5 ms·

I love reading about clever ideas like this, but at the same time, I'm leery of the notion that we can fix the climate at the last minute, a narrative that stem

I love reading about clever ideas like this, but at the same time, I'm leery of the notion that we can fix the climate at the last minute, a narrative that stems from the late capitalist imperative to innovate. We don't need to innovate to find a solution; we need to act.

harryh 8y ago
Of course we need to innovate. Billions of people aren't going to voluntarily go back to living in terrible poverty.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  You don't need to live in terrible poverty to reduce your carbon footprint.
  - harryh 8y ago
    I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the 2 billion people in China and India.
CM30 8y ago
There is no other way. Any attempt to get people to 'change' their lifestyle now is ineffective, and any attempt to force them to will just be met with a coup/failed government. At the end of the day, technology is the only thing that will fix climate issues. Anything else is simply not possible.
- vkou 8y ago
  And if we don't develop the technology in time?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rebuilder 8y ago
    We're in trouble, then. I have to agree that technology has to play a big part in mitigating and surviving climate change. I don't believe we have the social means to change our consumption patterns enough. Right now, to meet the approx. 1.5 tons of CO2 per capita long-term target implied by the (inadequate) Paris accords, you basically have to be homeless in the west. Just your share of infrastructure puts you over the limit. I don't believe for a moment we can, as a society, voluntarily reduce our quality of life to the point that our emissions would be sufficiently reduced. Any political system that tries that will collapse, because that's what happens when economic growth stops. And if your society is in upheaval, you're not going to be solving climate change, except possibly through self-destruction. So yes, we definitely need to act, but that action needs to include some very impressive technological change, because without it, we're all but guaranteed to fail.
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      All of the (as you say, inadequate) climate accord plans already assume that we are going to develop magical carbon-sequestration technology and deploy it on a global scale by 2050 or so.[0] So basically, it's even worse than you might think. Not only do we have to cut our emissions dramatically, but we also have to invent some technology for negative emissions. [0] https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos...
  - JulianMorrison 8y ago
    We die. Obviously.
ars 8y ago
> we need to act What actions are you suggesting? And keep in mind that any action that reduces standard of living will cause deaths, and ultimately more emissions because people won't have spare more for environmental causes. So bearing that in mind, what actions are you suggesting?
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Tax carbon, use the money to fund a UBI. The UBI increases standard of living as much or more than a carbon tax in the same amount reduces it. The carbon tax itself also promotes living closer to work over having a longer commute, which also improves standard of living by reducing the amount of time unproductively spent commuting. (We could also reduce carbon/commuting further by constructing more high density urban housing.) Reducing oil consumption reduces resources sent to antagonistic OPEC member states, leaving those resources here to improve standard of living as well. This is before we get to the benefits of having less climate change.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  What are you suggesting? Doing nothing is catastrophic: https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 I dispute that "any action that reduces standard of living will cause deaths" -- there are all sorts of ways my life could be made worse that won't kill me.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  any action that reduces standard of living will cause deaths Not really, the US has much higher GDP per capita than Europe but lower life expectancy.
empath75 8y ago
We’re not going to act. I’ve come around to accepting that. We need to plan on what we do if we don’t reduce carbon emissions because it’s too late for that already. Even if everyone is driving electric cars that’s just going to lower the price of gas and people will put it to other uses.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Even if everyone is driving electric cars that’s just going to lower the price of gas and people will put it to other uses. a) There is a floor to oil prices. No one will produce it for less than the cost of production, no matter how low demand falls. b) It's possible to raise the price arbitrarily using a carbon tax, which becomes much more politically expedient once prices are already lower and fewer voters are relying on oil for their commute.
DennisP 8y ago
It's already the last minute. It's time for ideas like these.

harryh 8y ago

Of course we need to innovate. Billions of people aren't going to voluntarily go back to living in terrible poverty.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
You don't need to live in terrible poverty to reduce your carbon footprint.
- harryh 8y ago
  I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the 2 billion people in China and India.

CM30 8y ago

There is no other way. Any attempt to get people to 'change' their lifestyle now is ineffective, and any attempt to force them to will just be met with a coup/failed government. At the end of the day, technology is the only thing that will fix climate issues. Anything else is simply not possible.

vkou 8y ago
And if we don't develop the technology in time?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rebuilder 8y ago
  We're in trouble, then. I have to agree that technology has to play a big part in mitigating and surviving climate change. I don't believe we have the social means to change our consumption patterns enough. Right now, to meet the approx. 1.5 tons of CO2 per capita long-term target implied by the (inadequate) Paris accords, you basically have to be homeless in the west. Just your share of infrastructure puts you over the limit. I don't believe for a moment we can, as a society, voluntarily reduce our quality of life to the point that our emissions would be sufficiently reduced. Any political system that tries that will collapse, because that's what happens when economic growth stops. And if your society is in upheaval, you're not going to be solving climate change, except possibly through self-destruction. So yes, we definitely need to act, but that action needs to include some very impressive technological change, because without it, we're all but guaranteed to fail.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    All of the (as you say, inadequate) climate accord plans already assume that we are going to develop magical carbon-sequestration technology and deploy it on a global scale by 2050 or so.[0] So basically, it's even worse than you might think. Not only do we have to cut our emissions dramatically, but we also have to invent some technology for negative emissions. [0] https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos...
- JulianMorrison 8y ago
  We die. Obviously.

ars 8y ago

> we need to act What actions are you suggesting? And keep in mind that any action that reduces standard of living will cause deaths, and ultimately more emissions because people won't have spare more for environmental causes. So bearing that in mind, what actions are you suggesting?

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
Tax carbon, use the money to fund a UBI. The UBI increases standard of living as much or more than a carbon tax in the same amount reduces it. The carbon tax itself also promotes living closer to work over having a longer commute, which also improves standard of living by reducing the amount of time unproductively spent commuting. (We could also reduce carbon/commuting further by constructing more high density urban housing.) Reducing oil consumption reduces resources sent to antagonistic OPEC member states, leaving those resources here to improve standard of living as well. This is before we get to the benefits of having less climate change.
ForHackernews 8y ago
What are you suggesting? Doing nothing is catastrophic: https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 I dispute that "any action that reduces standard of living will cause deaths" -- there are all sorts of ways my life could be made worse that won't kill me.
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
any action that reduces standard of living will cause deaths Not really, the US has much higher GDP per capita than Europe but lower life expectancy.

empath75 8y ago

We’re not going to act. I’ve come around to accepting that. We need to plan on what we do if we don’t reduce carbon emissions because it’s too late for that already. Even if everyone is driving electric cars that’s just going to lower the price of gas and people will put it to other uses.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Even if everyone is driving electric cars that’s just going to lower the price of gas and people will put it to other uses. a) There is a floor to oil prices. No one will produce it for less than the cost of production, no matter how low demand falls. b) It's possible to raise the price arbitrarily using a carbon tax, which becomes much more politically expedient once prices are already lower and fewer voters are relying on oil for their commute.

DennisP 8y ago

It's already the last minute. It's time for ideas like these.