3 ms·

>This kind of problem just doesn't trigger an existential threat response where we throw everything we have at it. You're right, I think it's because the conse

by Joe-Z 8y ago

>This kind of problem just doesn't trigger an existential threat response where we throw everything we have at it. You're right, I think it's because the consequences are too abstract / too far in the future. I still think it's fair to expect governments to take the lead on this though. Of course, on an individual basis, people can choose to reduce their consumption. But we are social animals and seeing everyone else around you indulging in pleasures while you 'take the high road' just won't work on a societal level. Governments used to have this kind of authority / determination. What comes to mind is banning lead from gasoline (something which was also met with considerable opposition from industry). EDIT: Of course having lead in your gasoline won't give anyone much pleasure. We are dealing with a lot harder problem here. Still, many people are yearning for a change in the right direction. It just takes leaders with courage and determination (and a buttload of money presumably).

tux1968 8y ago
> But we are social animals and seeing everyone else around you indulging in pleasures while you 'take the high road' just won't work on a societal level. For sure. But it's just humans running the government too, with the same short sighted and social biases as the rest of us. Expecting them to overcome our shared human nature might be wishful thinking.
rapnie 8y ago
> Governments used to have this kind of authority / determination. I think the root cause of our climate change problems (and environmental destruction in general) goes deeper, and though it could be addressed by governments taking firm action, this will not happen: I think our economic systems are failing us, and are the real root cause. And this is a problem that is still not recognized fully, or actively denied. And it is a problem that governments and politicians are increasingly less able to address, as their power wanes in favour of corporate interests. For that last point this Guardian article 'The demise of the Nation State' is a revealing and interesting (though disturbing) read: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-n...
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  > I think our economic systems are failing us, and are the real root cause. I think so too. Just look at carbon capture and storage (CCS). It's proven and mature technology at this point, it's been done at industrial scale and for up to a decade (in the North Sea). The total operating cost is approx. $80/ton and falling for a coal powerplant, meaning that the level of CCS that's projected for the 1.5 degree scenario in 2060 (10 gigatonnes CO2 captured per year) will cost less than $0.8 trillion annually worldwide with today's technology. For comparison, the global electricity market alone, which would be using around half of that CCS capacity, was $3.1 trillion in 2015. This means you could fund all the CCS we need for less than a 13% increase in electricity prices.
  - rapnie 8y ago
    I agree that CCS might be one of the tools in our toolbox that is required to reach our goals in CO2 reduction. But at the same time it is a measure that implicitly comes with the attitude "we don't have to change our ways (much), just put all that CO2 back in the ground", and therefore CCS is an appealing solution for industry. But addressing the problem in our economic systems goes much further, and entails foregoing the idea of 'infinite growth' and the overconsumption that comes with it. In terms of climate change it means most focus should go into reduction of the CO2 we produce in the first place.
    - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
      I would counter that CCS is a hard requirement. We're not going to stop producing cement, steel or aluminium anytime this century. Those are just a few manufacturing processes that have significant inherent CO2 emissions that won't go away even if 100% of worldwide electricity comes from renewables. The emissions come from the chemical processes themselves. These cases will undisputably need CCS. For power generation, we have basically two solutions for large-scale baseload generation until fusion comes along: nuclear, and coal/gas with CCS. I would prefer we go with nuclear, but environmentalists seem unable to make the right choice between tuberculosis and lung cancer. On the other hand, I definitely agree that 'infinite growth' is a huge problem. Even 'sustainable growth' is problematic in itself. We need to change to a zero-growth worldwide economy, which has extremely far reaching consequences. For instance, it means we can no longer rely on growth making it easy to pay off debts, neither as people nor as nation states. Interest rates all become a bit weird. It would mean the entire economic system needs to be changed.

by Joe-Z 8y ago

tux1968 8y ago

> But we are social animals and seeing everyone else around you indulging in pleasures while you 'take the high road' just won't work on a societal level. For sure. But it's just humans running the government too, with the same short sighted and social biases as the rest of us. Expecting them to overcome our shared human nature might be wishful thinking.

rapnie 8y ago

> Governments used to have this kind of authority / determination. I think the root cause of our climate change problems (and environmental destruction in general) goes deeper, and though it could be addressed by governments taking firm action, this will not happen: I think our economic systems are failing us, and are the real root cause. And this is a problem that is still not recognized fully, or actively denied. And it is a problem that governments and politicians are increasingly less able to address, as their power wanes in favour of corporate interests. For that last point this Guardian article 'The demise of the Nation State' is a revealing and interesting (though disturbing) read: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-n...

semi-extrinsic 8y ago
> I think our economic systems are failing us, and are the real root cause. I think so too. Just look at carbon capture and storage (CCS). It's proven and mature technology at this point, it's been done at industrial scale and for up to a decade (in the North Sea). The total operating cost is approx. $80/ton and falling for a coal powerplant, meaning that the level of CCS that's projected for the 1.5 degree scenario in 2060 (10 gigatonnes CO2 captured per year) will cost less than $0.8 trillion annually worldwide with today's technology. For comparison, the global electricity market alone, which would be using around half of that CCS capacity, was $3.1 trillion in 2015. This means you could fund all the CCS we need for less than a 13% increase in electricity prices.
- rapnie 8y ago
  I agree that CCS might be one of the tools in our toolbox that is required to reach our goals in CO2 reduction. But at the same time it is a measure that implicitly comes with the attitude "we don't have to change our ways (much), just put all that CO2 back in the ground", and therefore CCS is an appealing solution for industry. But addressing the problem in our economic systems goes much further, and entails foregoing the idea of 'infinite growth' and the overconsumption that comes with it. In terms of climate change it means most focus should go into reduction of the CO2 we produce in the first place.
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    I would counter that CCS is a hard requirement. We're not going to stop producing cement, steel or aluminium anytime this century. Those are just a few manufacturing processes that have significant inherent CO2 emissions that won't go away even if 100% of worldwide electricity comes from renewables. The emissions come from the chemical processes themselves. These cases will undisputably need CCS. For power generation, we have basically two solutions for large-scale baseload generation until fusion comes along: nuclear, and coal/gas with CCS. I would prefer we go with nuclear, but environmentalists seem unable to make the right choice between tuberculosis and lung cancer. On the other hand, I definitely agree that 'infinite growth' is a huge problem. Even 'sustainable growth' is problematic in itself. We need to change to a zero-growth worldwide economy, which has extremely far reaching consequences. For instance, it means we can no longer rely on growth making it easy to pay off debts, neither as people nor as nation states. Interest rates all become a bit weird. It would mean the entire economic system needs to be changed.