5 ms·

There is no Planet B

56 points by artur_makly 8y ago

scythe 8y ago
It's very true; any other Solar System body can't sustain a large human population with the lifestyle we've been used to. The rocky bodies are too small: Mars, the largest (Venus doesn't count), has a surface area about equal to the Pacific Ocean in size. Cloud cities on Venus or Jupiter require a level of technology we can barely fathom. And I've got a feeling that living on a space station makes those cages in Hong Kong look comfortable.
fhood 8y ago
So generally with this sort of article I end up making some point about how I believe that the only effective solutions to these sorts of problems are legislative ones. See CFC's and the ozone layer for reference, etc. A reply I often receive, as mentioned in the article, centers around personal freedoms and some sort of economic drag or stagnation that apparently makes the whole thing not worth it, and I have realized that these arguments are an irrelevant distraction from the topic at hand. So here are some bullet points I have come up with. 1. I don't see any argument for how legislative restrictions on carbon could possibly have a more significant economic impact than the displacement and disruption caused by sea level rise. 2. The environment is more important than your ideal of personal freedoms. It just is. This isn't guns, drugs, privacy or free speech. Climate change is a nuclear war scale issue, and should be treated as such. As the article states, it isn't like there is somewhere else to go. 3. If you are opposed legislative solutions to these issues because you don't feel like being inconvenienced, fine. But please just say that, and don't waste time hiding behind irrelevant issues.
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  >I believe that the only effective solutions to these sorts of problems are legislative ones. See CFC's and the ozone layer There's still at least one factory in China using CFC-11, with zero regard to the environmental impact or international stance on use of CFCs.
  - 8bitsrule 8y ago
    Every time we point a finger, there are 3 pointing back at US.
    - linksnapzz 8y ago
      ...BUT WHAT ABOUT (what, exactly?) Please, let's hear about the factories in the US and Europe still using R-12/R-14 with impunity.
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  In my opinion, if we leave the solution to legislatures, most of humanity will be dead in a century. Unless, of course, the legislatures are taken over by techical people who actually understand how dire the threat is. Renewable energy sources were carefully blocked for decades because legislators liked their jobs more than they liked serving the future. OTOH, your point#2 is spot on. And, without an equally proportional response, very soon, there is little chance of staying below 3%. After which, at some point, the millions of frightened, displaced, and dying people will END the rest.
- Carpetsmoker 8y ago
  In these kind of conversation the "personal freedom" line is just a discussion stopper when people don't want to be bothered to actually discus the matter at hand. One person's "freedom" to drive their car to work every day means the particulates from the exhaust fumes enter my lungs. I didn't consent to that. Many people die from it every year. How about my freedom to live life without cancer? The same applies to global warming. What about my freedom to not have my house flooded? Personal freedom is important, but we can't have unlimited amounts of it. Sometimes, your personal freedom unreasonably infringes on other people's freedom. Smoke your lungs out for all I care, but I also want the freedom to live without your smell and cancer. Party until 7am, but don't keep the neighbourhood awake. And ... do what you want, but don't fuck up the planet.
uhtred 8y ago
Sierra Club, why do you refuse to ever mention the one thing we could all do easily that would have a dramatic effect on slowing climate change, i.e. not eating animal products anymore. Because you care more about donations than the actual causes you profess to care so much about.
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  Compared to energy generation that directly produces CO2, if everyone on the planet stopped eating beef today, it would be an insignificant change. It would ever so modestly slow global warming. (Edit: I would note though, that if people gave up beef for chicken you get roughly an 85% reduction per unit of measure of meat! I've personally switched the bulk of my meat consumption to chicken this year without having to drastically change my dietary preferences). A cow averages 70 and 120 kg of methane a year, this gives us a CO2 equivalent (methane is more powerful than CO2) of about 2300 kg per cow per year. There are 1.3bn to 1.5bn cattle on the planet. That's an average of 3.22 Gt CO2-equivalent, we're going to produce nearly 40 Gt of ACTUAL CO2 this year. Sure, transporting/slaughtering/refrigerating the meat adds some actual CO2 production as well for the beef but still, if you add up all methane and CO2 sources I imagine it's less than 3% of global production.
  - 8bitsrule 8y ago
    Compared to electricity generation, a lot of progress is possible in the US ... but too slowly implemented. OTOH, prying people loose from dependencies on their gasoline vehicles (and the transportation of consumer goods over long distances, and the transportation of human bodies by jets) is going to be a long, slow job. From what I'm seeing, they're concerned about climate change ... until they see where that leads... and then the resistance to the inevitable gets at least as fierce as it is over gun-control. The possibility of a democratic solution here -may- have vanished.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jraedisch 8y ago
Kim Stanley Robinson is a great SciFi Writer. "2312" is probably my favorite of his works (the first I read). I enjoyed the hopefulness of the article. Being part of the next decades will be very interesting.

56 points by artur_makly 8y ago

It's very true; any other Solar System body can't sustain a large human population with the lifestyle we've been used to. The rocky bodies are too small: Mars, the largest (Venus doesn't count), has a surface area about equal to the Pacific Ocean in size. Cloud cities on Venus or Jupiter require a level of technology we can barely fathom. And I've got a feeling that living on a space station makes those cages in Hong Kong look comfortable.

fhood 8y ago

So generally with this sort of article I end up making some point about how I believe that the only effective solutions to these sorts of problems are legislative ones. See CFC's and the ozone layer for reference, etc. A reply I often receive, as mentioned in the article, centers around personal freedoms and some sort of economic drag or stagnation that apparently makes the whole thing not worth it, and I have realized that these arguments are an irrelevant distraction from the topic at hand. So here are some bullet points I have come up with. 1. I don't see any argument for how legislative restrictions on carbon could possibly have a more significant economic impact than the displacement and disruption caused by sea level rise. 2. The environment is more important than your ideal of personal freedoms. It just is. This isn't guns, drugs, privacy or free speech. Climate change is a nuclear war scale issue, and should be treated as such. As the article states, it isn't like there is somewhere else to go. 3. If you are opposed legislative solutions to these issues because you don't feel like being inconvenienced, fine. But please just say that, and don't waste time hiding behind irrelevant issues.

ryanmercer 8y ago
>I believe that the only effective solutions to these sorts of problems are legislative ones. See CFC's and the ozone layer There's still at least one factory in China using CFC-11, with zero regard to the environmental impact or international stance on use of CFCs.
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  Every time we point a finger, there are 3 pointing back at US.
  - linksnapzz 8y ago
    ...BUT WHAT ABOUT (what, exactly?) Please, let's hear about the factories in the US and Europe still using R-12/R-14 with impunity.
8bitsrule 8y ago
In my opinion, if we leave the solution to legislatures, most of humanity will be dead in a century. Unless, of course, the legislatures are taken over by techical people who actually understand how dire the threat is. Renewable energy sources were carefully blocked for decades because legislators liked their jobs more than they liked serving the future. OTOH, your point#2 is spot on. And, without an equally proportional response, very soon, there is little chance of staying below 3%. After which, at some point, the millions of frightened, displaced, and dying people will END the rest.
Carpetsmoker 8y ago
In these kind of conversation the "personal freedom" line is just a discussion stopper when people don't want to be bothered to actually discus the matter at hand. One person's "freedom" to drive their car to work every day means the particulates from the exhaust fumes enter my lungs. I didn't consent to that. Many people die from it every year. How about my freedom to live life without cancer? The same applies to global warming. What about my freedom to not have my house flooded? Personal freedom is important, but we can't have unlimited amounts of it. Sometimes, your personal freedom unreasonably infringes on other people's freedom. Smoke your lungs out for all I care, but I also want the freedom to live without your smell and cancer. Party until 7am, but don't keep the neighbourhood awake. And ... do what you want, but don't fuck up the planet.

uhtred 8y ago

Sierra Club, why do you refuse to ever mention the one thing we could all do easily that would have a dramatic effect on slowing climate change, i.e. not eating animal products anymore. Because you care more about donations than the actual causes you profess to care so much about.

ryanmercer 8y ago
Compared to energy generation that directly produces CO2, if everyone on the planet stopped eating beef today, it would be an insignificant change. It would ever so modestly slow global warming. (Edit: I would note though, that if people gave up beef for chicken you get roughly an 85% reduction per unit of measure of meat! I've personally switched the bulk of my meat consumption to chicken this year without having to drastically change my dietary preferences). A cow averages 70 and 120 kg of methane a year, this gives us a CO2 equivalent (methane is more powerful than CO2) of about 2300 kg per cow per year. There are 1.3bn to 1.5bn cattle on the planet. That's an average of 3.22 Gt CO2-equivalent, we're going to produce nearly 40 Gt of ACTUAL CO2 this year. Sure, transporting/slaughtering/refrigerating the meat adds some actual CO2 production as well for the beef but still, if you add up all methane and CO2 sources I imagine it's less than 3% of global production.
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  Compared to electricity generation, a lot of progress is possible in the US ... but too slowly implemented. OTOH, prying people loose from dependencies on their gasoline vehicles (and the transportation of consumer goods over long distances, and the transportation of human bodies by jets) is going to be a long, slow job. From what I'm seeing, they're concerned about climate change ... until they see where that leads... and then the resistance to the inevitable gets at least as fierce as it is over gun-control. The possibility of a democratic solution here -may- have vanished.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jraedisch 8y ago

Kim Stanley Robinson is a great SciFi Writer. "2312" is probably my favorite of his works (the first I read). I enjoyed the hopefulness of the article. Being part of the next decades will be very interesting.