3 ms·

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 somet

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.

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.