in the far future. The effects occur now and will change the world by the end of the 21st century, even humans with their inability to comprehend long-term consequences should grasp this now. I really don't get how - at this point, with our current knowledge - the world is still just doing nothing.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > What's the backup plan, for instance for the US? - Reduce benefits to increase number of people who are unable to afford food - Reduce availability of healthcare to encourage people to die early - Blame immigrants and round them up into camps - Fire on demonstrators if people complain
- bb101 8y ago
  I get the feeling it's more generational than geographical. People who are making the decisions today won't be around to experience their consequences.
- theyinwhy 8y ago
  China is exactly doing that, investing huge sums in solar to improve air quality. US on the other hand dropped out of the climate deal.
bumholio 8y ago
> 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries But that's just not true, that's the line of the denialists. Doing something about it means reducing the carbon output by taxing those who produce it. The move can be fiscally neutral, i.e no net revenue for the government by decreasing other taxes. We have the technological means to reach a 4t/year-person emission level without sacrificing quality of life. That's a sustainable global level the planet can accept. In 15-20 years we can roll that technology out globally and stem global climate change by 2050. The problem we have is a political one: countries, political establishments, incumbent industry and whole constituencies are dependent on carbon emissions and would be drastically disadvantaged by such a move, hence they are fighting against it tooth and nail.
Scarblac 8y ago
We can do something about this at government level, and especially with many governments working together. Individuals can just make their own lives poorer with nothing to show for it. Governments are for large scale action where individual action is meaningless -- the army, protection against national disasters like floods, and action against global warming. Unfortunately the government of the largest polluter is hopelessly corrupt.
- splittingTimes 8y ago
  Exactly, government level action is needed. If you or I use energy saving or regular light bulbs does not tip the scale. A steel or aluminum Mill, a car factory, a Google data center, a chips factory, these matter as each consumes the energy equivalent to a small town.
  - theyinwhy 8y ago
    If it is law and everyone needs to use e.g. LEDs (see Europe, although it is still legal to sell std bulbs) even what you personally do has an impact. Without government level action ... difficult.
ux-app 8y ago
> Usually because 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries Yes and the sooner we accept that this is a part of human nature the better. Fighting what is clearly innate is futile. We have not evolved the ability to ever be satisfied. We a stupid apes who want more, more, more at all costs. We need to accept this reality instead of shaking our heads at one another in faux reproach (probably over dinner, made from 20 ingredients shipped from all across the globe). The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. If we can work out how to make it so that people make gobs of money by reversing climate change then things will be peachy. If we can't figure out a way to turn a buck from fixing climate change then we are all, collectively, fucked.
- titzer 8y ago
  > The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. If we can work out how to make it so that people make gobs of money by reversing climate change then things will be peachy. > If we can't figure out a way to turn a buck from fixing climate change then we are all, collectively, fucked. Well, that old world is fucked. But if you look at the lifestyles of, e.g. American Indians, they lasted 10,000 years in North America in a much more sustainable fashion. Granted, it wasn't perfect. Humans caused the extinction of megafauna in North America as elsewhere, but organized agriculture never really took off there, and because of that, that continent was relatively unspoiled until Columbus.
  - aidos 8y ago
    I’m unsure of the connection you’re making in this context. Are you suggesting that the solution is to live more sustainably once most of modern society is destroyed?
    - titzer 8y ago
      I honestly don't know what the "solution" is. But it is clear from our current trajectory and the willful blindness of the vast majority of humanity, not to mention the politically motivated disinformation campaigns, that we're looking at inevitable, drastic climate change that will almost certainly destroy modern society, yeah...unfortunately.
titzer 8y ago
> We're clever and resourceful enough as a race to deal with this problem. I think the most depressing part about this whole situation is that I agree with most of what you wrote, up until this sentence. We like to believe that we are clever and resourceful, but the facts on the ground are that we are not, in fact, clever and resourceful. At least not in this period of history. In this period of history we are demonstrably fucking dumb, and have destroyed ourselves. The next phase of human existence absolutely will require cleverness and resourcefulness, for it will be borne out in a dying world where ecosystems are unraveling, political systems have failed, and the vast majority of humanity has...sadly, died. > It's all so very sad. If the word sad could be stretch to cover the enormity of 10s of billions of human lifetimes of tragic short-sightedness giving rise to literally trillions upon trillions of organisms being snuffed out of existence, then yeah.
_ph_ 8y ago
The very sad thing is, that a lot of progress could be made without any personal sacrifice. Switching electricity production from coal to wind and solar doesn't really involve personal sacrifice. Long term, it should be even way cheaper for the consumer. So why is there so much resistance to an energy change? Almost the same with cars. Elecrical cars are a thing. And yes, while electric cars are different from ICE vehicles, this is actually a good thing. Why would people line up for Teslas, if they didn't provide the better driving experience? Of course, prices have to come down and so they will with larger production numbers. But switching from ICE to electric might be a noticable switch, but hardly a personal sacrifice either. We have the ability to reduce our cabon footprint by 90% by just throwing existing technology at the problem. I fail to see why we shouldn't do that.
- vixen99 8y ago
  'Switching electricity production from coal to wind and solar doesn't really involve personal sacrifice.' This is glib assertion. You might explain how the economics of this would be accomplished country by country. Earlier this year the UK was without significant wind power for nine days. Well, in absence of fossil fuel, that would indeed be personal sacrifice - Old Testament style.
  - _ph_ 8y ago
    No one would argue for having no electricity in times of low wind and solar. The short term solution would be to use natural gas power plants to fill the gaps. If they ran only in those situations, the 90% of CO2 reduction could still be achieved. Of course, we need to expand storage solutions and with internationally coupled grids, those times become even shorter, as the weather variations tend to even out.
- bb101 8y ago
  The devil is in the details. We can produce the energy but don't have the battery technology to store it beyond a certain timeframe, e.g. efficiently storing the solar energy from summer for use in winter. Lithium ion batteries have about 600 0-100% cycles of life in them. What happens at a plant when their cycles are used up? Energy analyst Gail Tverberg discussed these issues on a Featured Voices podcast: https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/113631/gail-tverberg-coming-energy-depression https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/113631/gail-tverberg-...
KnightOfWords 8y ago
> Usually because 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries. There are a lot of easy win-wins when it comes to lowering our carbon footprints. Eating more vegetables has health benefits. More home working can improve quality of life, reduce pollution and congestion. Less street lighting improves sleep quality. Something people can do is lobby their employers and representatives to point these things out.
growlist 8y ago
Anything I do to change my lifestyle will be utterly swamped by global population growth, but forcing people to not breed is unfashionable.

agentultra 8y ago

But we can do things even they're small things. If enough people do small things together we can make a change. And if we keep making small changes over time maybe our attitudes, habits, and social norms will change too. Commit to two days a week as a vegetarian (if you normally consume meat). If everyone did that it would be huge. Industrial agriculture is a large source of pollution that affects not only the health of our ecosystems but our health directly as well. Little things make a difference.

ataturk 8y ago
How about I just start killing 1-2 people every week? Wouldn't that help more?

kristopolous 8y ago

What needs to happen to create political will is to connect the dots and not object to the verbaige being scientifically impure. For instance, every time the weather is on and there's a terrible storm, they need to say "because we haven't taken the steps to curb CO2, this disaster is far more terrible then it would have been" or "that's the 30th day over 100 degrees this year. Our voluntary inaction on climate change and our refusal to do anything is causing more dramatically hot days each year" or "the migration problem is due partially to food and resource scarcity because we have chosen to not care about climate change" or "these terrible fires are record breaking because we are refusing to switch to renewables". We could even make it a budget item, earmarking the disaster response, increased disease, increase emergency room visits and all the rest as the taxpayer burden of not doing anything. It needs to be visceral, direct, repeated, and a daily experience. The lines clearly need to be drawn connecting the dots. If this was said, every single time it's partially true in non-scientific casual language that the general public understands, things will start happening

liamzebedee 8y ago
I recently watched Google's internal leaked documentary, The Selfish Ledger [1], I think it has a really interesting perspective on this. Halfway through, the user is able to make a choice between two competing products, based on their preference (let's say it's reducing CO2). This is actionable because the supply chain of the product is available through public, transparent ledgers. This is a faint idea, but what if we could achieve better collective leverage / incentive alignment through something like this? We already have brand boycott campaigns based on similar notions of environmental awareness, but I think there's a finite energy for being aware of these. On an individual level, we have small economic influence. Collectively, we [can] have leverage. If we are effortlessly aware of both, there is that "visceral" daily experience where the lines are drawn between our basic split-second purchases (meat vs. vegan mince) and their impacts. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUSZfEBTwRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUSZfEBTwRc

hutzlibu 8y ago

"We're clever and resourceful enough as a race to deal with this problem." In theory. But in reality the bigger challenge is to actually work together as humanity for a common goal. And given our history the current amount of cooperation is allready impressive - so it might be a good challenge to unite humanity in general. I am quite optimistic in the long run. I mean, the internet is barely 20 years old for the common people ... it just takes time to grow together, when we have a history (and probably genetic heritage) of caring only about the immediate things around us. And the more drastic the droughts etc. get ... the more people see it as a problem and act. And yes, the great barrier riff and the polar bears might die out, but there are worse things, that can and probably will also happen. But we as humanity will survive, maybe on a slightly different planet, though. So I don't think it makes sense to fall into depression, when the expectations were simply unrealistic. I mean, sure, I would like to stop coal and fracking rather tomorrow and get power from solar plants in the desert ... but we simply are not there yet, as the challenge is big and not only technically.

ux-app 8y ago
> And given our history the current amount of cooperation is already impressive People cooperate fantastically when there is economic gain to be had. We're fucking atrocious at cooperating if one (or both) sides are set to lose out (as is the case wrt reduced consumption). Cooperating when all/most parties are better off isn't impressive. Real cooperation would be something like the Saudis announcing over night that "you know what, climate change sucks so we're going to stop pulling oil out of the desert regardless of how much it hurts us". How likely is that?
- icebraining 8y ago
  That's not cooperation, that's self-sacrifice. Cooperation would be the Saudis announcing they wouldn't pull more oil, and in exchange the other countries announcing they would compensate for part of those lost revenues.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago

Sol- 8y ago

At this point the likely adverse effects are so obvious you would think that the elite of the leading polluters such as the US and China would act even if only for their own self-interest. They won't get away unharmed if the climate changes - large parts of their respective countries may desertify and 1930s Dust Bowls could be common. What's the backup plan, for instance for the US? Invade Canada where climate change may make arable land accessible? It's not the 1950s anymore where people knew about climate change but only speculated that it will only become relevant some time in the far future. The effects occur now and will change the world by the end of the 21st century, even humans with their inability to comprehend long-term consequences should grasp this now. I really don't get how - at this point, with our current knowledge - the world is still just doing nothing.

pjc50 8y ago
> What's the backup plan, for instance for the US? - Reduce benefits to increase number of people who are unable to afford food - Reduce availability of healthcare to encourage people to die early - Blame immigrants and round them up into camps - Fire on demonstrators if people complain
bb101 8y ago
I get the feeling it's more generational than geographical. People who are making the decisions today won't be around to experience their consequences.
theyinwhy 8y ago
China is exactly doing that, investing huge sums in solar to improve air quality. US on the other hand dropped out of the climate deal.

bumholio 8y ago

> 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries But that's just not true, that's the line of the denialists. Doing something about it means reducing the carbon output by taxing those who produce it. The move can be fiscally neutral, i.e no net revenue for the government by decreasing other taxes. We have the technological means to reach a 4t/year-person emission level without sacrificing quality of life. That's a sustainable global level the planet can accept. In 15-20 years we can roll that technology out globally and stem global climate change by 2050. The problem we have is a political one: countries, political establishments, incumbent industry and whole constituencies are dependent on carbon emissions and would be drastically disadvantaged by such a move, hence they are fighting against it tooth and nail.

Scarblac 8y ago

We can do something about this at government level, and especially with many governments working together. Individuals can just make their own lives poorer with nothing to show for it. Governments are for large scale action where individual action is meaningless -- the army, protection against national disasters like floods, and action against global warming. Unfortunately the government of the largest polluter is hopelessly corrupt.

splittingTimes 8y ago
Exactly, government level action is needed. If you or I use energy saving or regular light bulbs does not tip the scale. A steel or aluminum Mill, a car factory, a Google data center, a chips factory, these matter as each consumes the energy equivalent to a small town.
- theyinwhy 8y ago
  If it is law and everyone needs to use e.g. LEDs (see Europe, although it is still legal to sell std bulbs) even what you personally do has an impact. Without government level action ... difficult.

ux-app 8y ago

> Usually because 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries Yes and the sooner we accept that this is a part of human nature the better. Fighting what is clearly innate is futile. We have not evolved the ability to ever be satisfied. We a stupid apes who want more, more, more at all costs. We need to accept this reality instead of shaking our heads at one another in faux reproach (probably over dinner, made from 20 ingredients shipped from all across the globe). The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. If we can work out how to make it so that people make gobs of money by reversing climate change then things will be peachy. If we can't figure out a way to turn a buck from fixing climate change then we are all, collectively, fucked.

titzer 8y ago
> The only way to make actions against climate change a reality is to make it profitable. If we can work out how to make it so that people make gobs of money by reversing climate change then things will be peachy. > If we can't figure out a way to turn a buck from fixing climate change then we are all, collectively, fucked. Well, that old world is fucked. But if you look at the lifestyles of, e.g. American Indians, they lasted 10,000 years in North America in a much more sustainable fashion. Granted, it wasn't perfect. Humans caused the extinction of megafauna in North America as elsewhere, but organized agriculture never really took off there, and because of that, that continent was relatively unspoiled until Columbus.
- aidos 8y ago
  I’m unsure of the connection you’re making in this context. Are you suggesting that the solution is to live more sustainably once most of modern society is destroyed?
  - titzer 8y ago
    I honestly don't know what the "solution" is. But it is clear from our current trajectory and the willful blindness of the vast majority of humanity, not to mention the politically motivated disinformation campaigns, that we're looking at inevitable, drastic climate change that will almost certainly destroy modern society, yeah...unfortunately.

titzer 8y ago

> We're clever and resourceful enough as a race to deal with this problem. I think the most depressing part about this whole situation is that I agree with most of what you wrote, up until this sentence. We like to believe that we are clever and resourceful, but the facts on the ground are that we are not, in fact, clever and resourceful. At least not in this period of history. In this period of history we are demonstrably fucking dumb, and have destroyed ourselves. The next phase of human existence absolutely will require cleverness and resourcefulness, for it will be borne out in a dying world where ecosystems are unraveling, political systems have failed, and the vast majority of humanity has...sadly, died. > It's all so very sad. If the word sad could be stretch to cover the enormity of 10s of billions of human lifetimes of tragic short-sightedness giving rise to literally trillions upon trillions of organisms being snuffed out of existence, then yeah.

_ph_ 8y ago

The very sad thing is, that a lot of progress could be made without any personal sacrifice. Switching electricity production from coal to wind and solar doesn't really involve personal sacrifice. Long term, it should be even way cheaper for the consumer. So why is there so much resistance to an energy change? Almost the same with cars. Elecrical cars are a thing. And yes, while electric cars are different from ICE vehicles, this is actually a good thing. Why would people line up for Teslas, if they didn't provide the better driving experience? Of course, prices have to come down and so they will with larger production numbers. But switching from ICE to electric might be a noticable switch, but hardly a personal sacrifice either. We have the ability to reduce our cabon footprint by 90% by just throwing existing technology at the problem. I fail to see why we shouldn't do that.

vixen99 8y ago
'Switching electricity production from coal to wind and solar doesn't really involve personal sacrifice.' This is glib assertion. You might explain how the economics of this would be accomplished country by country. Earlier this year the UK was without significant wind power for nine days. Well, in absence of fossil fuel, that would indeed be personal sacrifice - Old Testament style.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  No one would argue for having no electricity in times of low wind and solar. The short term solution would be to use natural gas power plants to fill the gaps. If they ran only in those situations, the 90% of CO2 reduction could still be achieved. Of course, we need to expand storage solutions and with internationally coupled grids, those times become even shorter, as the weather variations tend to even out.
bb101 8y ago
The devil is in the details. We can produce the energy but don't have the battery technology to store it beyond a certain timeframe, e.g. efficiently storing the solar energy from summer for use in winter. Lithium ion batteries have about 600 0-100% cycles of life in them. What happens at a plant when their cycles are used up? Energy analyst Gail Tverberg discussed these issues on a Featured Voices podcast: https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/113631/gail-tverberg-coming-energy-depression https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/113631/gail-tverberg-...

KnightOfWords 8y ago

> Usually because 'doing something about it' on a personal level means sacrificing luxuries. There are a lot of easy win-wins when it comes to lowering our carbon footprints. Eating more vegetables has health benefits. More home working can improve quality of life, reduce pollution and congestion. Less street lighting improves sleep quality. Something people can do is lobby their employers and representatives to point these things out.

growlist 8y ago

Anything I do to change my lifestyle will be utterly swamped by global population growth, but forcing people to not breed is unfashionable.