9 ms·

At what point do we start seriously discussing solutions? We could right now ground the aircraft, ban meat production, institute a steep tax on gasoline and ele

At what point do we start seriously discussing solutions? We could right now ground the aircraft, ban meat production, institute a steep tax on gasoline and electricity, stop the ships, ban deep sea fishing, etc. The problem is these solutions are political suicide in a democracy and people will never accept them, but barring magic carbon capture technology that can scale is there really an alternative besides 'shut it all down' (besides plan on starving to death or dying in a resource war)?

crispinb 8y ago
If you're talking about climate change as the immediate salient issue, in practical terms (ie. taking politics into account), after three decades of deliberate delay, it's too late. If you're talking about the underlying cause (the ideology of "economic growth"), a solution to that is even more distant. Superstitions die hard, as we've seen with the more venerable religions.
CalRobert 8y ago
When it's far too late. Specifically, when comparatively wealthy people start feeling the effects. So far, most don't. It's just beginning to happen, as property owners in Miami beach realize they own a stranded asset, but for most wealthy people it's still a non-event.
- doctorpangloss 8y ago
  I don't know dude, an earthquake in California and Washington is going to create many more victims and destroy many more houses than the slowly rising waters in Florida. Even if I agree with your general sentiment that people will "wake up" when it's far too late, I really doubt the reasons will be financial in a world where everyone is economically poor and accounting rich.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Sure, but earthquakes are unrelated. When someone goes bankrupt because they're $500k underwater on a Miami Beach condo or a Sierra Nevada cabin (fire risk) they'll look for someone to blame.
belorn 8y ago
Why should car owners just get a steep tax when owning a car is more polluting that eating meat? The closest to serious discussing that actually follow the model of worst offender having to pay the most is the concept of carbon tax that is strictly based on how much carbon get released, which would then cover everything from aircraft, meat, cars, ships and everything else.
- makerofspoons 8y ago
  I had no real reason, I was just throwing ideas out. A carbon tax by the amount produced is the most fair. The point would be to make all polluting activities uneconomical, but there is still the problem that in a democracy this will be deeply unpopular because the rich will likely be able to continue to afford some amount of pollution.
  - belorn 8y ago
    A way to get around that (which I have heard some countries is currently testing) is to return the tax evenly to the population, so that money flow from those that pollute to those that don't. If the rich continue to afford some amount of pollution then it basically become redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and the harsher the tax is the more money flows in that direction.
    - biztos 8y ago
      Isn't there a risk that in order to, say, stop nonessential air travel, you have to set the tax so high that people can't have spinach anymore? (Leaving aside the question of how much economic downside there is to stopping, say, nonessential air travel.)
      - belorn 8y ago
        Not a major risk. If you tax based on carbon emissions, the food that don't produce a lot of emissions will become more attractive. If spinach is a high pollution food group then people will switch over to other food groups that has smaller footprint and thus cheaper price. There are crops like seaweed that can even capture carbon, which if we allow for the carbon tax to go negative could maybe become so economical attractive as to change food culture. Food choice is already 100% based on culture and if pollution would be the deciding factor then our plates would look very different from today. Arguing that generating pollution through spinach is more morally right than nonessential air travel will only lead emotional debates over what is essential to one person vs what isn't to someone else (specially for products that not that clean cut). Pollution is bad, and given the threat to the planet it seems like the greater good is better served without trying to distinguish between a moral pollution and a immoral one. I would be a miss if I did not mention that what is even worse than nonessential air travel is nonessential car travel in cities that has every kind of mass transit imaginable. We could turn most cities into a place where cars are not allowed and the most anyone would have to walk would be a few minutes. I would be that would translate to more carbon saved than the combined nonessential air travel, save more lives with cleaner air, reduce noise and increase the average health of people living there. Not going to politically happen but one could always dream.
newnewpdro 8y ago
We've been seriously discussing solutions. The real question is at what point do people start actually applying what they learn in these serious discussions in how they live their own lives? I don't think it ever happens on a large enough scale to matter before it's too late to avert massive loss of life and global conflict. Things will naturally sort itself out, the population collapses, lots of lives suffer, but life goes on.
- crispinb 8y ago
  > The real question is at what point do people start actually applying what they learn in these serious discussions in how they live their own lives? But they can't. People live in systems with affordances and restrictions. What about their lives can a lower-middle-class family living in an outer Sydney suburb meaningfully change? Little, and only at the margins (a bit of recycling, some solar panels). Certainly not even approaching the ballpark of what our situation requires. Any strategy for change demanding that we should on average become exceptional is mathematically doomed to failure.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Well, I think that some people, at least, are trying to do that. But it's about as big a tragedy of the commons as you'll find. What we need is for most people to eat less meat, live in walking and cycling-friendly city in a modern flat built without concrete, use renewable energy for electric, heating, and cooling, and take the train or slow-ish boat places (or a very expensive flight with audited carbon offsetting). All of these things are feasible - hell, downright easy, technologically. Not a bad life really. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have among the highest quality of life in the world. I am envious every time I visit. Instead all of the people doing that are essentially making things slightly better for the one's building bunkers in New Zealand (with enormous emissions to boot). Sooner or later you realize individual action is just a bandaid on a shotgun wound, and to some extent you're just making things cheaper for you gas-guzzling meat-loving cousin. Change MUST be organized at a governmental level. Governments exist to solve problems just like this one! Lighthouses are a common economic example (any one person not paying can still reap the benefit, so you have to enforce/organize action on the construction of said lighthouse). Of course, it doesn't help that much of the world, especially the US, forced every city built in the last 100 years to be horrible by law. (Parking minimums, zoning, Robert Moses types, redlining, etc. etc.)
gregw134 8y ago
Let's start with those underground coal fires that were discussed this week. The article said the total C02 production of underground coal fires worldwide is greater than all US automobiles.
biztos 8y ago
For at least the last ten years I've been convinced "stop the ships" and so on is simply not going to happen; and that instead of dreaming up ways to keep the shit from hitting the fan, we should be inventing shit-proof suits. But really, as a technological challenge, not just "dual citizenship for my New Zealand bunker" solutions. Of course, not everyone will be able to afford the shit-proof suits. And we'll most likely re-learn something about Humanity that we last confronted... maybe during the Black Death?[0] On the positive side, people do tend to get a lot more creative when they're staring at personal ruin / the fall of civilization. I would be very happy to be wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
flukus 8y ago
We've been seriously discussing it for 30 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli... The question is when does a particular side of politics stop actively sabotaging any effort to actual do anything.
mirimir 8y ago
I've been following this issue for over 30 years. I spent almost ten of those years working for a large NGO. And it's my considered opinion that there will be no substantially effective solutions. The US argues that China no longer deserves its "developing economy" exemption, and refuses to act. Or at least, that's the excuse. And indeed, it's an arguable point. But whatever, the point is that reducing carbon emissions is just a dream. And even if that were possible, it's not unlikely that we're already in a positive-feedback regime.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  > China no longer deserves its "developing economy" exemption Which exemption? The Paris Accord had China reducing their emissions by 45% on 2005 levels. The US agreed to 25%. That's the two biggest polluters on Earth. Last year China met their target early. This year the US pulled out and wasn't on track to meet the reduction by late next decade. Who is really getting the exemption here?
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's all true. But arguably it was economic problems that enabled China to meet its commitment. So I'm not hopeful about prospects, if the Chinese economy picks up. And even if they claim to be on target, I'd want to see independent evidence. Maybe one can estimate from satellite data.[0] 0) https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/
    - A2017U1 8y ago
      It's one of the few things they've done right, carbon tax, pushing vehicle electrification, cancelling new coal generation. But yes do agree the system is hardly perfect, for instance theres been a spike in illegal cfc-11 coming out of southern China, and while the authorities talk tough and have shut down numerous operators they struggle with enforcement in general and more pop up anyway. Likewise gas wells in the states have been found to be producing far more fugitive emissions of methane which is incredibly harmful but again not recorded. To top it all off emissions are only measured for a countries production not consumption, a big beef exporter gets the blame for another's hamburger. Which seems somewhat unjust. https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/the-china-cfc-dilemma/3009280.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/the-china-cfc-dilemma... https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-matters-98918 https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-l...

crispinb 8y ago

If you're talking about climate change as the immediate salient issue, in practical terms (ie. taking politics into account), after three decades of deliberate delay, it's too late. If you're talking about the underlying cause (the ideology of "economic growth"), a solution to that is even more distant. Superstitions die hard, as we've seen with the more venerable religions.

CalRobert 8y ago

When it's far too late. Specifically, when comparatively wealthy people start feeling the effects. So far, most don't. It's just beginning to happen, as property owners in Miami beach realize they own a stranded asset, but for most wealthy people it's still a non-event.

doctorpangloss 8y ago
I don't know dude, an earthquake in California and Washington is going to create many more victims and destroy many more houses than the slowly rising waters in Florida. Even if I agree with your general sentiment that people will "wake up" when it's far too late, I really doubt the reasons will be financial in a world where everyone is economically poor and accounting rich.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Sure, but earthquakes are unrelated. When someone goes bankrupt because they're $500k underwater on a Miami Beach condo or a Sierra Nevada cabin (fire risk) they'll look for someone to blame.

belorn 8y ago

Why should car owners just get a steep tax when owning a car is more polluting that eating meat? The closest to serious discussing that actually follow the model of worst offender having to pay the most is the concept of carbon tax that is strictly based on how much carbon get released, which would then cover everything from aircraft, meat, cars, ships and everything else.

makerofspoons 8y ago
I had no real reason, I was just throwing ideas out. A carbon tax by the amount produced is the most fair. The point would be to make all polluting activities uneconomical, but there is still the problem that in a democracy this will be deeply unpopular because the rich will likely be able to continue to afford some amount of pollution.
- belorn 8y ago
  A way to get around that (which I have heard some countries is currently testing) is to return the tax evenly to the population, so that money flow from those that pollute to those that don't. If the rich continue to afford some amount of pollution then it basically become redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and the harsher the tax is the more money flows in that direction.
  - biztos 8y ago
    Isn't there a risk that in order to, say, stop nonessential air travel, you have to set the tax so high that people can't have spinach anymore? (Leaving aside the question of how much economic downside there is to stopping, say, nonessential air travel.)
    - belorn 8y ago
      Not a major risk. If you tax based on carbon emissions, the food that don't produce a lot of emissions will become more attractive. If spinach is a high pollution food group then people will switch over to other food groups that has smaller footprint and thus cheaper price. There are crops like seaweed that can even capture carbon, which if we allow for the carbon tax to go negative could maybe become so economical attractive as to change food culture. Food choice is already 100% based on culture and if pollution would be the deciding factor then our plates would look very different from today. Arguing that generating pollution through spinach is more morally right than nonessential air travel will only lead emotional debates over what is essential to one person vs what isn't to someone else (specially for products that not that clean cut). Pollution is bad, and given the threat to the planet it seems like the greater good is better served without trying to distinguish between a moral pollution and a immoral one. I would be a miss if I did not mention that what is even worse than nonessential air travel is nonessential car travel in cities that has every kind of mass transit imaginable. We could turn most cities into a place where cars are not allowed and the most anyone would have to walk would be a few minutes. I would be that would translate to more carbon saved than the combined nonessential air travel, save more lives with cleaner air, reduce noise and increase the average health of people living there. Not going to politically happen but one could always dream.

newnewpdro 8y ago

We've been seriously discussing solutions. The real question is at what point do people start actually applying what they learn in these serious discussions in how they live their own lives? I don't think it ever happens on a large enough scale to matter before it's too late to avert massive loss of life and global conflict. Things will naturally sort itself out, the population collapses, lots of lives suffer, but life goes on.

crispinb 8y ago
> The real question is at what point do people start actually applying what they learn in these serious discussions in how they live their own lives? But they can't. People live in systems with affordances and restrictions. What about their lives can a lower-middle-class family living in an outer Sydney suburb meaningfully change? Little, and only at the margins (a bit of recycling, some solar panels). Certainly not even approaching the ballpark of what our situation requires. Any strategy for change demanding that we should on average become exceptional is mathematically doomed to failure.
CalRobert 8y ago
Well, I think that some people, at least, are trying to do that. But it's about as big a tragedy of the commons as you'll find. What we need is for most people to eat less meat, live in walking and cycling-friendly city in a modern flat built without concrete, use renewable energy for electric, heating, and cooling, and take the train or slow-ish boat places (or a very expensive flight with audited carbon offsetting). All of these things are feasible - hell, downright easy, technologically. Not a bad life really. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have among the highest quality of life in the world. I am envious every time I visit. Instead all of the people doing that are essentially making things slightly better for the one's building bunkers in New Zealand (with enormous emissions to boot). Sooner or later you realize individual action is just a bandaid on a shotgun wound, and to some extent you're just making things cheaper for you gas-guzzling meat-loving cousin. Change MUST be organized at a governmental level. Governments exist to solve problems just like this one! Lighthouses are a common economic example (any one person not paying can still reap the benefit, so you have to enforce/organize action on the construction of said lighthouse). Of course, it doesn't help that much of the world, especially the US, forced every city built in the last 100 years to be horrible by law. (Parking minimums, zoning, Robert Moses types, redlining, etc. etc.)

gregw134 8y ago

Let's start with those underground coal fires that were discussed this week. The article said the total C02 production of underground coal fires worldwide is greater than all US automobiles.

biztos 8y ago

For at least the last ten years I've been convinced "stop the ships" and so on is simply not going to happen; and that instead of dreaming up ways to keep the shit from hitting the fan, we should be inventing shit-proof suits. But really, as a technological challenge, not just "dual citizenship for my New Zealand bunker" solutions. Of course, not everyone will be able to afford the shit-proof suits. And we'll most likely re-learn something about Humanity that we last confronted... maybe during the Black Death?[0] On the positive side, people do tend to get a lot more creative when they're staring at personal ruin / the fall of civilization. I would be very happy to be wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

flukus 8y ago

We've been seriously discussing it for 30 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli... The question is when does a particular side of politics stop actively sabotaging any effort to actual do anything.

mirimir 8y ago

I've been following this issue for over 30 years. I spent almost ten of those years working for a large NGO. And it's my considered opinion that there will be no substantially effective solutions. The US argues that China no longer deserves its "developing economy" exemption, and refuses to act. Or at least, that's the excuse. And indeed, it's an arguable point. But whatever, the point is that reducing carbon emissions is just a dream. And even if that were possible, it's not unlikely that we're already in a positive-feedback regime.

A2017U1 8y ago
> China no longer deserves its "developing economy" exemption Which exemption? The Paris Accord had China reducing their emissions by 45% on 2005 levels. The US agreed to 25%. That's the two biggest polluters on Earth. Last year China met their target early. This year the US pulled out and wasn't on track to meet the reduction by late next decade. Who is really getting the exemption here?
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's all true. But arguably it was economic problems that enabled China to meet its commitment. So I'm not hopeful about prospects, if the Chinese economy picks up. And even if they claim to be on target, I'd want to see independent evidence. Maybe one can estimate from satellite data.[0] 0) https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/
  - A2017U1 8y ago
    It's one of the few things they've done right, carbon tax, pushing vehicle electrification, cancelling new coal generation. But yes do agree the system is hardly perfect, for instance theres been a spike in illegal cfc-11 coming out of southern China, and while the authorities talk tough and have shut down numerous operators they struggle with enforcement in general and more pop up anyway. Likewise gas wells in the states have been found to be producing far more fugitive emissions of methane which is incredibly harmful but again not recorded. To top it all off emissions are only measured for a countries production not consumption, a big beef exporter gets the blame for another's hamburger. Which seems somewhat unjust. https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/the-china-cfc-dilemma/3009280.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/the-china-cfc-dilemma... https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-matters-98918 https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-l...