5 ms·

The case for “conditional optimism” on climate change

anonymouzz 8y ago
There are alternatives that can be deployed without reducing carbon emissions: https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aero... We'd already be over 2*C if not the aerosols that humans released: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png These took out much of the heat from greenhouse gasses. And in my opinion you either buy the climate change models (which are very aware of aerosols), or you don't. It doesn't make sense to believe that the planet will heat up more, that it is due to humans, but aerosols are not a part of the story. We're not as screwed as many people think.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  I don't get how you jumped to that last sentence. The way I read what you wrote is that we'd have been screwed earlier without aerosols, but that our current models account for them and still show us being screwed.
  - anonymouzz 8y ago
    My point is that we can deploy more aerosols. See the first link
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Even if climate change is nonsense (it isn't) it still makes sense to get off energy sources that are known to destroy air quality. This should be common sense to anybody, who likes smog? This said some of the talk that I've been hearing recently has me concerned for peoples' mental well being. I've heard numerous peers and coworkers in the past year express belief that they would not live long enough to have grandchildren because humanity will be extinct by then. That we have 20 years or less of life, that the situation is doomed, etc. None of this is a healthy mindset.
  - anonymouzz 8y ago
    Yup, climate change is real - it's evident from computing average temperatures. No point in debating that. I completely agree that smog is terrible and essentially kills people. My point was the really bad consequences of warming (mass migrations from deserted areas and subsequent refugee crises, wars over farmable land, exodus from flooded areas) can be avoided via aerosols.
    - ghthor 8y ago
      But the source of the warming should be completely open for debate. I for one am looking at the sun as the source, starting with the sunspot maximum event of 1958 that sparked the US government to create Nasa.
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        Why is that a productive debate? Even if CO2 is not the source, we should still eliminate our reliance on the combustion of fossil fuels because those fuel sources still undeniably pollute our environment in other serious ways. The mining and burning of coal is bad for our environment even if CO2 was a non-issue.
        ghthor 8y ago
        For me, it's about the truth and I'm pretty tired of being dismissed because I dont agree with the anti-human narrative that's becoming the mainstream.
twblalock 8y ago
According to this article carbon emissions would need to go negative to keep the temperature increase within 2 degrees. Not zero, but negative! The populations of developed countries don't understand how much it would hurt their quality of life if they do what it takes to solve this problem. Once they have put up with enough pain, the unrest will make the "yellow jacket" protests in France look routine. Who knows what kind of crazy people would get elected by promising to stop the pain. The "yellow jacket" protests were a response to tax increases on fuel as part of the government's strategy to reduce emissions. They ballooned into a general airing of grievances about inequality, economic justice, the cost of living, and populist anti-establishment sentiment. Policies to limit emissions in other countries would likely have the same result, because the same sentiments exist throughout the developed world and are behind the global rise of populism.
- mlinksva 8y ago
  Carbon fee _and dividend_ is the obvious response to all that.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    I don’t see how it’s obvious, especially since it has never been implemented outside of a small scheme in Canada where the dividend goes to businesses rather than households.
    - mlinksva 8y ago
      All the more reason to implement a large scheme that returns everything to individuals, like the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act recently introduced in the U.S. House and Senate https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-coons-flake-introduce-landmark-bipartisan-legislation-to-put-money-in-the-pockets-of-working-families-by-pricing-carbon-pollution https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-co... On how it's obvious response to: > inequality, economic justice, the cost of living, and populist anti-establishment sentiment On the first and third (and I guess second, depending what you mean by it), it's clearly progressive, see https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bipartisan-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act-compares-other-carbon-tax-proposals https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bi... and on the fourth, when has there been populist backlash against sending all citizens checks, even when it is a gimmick (as in the case of various last minute rebates, IIRC)?
sunstone 8y ago
There's little doubt that electric cars will displace ICE cars in an S curve fashion. First because it's just a much better technology, second because it's cheaper and third because it's low carbon. The same is likely true for trucks of all familiar kinds. It's less clear that the same holds for shipping and air travel. Air travel for flights under 400 miles (due to much reduced maintenance costs) are likely to electrify but the others would probably require the push of regulation. Heat and air conditioning will very possibly electrify only because the combined costs of wind and solar have been dropping so consistently. On balance, it really doesn't look half bad for S curve substitution for, say, 80% of the fossil fuel industry over the next 20 years. EDIT: a few typos
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
frabbit 8y ago
'"marginal, incremental improvements in energy and carbon efficiency cannot do the job and that what is needed is a structural transformation.” In other words, 2 degrees requires radicalism.' There are such huge opportunities for new jobs and industries and re-organization of society. That coupled with prospect of reasonably predictable doom makes me wonder what on earth goes on in so many people's minds. Why are we not all soiling ourselves in fear? Do all the adults out there really want to leave this world in such a mess? Especially when something can be done now.

There are alternatives that can be deployed without reducing carbon emissions: https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aero... We'd already be over 2*C if not the aerosols that humans released: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png These took out much of the heat from greenhouse gasses. And in my opinion you either buy the climate change models (which are very aware of aerosols), or you don't. It doesn't make sense to believe that the planet will heat up more, that it is due to humans, but aerosols are not a part of the story. We're not as screwed as many people think.

mehrdadn 8y ago
I don't get how you jumped to that last sentence. The way I read what you wrote is that we'd have been screwed earlier without aerosols, but that our current models account for them and still show us being screwed.
- anonymouzz 8y ago
  My point is that we can deploy more aerosols. See the first link
darkpuma 8y ago
Even if climate change is nonsense (it isn't) it still makes sense to get off energy sources that are known to destroy air quality. This should be common sense to anybody, who likes smog? This said some of the talk that I've been hearing recently has me concerned for peoples' mental well being. I've heard numerous peers and coworkers in the past year express belief that they would not live long enough to have grandchildren because humanity will be extinct by then. That we have 20 years or less of life, that the situation is doomed, etc. None of this is a healthy mindset.
- anonymouzz 8y ago
  Yup, climate change is real - it's evident from computing average temperatures. No point in debating that. I completely agree that smog is terrible and essentially kills people. My point was the really bad consequences of warming (mass migrations from deserted areas and subsequent refugee crises, wars over farmable land, exodus from flooded areas) can be avoided via aerosols.
  - ghthor 8y ago
    But the source of the warming should be completely open for debate. I for one am looking at the sun as the source, starting with the sunspot maximum event of 1958 that sparked the US government to create Nasa.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Why is that a productive debate? Even if CO2 is not the source, we should still eliminate our reliance on the combustion of fossil fuels because those fuel sources still undeniably pollute our environment in other serious ways. The mining and burning of coal is bad for our environment even if CO2 was a non-issue.
      - ghthor 8y ago
        For me, it's about the truth and I'm pretty tired of being dismissed because I dont agree with the anti-human narrative that's becoming the mainstream.

twblalock 8y ago

According to this article carbon emissions would need to go negative to keep the temperature increase within 2 degrees. Not zero, but negative! The populations of developed countries don't understand how much it would hurt their quality of life if they do what it takes to solve this problem. Once they have put up with enough pain, the unrest will make the "yellow jacket" protests in France look routine. Who knows what kind of crazy people would get elected by promising to stop the pain. The "yellow jacket" protests were a response to tax increases on fuel as part of the government's strategy to reduce emissions. They ballooned into a general airing of grievances about inequality, economic justice, the cost of living, and populist anti-establishment sentiment. Policies to limit emissions in other countries would likely have the same result, because the same sentiments exist throughout the developed world and are behind the global rise of populism.

mlinksva 8y ago
Carbon fee _and dividend_ is the obvious response to all that.
- twblalock 8y ago
  I don’t see how it’s obvious, especially since it has never been implemented outside of a small scheme in Canada where the dividend goes to businesses rather than households.
  - mlinksva 8y ago
    All the more reason to implement a large scheme that returns everything to individuals, like the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act recently introduced in the U.S. House and Senate https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-coons-flake-introduce-landmark-bipartisan-legislation-to-put-money-in-the-pockets-of-working-families-by-pricing-carbon-pollution https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-co... On how it's obvious response to: > inequality, economic justice, the cost of living, and populist anti-establishment sentiment On the first and third (and I guess second, depending what you mean by it), it's clearly progressive, see https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bipartisan-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act-compares-other-carbon-tax-proposals https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bi... and on the fourth, when has there been populist backlash against sending all citizens checks, even when it is a gimmick (as in the case of various last minute rebates, IIRC)?

sunstone 8y ago

There's little doubt that electric cars will displace ICE cars in an S curve fashion. First because it's just a much better technology, second because it's cheaper and third because it's low carbon. The same is likely true for trucks of all familiar kinds. It's less clear that the same holds for shipping and air travel. Air travel for flights under 400 miles (due to much reduced maintenance costs) are likely to electrify but the others would probably require the push of regulation. Heat and air conditioning will very possibly electrify only because the combined costs of wind and solar have been dropping so consistently. On balance, it really doesn't look half bad for S curve substitution for, say, 80% of the fossil fuel industry over the next 20 years. EDIT: a few typos

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

frabbit 8y ago

'"marginal, incremental improvements in energy and carbon efficiency cannot do the job and that what is needed is a structural transformation.” In other words, 2 degrees requires radicalism.' There are such huge opportunities for new jobs and industries and re-organization of society. That coupled with prospect of reasonably predictable doom makes me wonder what on earth goes on in so many people's minds. Why are we not all soiling ourselves in fear? Do all the adults out there really want to leave this world in such a mess? Especially when something can be done now.