7 ms·

Project Drawdown [1] deserves a mention in any discussion in this field. They are a substantive research enterprise trying to map what can (technically, not pol

by wjnc 8y ago

Project Drawdown [1] deserves a mention in any discussion in this field. They are a substantive research enterprise trying to map what can (technically, not politically) be done to reach the point where CO2 ppm start to fall in the next 30 yrs. Good thing is: it can be done. Bad thing is: the incentives aren't there right now. Bill is right, energy isn't the largest component. It's food and (delta) people that need to change the most. Step away and we need all measures to work and succeed in concord, including energy. There's a podcast for you to have a taste for the quality of the modellers and what they are up to in the next fase. [2]. My 2 cents is a CO2-tax would align incentives quite painfully. All we get in return is the drama of creating an artificial pool for a unlimited 'resource'. The cost of all measures is quite affordable, on a global, long-term scale. [1] https://www.drawdown.org https://www.drawdown.org [2] http://www.thedrawdownagenda.com/about/ http://www.thedrawdownagenda.com/about/

AstralStorm 8y ago
On the delta people, is the current projected sigmoid good enough or way too slow?
- wjnc 8y ago
  That's one in the podcast. Some African countries do the full demographic transition within a decade (!). That means bringing girls from the home to school, increasing their wealth creating capacity and hence less and later children. That's very hopeful. Let's say that with all the (religion based) wars for parts of Africa and Asia things are looking less hopeful. You can only include females in human capital when there is relative peace. I think their focus and girl development for the ultimate goal of less CO2 ppm was the first time I grokked some of the more modern gender discussion which I usually cannot relate to (mostly because of terminology and fervour, not for a lack of basic instinct of trying).
solotronics 8y ago
From a CO2 standpoint wouldn't it be good to stop subsidizing immigration to the first world? It's not just delta-population it's people moving from a low consumption environment to a high consumption one.
- phreeza 8y ago
  My gut feeling is that people entering a middle class lifestyle in their own countries far outnumber those doing so by migration. I might be wrong though.
  - solotronics 8y ago
    The current paradigm in the US was to encourage immigration from the third world and then provide them subsidy for living expenses and making a bigger family. The goal of this appears to me to be about increasing consumption in the US and I would think this enables a much higher level of CO2 emission vs what would be generated under the different economic conditions in their home country.
    - anovikov 8y ago
      But still, people who do so are far outnumbered by those entering middle class in other countries. It's not about migration. Fighting global warming by limiting economic growth is simply not going to work. My idea of a solution to global warming is no solution: accept that the global warming will happen, discover its consequences, and make them a part of economic planning on both government and corporate level. Make people educated about it. That's it.
      - akoncius 8y ago
        I also agree that other countries are improving their economic situation and increasing consumption there adds up to global warming, not migration. what regards "no solution" this is so shortsighted that it's even difficult to decide where to start in disagreeing :) it's easy to say "screw it, let's see what happens" but take this angle: let's say EU will make everything to reduce climate change effects, but other regions not. In event of radical climate change people will start migrating to more safe regions, including EU, so EU will pay partially price for those regions who did not do any effort to reduce climate change. I don't want to pay price for sea level rising just because USA wanted to gain some short-term gains. also trading your life safety for economic gains sounds ridiculous.
cmutel 8y ago
I think you are right that Drawdown is doing good work, and trying to compare things that are quite difficult to compare. At the same point, the HN community should be aware that the data and models are neither open nor clearly identified, which means that we essentially have to just trust their conclusions. I work in this space [1], and when I see results with five significant digits (!) for prospective assessment it makes me very curious to see how these results were generated. For an alternative, see the Big Open Network of Sustainability Assessment Information (BONSAI [2]; disclosure: I am chair of the board) which is trying to do similar work with open data and open science. [1] https://chris.mutel.org/ https://chris.mutel.org/ [2] https://bonsai.uno/ https://bonsai.uno/
- wjnc 8y ago
  That's a very good point. We recently had Chad Frischmann on a company seminar. I remember him talking about releasing the models. I'll try and reach out to see an ETA. We do need science and not well intentioned belief.
snarf21 8y ago
I agree with everything you've said. We really need fewer people and won't get there fast enough. This planet can only sustain about half the people we already have. We are acidying our oceans at an alarming rate and the consequences will come like a tsunami. We're on pace to completely drain the Ogallala Aquifer in the very near future and our main food production capabilities will disappear along with them. The C02 tax will happen but it will be built into very limited food and drinkable water supply and their absorbent prices. We will slowly starve ourselves out first from the poorest countries and the richest ones last. It will be a very painful process. Thanos would be a mercy.
harimau777 8y ago
Is there any work being done on developing low carbon foods that people actually want to eat? It seems to me that the real obstacle to more sustainable food is that most people don't like eating it.
- dashundchen 8y ago
  If by developing you mean already exists, then yes. We already know what foods are high carbon, and it is mostly animal agricture, specifically ruminants due to their high energy input to calorie ratio, and methane emissions. We also know there are tons of ways to eat plant based. Have you had Ethiopian, Chinese or Indian dish without meat? Ever subbed meat for beans in a burrito? A great homemade black bean burger, or a snack of hummus? It's easier than ever to eat plant based and cook a whole planet's worth of cusine without resorting to processed fake meats
  - harimau777 8y ago
    Good point. Maybe it's more of an educational thing. I'm currently trying to reduce the amount of meat that I eat and until someone told me, I honestly didn't realize that rice + beans = a complete protein. I know this sounds dumb, but a lot of the difficulty I'm having now is figuring out how to structure plant based meals when I'm used to the structure "a piece of meat with some vegetables on the side or as toppings". Its not so much that I miss meat as much as it is that I feel like my meal is missing something and I'm not sure what non-animal thing should fill that role.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
belorn 8y ago
An important note is that they use a global perspective rather than individual perspective in their solutions. While food is a bigger issue than energy when taking a global perspective, it comes down to the fact that a lot more people eat food than uses energy. For the individual a change in energy will create a bigger impact than a change in diet, assuming the person is using energy in the first place (ie transportation, travel, heating, appliances). Or to put it in an other word, if we can get the full population of earth to stop eating meat it will do more good than getting the few percentages of the population that benefit from burning fossil fuels to switch to more Eco-friendly alternatives. A single flight with a plane represent quite a few eaten goats of C02 for people living in the poorest places in the world, but there is a lot of people in the world. As Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh could have said, making the transition to a plant-based diet may be the most effective way an individual can stop climate change as long they already go by bike and don't travel beyond the range of said bike. They should also make sure that heating isn't created through coal, oil, or gas. Heat from burning garbage is an complicated issue, but I suspect it should also be avoided.

by wjnc 8y ago

AstralStorm 8y ago

On the delta people, is the current projected sigmoid good enough or way too slow?

wjnc 8y ago
That's one in the podcast. Some African countries do the full demographic transition within a decade (!). That means bringing girls from the home to school, increasing their wealth creating capacity and hence less and later children. That's very hopeful. Let's say that with all the (religion based) wars for parts of Africa and Asia things are looking less hopeful. You can only include females in human capital when there is relative peace. I think their focus and girl development for the ultimate goal of less CO2 ppm was the first time I grokked some of the more modern gender discussion which I usually cannot relate to (mostly because of terminology and fervour, not for a lack of basic instinct of trying).

solotronics 8y ago

From a CO2 standpoint wouldn't it be good to stop subsidizing immigration to the first world? It's not just delta-population it's people moving from a low consumption environment to a high consumption one.

phreeza 8y ago
My gut feeling is that people entering a middle class lifestyle in their own countries far outnumber those doing so by migration. I might be wrong though.
- solotronics 8y ago
  The current paradigm in the US was to encourage immigration from the third world and then provide them subsidy for living expenses and making a bigger family. The goal of this appears to me to be about increasing consumption in the US and I would think this enables a much higher level of CO2 emission vs what would be generated under the different economic conditions in their home country.
  - anovikov 8y ago
    But still, people who do so are far outnumbered by those entering middle class in other countries. It's not about migration. Fighting global warming by limiting economic growth is simply not going to work. My idea of a solution to global warming is no solution: accept that the global warming will happen, discover its consequences, and make them a part of economic planning on both government and corporate level. Make people educated about it. That's it.
    - akoncius 8y ago
      I also agree that other countries are improving their economic situation and increasing consumption there adds up to global warming, not migration. what regards "no solution" this is so shortsighted that it's even difficult to decide where to start in disagreeing :) it's easy to say "screw it, let's see what happens" but take this angle: let's say EU will make everything to reduce climate change effects, but other regions not. In event of radical climate change people will start migrating to more safe regions, including EU, so EU will pay partially price for those regions who did not do any effort to reduce climate change. I don't want to pay price for sea level rising just because USA wanted to gain some short-term gains. also trading your life safety for economic gains sounds ridiculous.

cmutel 8y ago

I think you are right that Drawdown is doing good work, and trying to compare things that are quite difficult to compare. At the same point, the HN community should be aware that the data and models are neither open nor clearly identified, which means that we essentially have to just trust their conclusions. I work in this space [1], and when I see results with five significant digits (!) for prospective assessment it makes me very curious to see how these results were generated. For an alternative, see the Big Open Network of Sustainability Assessment Information (BONSAI [2]; disclosure: I am chair of the board) which is trying to do similar work with open data and open science. [1] https://chris.mutel.org/ https://chris.mutel.org/ [2] https://bonsai.uno/ https://bonsai.uno/

wjnc 8y ago
That's a very good point. We recently had Chad Frischmann on a company seminar. I remember him talking about releasing the models. I'll try and reach out to see an ETA. We do need science and not well intentioned belief.

snarf21 8y ago

I agree with everything you've said. We really need fewer people and won't get there fast enough. This planet can only sustain about half the people we already have. We are acidying our oceans at an alarming rate and the consequences will come like a tsunami. We're on pace to completely drain the Ogallala Aquifer in the very near future and our main food production capabilities will disappear along with them. The C02 tax will happen but it will be built into very limited food and drinkable water supply and their absorbent prices. We will slowly starve ourselves out first from the poorest countries and the richest ones last. It will be a very painful process. Thanos would be a mercy.

harimau777 8y ago

Is there any work being done on developing low carbon foods that people actually want to eat? It seems to me that the real obstacle to more sustainable food is that most people don't like eating it.

dashundchen 8y ago
If by developing you mean already exists, then yes. We already know what foods are high carbon, and it is mostly animal agricture, specifically ruminants due to their high energy input to calorie ratio, and methane emissions. We also know there are tons of ways to eat plant based. Have you had Ethiopian, Chinese or Indian dish without meat? Ever subbed meat for beans in a burrito? A great homemade black bean burger, or a snack of hummus? It's easier than ever to eat plant based and cook a whole planet's worth of cusine without resorting to processed fake meats
- harimau777 8y ago
  Good point. Maybe it's more of an educational thing. I'm currently trying to reduce the amount of meat that I eat and until someone told me, I honestly didn't realize that rice + beans = a complete protein. I know this sounds dumb, but a lot of the difficulty I'm having now is figuring out how to structure plant based meals when I'm used to the structure "a piece of meat with some vegetables on the side or as toppings". Its not so much that I miss meat as much as it is that I feel like my meal is missing something and I'm not sure what non-animal thing should fill that role.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

belorn 8y ago

An important note is that they use a global perspective rather than individual perspective in their solutions. While food is a bigger issue than energy when taking a global perspective, it comes down to the fact that a lot more people eat food than uses energy. For the individual a change in energy will create a bigger impact than a change in diet, assuming the person is using energy in the first place (ie transportation, travel, heating, appliances). Or to put it in an other word, if we can get the full population of earth to stop eating meat it will do more good than getting the few percentages of the population that benefit from burning fossil fuels to switch to more Eco-friendly alternatives. A single flight with a plane represent quite a few eaten goats of C02 for people living in the poorest places in the world, but there is a lot of people in the world. As Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh could have said, making the transition to a plant-based diet may be the most effective way an individual can stop climate change as long they already go by bike and don't travel beyond the range of said bike. They should also make sure that heating isn't created through coal, oil, or gas. Heat from burning garbage is an complicated issue, but I suspect it should also be avoided.