6 ms·

Time to Panic

43 points by byproxy 8y ago

graeme 8y ago
Good article. I've long felt that people who accept climate change are surprisingly complacent about it. I suspect the nature of the problem is poorly understood. A lot of the focus in north america is on personally reducing. This feels similar to not littering, not spraying pesticides on your lawn, in other words not polluting locally. But CO2 isn't a local problem. It's global. Reducing use in one spot or making use in a given case doesn't necessarily work. There's always a use for more energy globally, so someone else with a lower standard of living will justifiably want to take up what you don't use. Meanwhile, if a process is made more efficient, this frees up energy to be used elsewhere in the system. Jevon's paradox plays a role here too. Global emissions are up, not down. Greatly up. Everything we've done so far has accomplished precisely nothing on the global warming front. We are richer, more people are out of poverty. Because we optimized for that, and not for lower co2 production, globally. The central issue is that co2 is cheaper than alternatives, in at least enough cases that it's still widely used. Solar etc are dropping in cost, but not so much that they've cut carbon. A carbon tax would raise the price of co2 and encourage use of alternatives. This could be combined either with an international agreement in other countries to tax carbon, or a system of tariffs on countries that don't. The system wouldn't be perfect, but it would actually stand a chance of having us switch to non carbon methods.
- cafebabbe 8y ago
  Sadly, I don't think clean energy will save us, even if deployed greatly. Because we're fundamentally incapable of doing anything else - or even imagining something else - than pursuing growth, renewables, so far, are simply adding megawatts on top of fossil fuels, not replacing them. People keep thinking about how technology will fix stuff. But technology doesn't fix cultural or anthropological problems.
  - graeme 8y ago
    If renewables/nuclear etc become cheaper such that no one would even want to use fossil energy, we can fix this. If this doesn't happen or isn't possible, then we're likely doomed. A carbon tax will make us discover whether we can survive or not sooner.
    - cafebabbe 8y ago
      I really wish we did carbon tax thirty years ago. Now, it's likely too late - we have 10 years to cut emissions in half, we (as in, the world) haven't even started to do anything since the Paris accords, even in Europe - which doesn't seem to concern many people, it's almost hilarious. After that, all bets are off, we won't have the GDP for building the clean grid of cheap renewables, and we'll switch to disaster capitalism. It's going to be crop failures after flooding after deadly heatwaves after war after diseases. I honestly have a hard time figuring the best course of action, baring a massive financial sector meltdown and a huge recession - and that's a very, very shitty scenario, i'm not downplaying it. But still way better than a world at 4 degrees.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    I tend to think unless and until radical parties start getting elected, little to nothing will be done. With enough clean energy, extensively deployed, all we're probably going to achieve is some really cheap oil that is in search of new uses and products to be drilled for. Banning oil use will be interesting to watch.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    I'd be very interested in hearing your list of specific cultural and anthropological problems that need to be fixed, and agree that there are many than need to be. But you're not fully right on one aspect of your post: we are replacing fossil fuels, energy use is declining, and technology is one of the biggest reasons for it. And as developing countries grow, they will likely skip directly over the Western world's worst abuses of nature, because the better technology is cheaper, easier to deploy, and can be done more incrementally than huge GW installations. Furthurmore, technology is not separate from the cultural or anthropological issues, and is merely one of the cultural and anthropological issues: what technology we develop, what technology we use and deploy are entirely determined by that. The political realm has mostly failed at any sort of broad climate action, except in one way: to allow a small little space on the fringe to develop renewable tech. And now that renewables are cheaper than coal, and getting cheaper than natural gas, technology is changing our impact on nature by taking advantage of our current cultural leanings (spend the least amount of money possible, make profits, have economically sustainable decisions, etc.). Politics have failed when it's come to climate change, but technology has done much much more. And look at residential solar, it's marketed to consumers as "you can save this much money," not "you will stop emitting this much carbon dioxide." Why is the economic sales pitch possible? Because of technology. Why is this positive move made? Because of technological change, rather than the direct cultural change of masses of consumers. It would be great if we can also other aspects of culture, in addition to our technology use, but these are not unconnected things, not diametrical, and are in fact intricately connected. Technology is an absolutely crucial part of fundamental climate action, and there is no way to ignore that. We need to both allow technology change, encourage it, and encourage action, and also enable non-technology cultural changes that enable zero-carbon. If there's another route that does not use technology as a core pillar, I'd like to hear about it, in the interest of trying everything and anything, let's hear it.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  A carbon tax would be fairer and easier to adjust than any other method. And it has been recommended by economists for over a decade. The problem is it doesn’t offer enough opportunities for graft and corruption to our ruling class, so was never a real option. Cap and trade, now there’s a system to make our rulers and well connected, rich.
  - porpoisely 8y ago
    Are you serious? Who do you think supports the carbon tax? The ruling class. Everyone from the world bank to davos elites to wall street has endorsed carbon tax. As a matter of fact, the carbon tax is an invention of the ruling class.
    - merpnderp 8y ago
      I think you’re missing a little history over the last 20 years.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      So. What are the viable alternatives? Cap and trade, which looks pointless and corrupt in the way carbon credits have been allocated to those who historically used most. Carbon taxes, which would, if set high enough, tend to suppress demand. Just as fuel escalator taxes have at times suppressed vehicle use. Spend the proceeds on green infrastructure, such as insulation or combined heat and power etc. Bring on the £50 gallon and everyone will look at an electric, bus or bike. Great, start now and permit no exceptions. What else would work? Shut down Exxon and BP, then seal the wells at gunpoint? What;s your solution? A plastic tax on producers while we're at it. Start at 50% of the current product value, pro rata per gram. Watch how fast single use plastic dies out and only the truly necessary remains.
- jaggederest 8y ago
  The problem with carbon taxes is that they kill too many sacred cows. Why do you think so many dollars are poured into obfuscation and delay? Exxon is not interested in suddenly having negative margins for the next century, nor are the construction or chemical industries. I think it has to be something in the spirit of a constitutional amendment, at least for the US. A balanced carbon budget amendment. And that's a bar that we're a long way from reaching.
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    That's what I like about graeme's proposal. Either implement the carbon tax (or its equivalent) and keep the money for yourself, or it will be externally imposed on you at the border via tariffs, where other countries get the revenue. Either way the sacred cows get killed, we're just fighting over who gets the meat.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  The solution to climate change is quite simple, and you've nailed it. It's also very hard. But not impossibly hard. The Montreal protocol on CFC's had to get everybody to agree, and it has worked quite well. This solution doesn't require global agreement, just collect it at the border of countries that don't sign on.
AndrewOMartin 8y ago
Only two words away from the perfect clickbait title.
porpoisely 8y ago
I thought al gore said it was time to panic 15 years ago? Man the nytimes and the elites they serve really want to rob the entire world with their carbon tax. If it really is time to panic, then shouldn't we shut down the nytimes and end the enormous amount of pollution they cause? Why not shut down air travel? Why not end the olympics/world cup/etc? Or the silly yearly davos meetings where hordes of wealthy elites use private planes to pollute all the way to europe? If it is time to panic, maybe it's time to end the largest cause of energy use - globalism and global trade? But wait, the nytimes wants more globalism and more trade and more pollution. So how does the nytimes reconcile their hypocrisy? If it really was time to panic, we'd have martial law. Gore, dicaprio and all the wealthy elites private yachts, planes, etc would be seized along with their wealth. Globalism would be ended. And all or most pollution ( especially the wealthy leisure pollution ) would be ended immediately. But that's not the case. So what's this panic nonsense? Just a PR campaign to create a new tax on the entire world?
- smadge 8y ago
  One of the main benefits of science is being able to make perceptible to humans phenomena that are usually imperceptible. We can look at planets millions of light years away. With microscope we can see tiny microscopic crittters we didnt know existed a few hundred years ago. Before the discover of evolution and geology it was believed that the earth was basically unchanging, but those theories allowed us to detect changes to the earth that took place on the scale of millions and tens of millions of years. I preface my comment this way because I believe you essentially saying are saying that the effects of climate change must be more perceptible to your body, unaided by the scientific reasoning and measurement that allows us to perceive things on larger time scales and to a finer degree. For example, 1F of temperature rise over 50 years is probably barely perceptible to an astute human without the aid of precise measurement and analysis. However on the time scales of geology, evolution, and climate, it is extremely perceptible and extremely alarming.
  - porpoisely 8y ago
    That's not the benefit of science. The benefit of science is that it allows us to test and understand the empirical world and create predictive laws. And no, people didn't believe the earth was static before evolution and geology. As for climate change, it is perceptible to us. We can actually see the changes - whether it is to glaciers or even crops growing in regions or for longer than previously. Your messianic "alarm" may be alarming but that's not science is it? It's more fearmongering religion or cult. Throughout history, temperatures have risen and changed. Climate changed occurred before the industrial revolution. Interesting isn't it? We are still around. Sadly, the science of climate change isn't advanced enough for us to scientifically say why these changes happened definitely. That is the honest answer. We have some idea, but nothing definitive. We don't know the degree to which humans affect the climate. All I know is that climate "scientists" peddling political fear have been wrong over and over again. All for what? Because a bunch of greedy globalists are peddling fear to get the human population to accept taxation? So the logic is greedy globalists caused global warming to enrich themselves and therefore we need to reward them by taxing everyone on earth? I know you are "alarmed" and the world is going to end soon. You should let the banks know so they stop lending out money on 30, 40, 50, 100 years mortgages. You should let the industrialists know so they'll stop planning on using the northwest passage and the arctic as new trade routes decades from now. You should let international organizations planning olympics, world cups, etc decades from now to stop since the world is ending.
sadris 8y ago
Generally people who claim to be worried about climate change are lying because they aren't actually interested in taking the somewhat genocidal steps necessary to actually stop it.

43 points by byproxy 8y ago

Good article. I've long felt that people who accept climate change are surprisingly complacent about it. I suspect the nature of the problem is poorly understood. A lot of the focus in north america is on personally reducing. This feels similar to not littering, not spraying pesticides on your lawn, in other words not polluting locally. But CO2 isn't a local problem. It's global. Reducing use in one spot or making use in a given case doesn't necessarily work. There's always a use for more energy globally, so someone else with a lower standard of living will justifiably want to take up what you don't use. Meanwhile, if a process is made more efficient, this frees up energy to be used elsewhere in the system. Jevon's paradox plays a role here too. Global emissions are up, not down. Greatly up. Everything we've done so far has accomplished precisely nothing on the global warming front. We are richer, more people are out of poverty. Because we optimized for that, and not for lower co2 production, globally. The central issue is that co2 is cheaper than alternatives, in at least enough cases that it's still widely used. Solar etc are dropping in cost, but not so much that they've cut carbon. A carbon tax would raise the price of co2 and encourage use of alternatives. This could be combined either with an international agreement in other countries to tax carbon, or a system of tariffs on countries that don't. The system wouldn't be perfect, but it would actually stand a chance of having us switch to non carbon methods.

cafebabbe 8y ago
Sadly, I don't think clean energy will save us, even if deployed greatly. Because we're fundamentally incapable of doing anything else - or even imagining something else - than pursuing growth, renewables, so far, are simply adding megawatts on top of fossil fuels, not replacing them. People keep thinking about how technology will fix stuff. But technology doesn't fix cultural or anthropological problems.
- graeme 8y ago
  If renewables/nuclear etc become cheaper such that no one would even want to use fossil energy, we can fix this. If this doesn't happen or isn't possible, then we're likely doomed. A carbon tax will make us discover whether we can survive or not sooner.
  - cafebabbe 8y ago
    I really wish we did carbon tax thirty years ago. Now, it's likely too late - we have 10 years to cut emissions in half, we (as in, the world) haven't even started to do anything since the Paris accords, even in Europe - which doesn't seem to concern many people, it's almost hilarious. After that, all bets are off, we won't have the GDP for building the clean grid of cheap renewables, and we'll switch to disaster capitalism. It's going to be crop failures after flooding after deadly heatwaves after war after diseases. I honestly have a hard time figuring the best course of action, baring a massive financial sector meltdown and a huge recession - and that's a very, very shitty scenario, i'm not downplaying it. But still way better than a world at 4 degrees.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I tend to think unless and until radical parties start getting elected, little to nothing will be done. With enough clean energy, extensively deployed, all we're probably going to achieve is some really cheap oil that is in search of new uses and products to be drilled for. Banning oil use will be interesting to watch.
- epistasis 8y ago
  I'd be very interested in hearing your list of specific cultural and anthropological problems that need to be fixed, and agree that there are many than need to be. But you're not fully right on one aspect of your post: we are replacing fossil fuels, energy use is declining, and technology is one of the biggest reasons for it. And as developing countries grow, they will likely skip directly over the Western world's worst abuses of nature, because the better technology is cheaper, easier to deploy, and can be done more incrementally than huge GW installations. Furthurmore, technology is not separate from the cultural or anthropological issues, and is merely one of the cultural and anthropological issues: what technology we develop, what technology we use and deploy are entirely determined by that. The political realm has mostly failed at any sort of broad climate action, except in one way: to allow a small little space on the fringe to develop renewable tech. And now that renewables are cheaper than coal, and getting cheaper than natural gas, technology is changing our impact on nature by taking advantage of our current cultural leanings (spend the least amount of money possible, make profits, have economically sustainable decisions, etc.). Politics have failed when it's come to climate change, but technology has done much much more. And look at residential solar, it's marketed to consumers as "you can save this much money," not "you will stop emitting this much carbon dioxide." Why is the economic sales pitch possible? Because of technology. Why is this positive move made? Because of technological change, rather than the direct cultural change of masses of consumers. It would be great if we can also other aspects of culture, in addition to our technology use, but these are not unconnected things, not diametrical, and are in fact intricately connected. Technology is an absolutely crucial part of fundamental climate action, and there is no way to ignore that. We need to both allow technology change, encourage it, and encourage action, and also enable non-technology cultural changes that enable zero-carbon. If there's another route that does not use technology as a core pillar, I'd like to hear about it, in the interest of trying everything and anything, let's hear it.
merpnderp 8y ago
A carbon tax would be fairer and easier to adjust than any other method. And it has been recommended by economists for over a decade. The problem is it doesn’t offer enough opportunities for graft and corruption to our ruling class, so was never a real option. Cap and trade, now there’s a system to make our rulers and well connected, rich.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  Are you serious? Who do you think supports the carbon tax? The ruling class. Everyone from the world bank to davos elites to wall street has endorsed carbon tax. As a matter of fact, the carbon tax is an invention of the ruling class.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    I think you’re missing a little history over the last 20 years.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    So. What are the viable alternatives? Cap and trade, which looks pointless and corrupt in the way carbon credits have been allocated to those who historically used most. Carbon taxes, which would, if set high enough, tend to suppress demand. Just as fuel escalator taxes have at times suppressed vehicle use. Spend the proceeds on green infrastructure, such as insulation or combined heat and power etc. Bring on the £50 gallon and everyone will look at an electric, bus or bike. Great, start now and permit no exceptions. What else would work? Shut down Exxon and BP, then seal the wells at gunpoint? What;s your solution? A plastic tax on producers while we're at it. Start at 50% of the current product value, pro rata per gram. Watch how fast single use plastic dies out and only the truly necessary remains.
jaggederest 8y ago
The problem with carbon taxes is that they kill too many sacred cows. Why do you think so many dollars are poured into obfuscation and delay? Exxon is not interested in suddenly having negative margins for the next century, nor are the construction or chemical industries. I think it has to be something in the spirit of a constitutional amendment, at least for the US. A balanced carbon budget amendment. And that's a bar that we're a long way from reaching.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  That's what I like about graeme's proposal. Either implement the carbon tax (or its equivalent) and keep the money for yourself, or it will be externally imposed on you at the border via tariffs, where other countries get the revenue. Either way the sacred cows get killed, we're just fighting over who gets the meat.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
The solution to climate change is quite simple, and you've nailed it. It's also very hard. But not impossibly hard. The Montreal protocol on CFC's had to get everybody to agree, and it has worked quite well. This solution doesn't require global agreement, just collect it at the border of countries that don't sign on.

AndrewOMartin 8y ago

Only two words away from the perfect clickbait title.

porpoisely 8y ago

I thought al gore said it was time to panic 15 years ago? Man the nytimes and the elites they serve really want to rob the entire world with their carbon tax. If it really is time to panic, then shouldn't we shut down the nytimes and end the enormous amount of pollution they cause? Why not shut down air travel? Why not end the olympics/world cup/etc? Or the silly yearly davos meetings where hordes of wealthy elites use private planes to pollute all the way to europe? If it is time to panic, maybe it's time to end the largest cause of energy use - globalism and global trade? But wait, the nytimes wants more globalism and more trade and more pollution. So how does the nytimes reconcile their hypocrisy? If it really was time to panic, we'd have martial law. Gore, dicaprio and all the wealthy elites private yachts, planes, etc would be seized along with their wealth. Globalism would be ended. And all or most pollution ( especially the wealthy leisure pollution ) would be ended immediately. But that's not the case. So what's this panic nonsense? Just a PR campaign to create a new tax on the entire world?

smadge 8y ago
One of the main benefits of science is being able to make perceptible to humans phenomena that are usually imperceptible. We can look at planets millions of light years away. With microscope we can see tiny microscopic crittters we didnt know existed a few hundred years ago. Before the discover of evolution and geology it was believed that the earth was basically unchanging, but those theories allowed us to detect changes to the earth that took place on the scale of millions and tens of millions of years. I preface my comment this way because I believe you essentially saying are saying that the effects of climate change must be more perceptible to your body, unaided by the scientific reasoning and measurement that allows us to perceive things on larger time scales and to a finer degree. For example, 1F of temperature rise over 50 years is probably barely perceptible to an astute human without the aid of precise measurement and analysis. However on the time scales of geology, evolution, and climate, it is extremely perceptible and extremely alarming.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  That's not the benefit of science. The benefit of science is that it allows us to test and understand the empirical world and create predictive laws. And no, people didn't believe the earth was static before evolution and geology. As for climate change, it is perceptible to us. We can actually see the changes - whether it is to glaciers or even crops growing in regions or for longer than previously. Your messianic "alarm" may be alarming but that's not science is it? It's more fearmongering religion or cult. Throughout history, temperatures have risen and changed. Climate changed occurred before the industrial revolution. Interesting isn't it? We are still around. Sadly, the science of climate change isn't advanced enough for us to scientifically say why these changes happened definitely. That is the honest answer. We have some idea, but nothing definitive. We don't know the degree to which humans affect the climate. All I know is that climate "scientists" peddling political fear have been wrong over and over again. All for what? Because a bunch of greedy globalists are peddling fear to get the human population to accept taxation? So the logic is greedy globalists caused global warming to enrich themselves and therefore we need to reward them by taxing everyone on earth? I know you are "alarmed" and the world is going to end soon. You should let the banks know so they stop lending out money on 30, 40, 50, 100 years mortgages. You should let the industrialists know so they'll stop planning on using the northwest passage and the arctic as new trade routes decades from now. You should let international organizations planning olympics, world cups, etc decades from now to stop since the world is ending.

sadris 8y ago

Generally people who claim to be worried about climate change are lying because they aren't actually interested in taking the somewhat genocidal steps necessary to actually stop it.