6 ms·

I don't think anyone commenting on this post who is downplaying the reaction has really grappled with what we're up against here. I may work as a software engi

I don't think anyone commenting on this post who is downplaying the reaction has really grappled with what we're up against here. I may work as a software engineer, but my degree is in physics. I've read the reports, as well as a lot of other researchers comments on climate. We're in real trouble. Frankly, panic attacks are an entirely justified and justifiable reaction, if not the most productive. The IPCC, which has consistently been proven to have been overly optimistic about climate change, is sounding a drastic alarm. They're saying we need to cut carbon by 45% in the next decade across the board or face "catastrophic" consequences. As if nearly semi-annual thousand year hurricane events and the west coast in flames weren't already catastrophic consequences. Reducing carbon emissions by 45% means making half the cars on the road electric or getting them off the road entirely in 10 years. It means converting half of our power system to solar, wind, nuclear, or hydro in 10 years. It means forcing carbon producing industry to cut emissions by half in ten years, and getting half the people who use home heating oil to use alternatives in the next ten years. And if we fall short in one area, we need to make it up in another. And this needs to happen globally. To be brutally honest, we're _not_ going to hit that target. Period. It's just not going to happen. The level and speed of change that needs to happen is effectively out of reach. We've, realistically, already locked in catastrophic consequences. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Every tiny bit of progress we make helps reduce the consequences we face and could potentially save lives. I'm, most likely, going to be running for city council in my city on a climate response platform that involves building out the transit, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure -- disincentivizing driving in the process -- and finding ways to get solar panels on people's roofs that don't require the local power company's consent. Who knows whether I'll win or not, but at least I can force the conversation. You can do the same. It doesn't matter how small or insignificant your town may seem, every little bit helps. A lot of people think this is going to take national action, and they're not wrong, but it's also going to take local action. And we can't afford to wait for the national action. We need to build infrastructure that allows people to forgo driving. We need to build dense housing that makes it easy for people to live with in walking or biking distance of their work and the amenities they need. We need to get people using solar and wind to power their homes. We can do these things at the local level. In fact, most of things things _have_ to happen at the local level. Even if we end up with a federal green new deal program, we're going to have to enact these things locally. Again, we're not going to hit the target and we're going to be facing catastrophic consequences. If you're in a coastal region, think about getting out now. If you're in southern Florida -- seriously, get out now. Find a new community and start putting down roots. The IPCC thinks we're not going to have to worry about Florida until sometime around 2080 or 2100, but the IPCC has consistently been wrong. James Hansen's team's finding, which suggests we could lose most of Florida as early as 2050 keeps getting replicated. Luckily, for the communities not at risk of annihilation the things they need to do to prevent climate change are also the best ways to prepare for the consequences: build lots of dense, walkable housing so that we can absorb the migrations with out emitting carbon in transportation. Build large resilient local food systems. Get people using renewables. We pretty much know what we have to do -- we have to totally transform our society -- and we know how we have to do it. The issue is over coming the inertia and building the political will to do it. So you can totally be forgiven for having panic attacks (and for the love of all that is holy, don't you dare make fun of people who are experiencing them -- those people are accurately grappling with reality while you're in denial), but do your best to get through them and then just get to work. We know what we have to do. Lets do our best to get it done.

Recurecur 8y ago
Good, thoughtful post. I think what you've perhaps failed to run across in your AGW/CC readings is that any coming temperature rise is both unknown in magnitude within a fairly wide range, and modulated by natural variability. I guess the two points I'd make about what you've written are: - A "green new deal" (or any other US action) isn't going to do a thing to address the major sources of CO2 generation going forward - China, India, and other rising third world powers. China and India both have large commitments to coal power. - There should be more investment in energy research. Next generation nuclear should be given priority. Current renewable solutions are too expensive over time (20-25 year livespan, versus 40-60 years for gas/nuclear), and inherently unreliable. Nuclear can produce electricity with retail prices in the neighborhood of five cents per KWH. The only real solution in the long term is to develop clean technologies that are more cost effective than dirty technologies. The LED light bulb is a good example of how that can work...
- dbingham 8y ago
  Yeah, we don't know exactly what's going to hit us. But we know the IPCC has consistently undershot the mark. We know that many well respected scientists have identified feedback loops not accounted for in the IPCC's calculations that could make things much, Much worse than the IPCC is laying out. And we know the IPCC is already calling for a World War II level mobilization to completely retool our society. Hansen's team identified a feedback loop that could see us facing 10 feet of sea level rise or more by as early as 2050. And his finding has been replicated several times. Other teams have identified feedback loops (different ones from those Hansen identified) that could see us hitting 1.5C as early as 2030, instead of in 2040 as the IPCC predicts. Many climate scientists think we're headed for between 4 C and 6 C of warming by 2100, instead of the 2 C - 3 C that the IPCC is predicting. When we get up into the 4 C to 6 C range, we start to edge into run away feedback loops trigged by the release of sequestered methane from the permafrost that could see us catapulted into a rerun of the Permian extinction. All of which is to say, we can't afford to be complacent about this anymore. We have to move and we have to move _now_. With respect to China and India, yeah, they are going to be major sources of CO2. But until the US moves they have little incentive to move on fixing their issues. If the US handles its carbon, then we can reasonably put pressure on them to do the same. Maybe we can offer funding to help. But even best case for national funding is two years for now. And the form a "green new deal" would likely take is funding to help municipalities make the local infrastructure and power grid changes. Well, there's no reason the municipalities have to wait for that funding. They can and should start making the changes now. Every reduction in carbon emissions helps. Nuclear does need to be part of the mix, but we don't have time to be picky. Nor do we have time to wait for new innovations. We're in the eleventh hour. We need to reduce carbon emissions by hook or by crook anyway we can. It doesn't matter if solar or wind are less than ideal. If they can supplant coal and gas production get them on the grid. We spend a lot of time thinking about electricity generation, but transportation is just as large a contributor to emissions. Person car and truck transportation makes up about 20% of our total GHG emissions. So infrastructure changes that incentivize dense living, walking, biking and public transit are just as important as reconfiguring the grid. And those things are going to have to happen at the municipal level anyway, that's where those decisions get made. In the long run we are also going to need clean tech solutions. But we can't afford to wait for them. And we can't keep living the way we are and assume some new technology is going to rescue us. We've done that for nearly four decades, and nothing's appeared. We have the technology to make the needed changes now. And we know what changes we have to make. So lets just do them. Yeah, it means some lifestyle changes. With the right incentives and the right infrastructure, people can make those changes. They've dealt with worse in the past. We can get this done.

Recurecur 8y ago

Good, thoughtful post. I think what you've perhaps failed to run across in your AGW/CC readings is that any coming temperature rise is both unknown in magnitude within a fairly wide range, and modulated by natural variability. I guess the two points I'd make about what you've written are: - A "green new deal" (or any other US action) isn't going to do a thing to address the major sources of CO2 generation going forward - China, India, and other rising third world powers. China and India both have large commitments to coal power. - There should be more investment in energy research. Next generation nuclear should be given priority. Current renewable solutions are too expensive over time (20-25 year livespan, versus 40-60 years for gas/nuclear), and inherently unreliable. Nuclear can produce electricity with retail prices in the neighborhood of five cents per KWH. The only real solution in the long term is to develop clean technologies that are more cost effective than dirty technologies. The LED light bulb is a good example of how that can work...

dbingham 8y ago
Yeah, we don't know exactly what's going to hit us. But we know the IPCC has consistently undershot the mark. We know that many well respected scientists have identified feedback loops not accounted for in the IPCC's calculations that could make things much, Much worse than the IPCC is laying out. And we know the IPCC is already calling for a World War II level mobilization to completely retool our society. Hansen's team identified a feedback loop that could see us facing 10 feet of sea level rise or more by as early as 2050. And his finding has been replicated several times. Other teams have identified feedback loops (different ones from those Hansen identified) that could see us hitting 1.5C as early as 2030, instead of in 2040 as the IPCC predicts. Many climate scientists think we're headed for between 4 C and 6 C of warming by 2100, instead of the 2 C - 3 C that the IPCC is predicting. When we get up into the 4 C to 6 C range, we start to edge into run away feedback loops trigged by the release of sequestered methane from the permafrost that could see us catapulted into a rerun of the Permian extinction. All of which is to say, we can't afford to be complacent about this anymore. We have to move and we have to move _now_. With respect to China and India, yeah, they are going to be major sources of CO2. But until the US moves they have little incentive to move on fixing their issues. If the US handles its carbon, then we can reasonably put pressure on them to do the same. Maybe we can offer funding to help. But even best case for national funding is two years for now. And the form a "green new deal" would likely take is funding to help municipalities make the local infrastructure and power grid changes. Well, there's no reason the municipalities have to wait for that funding. They can and should start making the changes now. Every reduction in carbon emissions helps. Nuclear does need to be part of the mix, but we don't have time to be picky. Nor do we have time to wait for new innovations. We're in the eleventh hour. We need to reduce carbon emissions by hook or by crook anyway we can. It doesn't matter if solar or wind are less than ideal. If they can supplant coal and gas production get them on the grid. We spend a lot of time thinking about electricity generation, but transportation is just as large a contributor to emissions. Person car and truck transportation makes up about 20% of our total GHG emissions. So infrastructure changes that incentivize dense living, walking, biking and public transit are just as important as reconfiguring the grid. And those things are going to have to happen at the municipal level anyway, that's where those decisions get made. In the long run we are also going to need clean tech solutions. But we can't afford to wait for them. And we can't keep living the way we are and assume some new technology is going to rescue us. We've done that for nearly four decades, and nothing's appeared. We have the technology to make the needed changes now. And we know what changes we have to make. So lets just do them. Yeah, it means some lifestyle changes. With the right incentives and the right infrastructure, people can make those changes. They've dealt with worse in the past. We can get this done.