7 ms·

This. And also: The environment is an awesome way for people to virtue signal how much they care. But the fact is the real world consequences of what most envi

by zpeti 7y ago

This. And also: The environment is an awesome way for people to virtue signal how much they care. But the fact is the real world consequences of what most environmentalists ask for would seriously affect the way of life they have. Politicians know this. Any serious attempt to change anything will not get you votes and out of government. That is not the governments fault. That is not the corporations fault. That is every individuals fault who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. How is a politician supposed to do anything about the environment when it WOULD make the poor poorer? Most people don't realise that the effects of the 2008 financial crisis is nothing compared to what sort of reduction in living standards you would need to get even close to being carbon neutral. In fact, its usually environmentalists complaining about inequality and cost of living. What would being carbon free mean for anyone individually? No flying, no cars. Buying solar panels. Insulating your home. No meat. No imported foodstuffs. How much sacrifice and cost is that for 1 person? Multiply that by everyone, it's INSANE.

crispinb 7y ago
> it's INSANE And the death of our living planet isn't? So-called 'economic growth' was never much more than a global entropy increase, as high quality self-organising evolved systems were ripped out to feed crude technological ones requiring endless inputs. This was always mere borrowing against the future. It was never 'growth' in any true sense. It ends because biology, chemistry & physics say it must, regardless of human pouting. We could perhaps 3 or 4 decades ago have made a collective decision to gradually reduce consumption and allow our home to survive in decent enough shape to sustain us. Or maybe it was a biological fait accompli that any species evolving capacities to escape population limits and spread like a devastating weed across the world would eventually outstip the world's capacity to absorb the change. We'll probably never know which.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > We could perhaps 3 or 4 decades ago have made a collective decision to gradually reduce consumption and allow our home to survive in decent enough shape to sustain us. One thing we know about humans is that, as a species, we were never and are not currently capable of making such collective decisions or otherwise coordinating at this scale. This is probably the root of most problems we have, except death and diseases.
  - komaromy 7y ago
    Collective action has worked in the past. We did it with CFCs.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Sort of, mostly. It's an interesting case you bring up, and I think it may be informative about the conditions under which global-scale coordination happens. Note here though, that "collective action" meant government regulating CFCs out of use, and not a bottom-up people movement. I need to study the details of this case more; from the little knowledge I have on it, the cynic in me would conclude that it only worked as effectively as it did because by the time of the Montreal Protocol, DuPont had figured out and patented a replacement for CFCs.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      We're talking many, many orders of magnitude difference in change.
    - kaybe 7y ago
      Side note: There is a quite recent amendment to the Montreal treaty, the Kigali amendment (2016), which phased out the CFC replacements with strong greenhouse effects in favour of replacements without them. This alone will save us ~0.3° warming until 2100 (if the projections are right). This is about the only positive news I've ever seen for this topic. https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/... (eg page ES.23 & ES.24) (I really love those charts.)
  - gxx 7y ago
    For this reason there is no hope that collective action through government pave the way to the solutions we need. Governments will only be forced to act when things are so bad that it's too late. There is also no hope that individual action will make a meaningful difference. Not enough people will care until things are so bad it's too late. Public corporations will not lead the way to a solution because they are only driven by short term profit. Does anyone seriously believe any of the above will lead to solutions soon enough? It seems to me that only the ultra rich have the resources, independence, and arguably intelligence to lead the way to solutions that could save humanity. They might devote their talents and resources to funding research into technologies we will need when when things get so bad that governments are forced to act. Also funding powerful lobbing groups to counteract the powerful lobbing efforts of corporations that benefit from delaying action on the climate.
- ZeroFries 7y ago
  No matter what we do as a collective society, the planet will change. Yes, our actions now are speeding it up. But they might also be speeding up the solutions. Borrowing against the future might be our best bet for preserving the future, if it means we develop the technology needed to properly address climate change.
MiroF 7y ago
I think this take is largely true. I think there is a path to saving the climate even when so many are completely unwilling to sacrifice any bit of their livelihood for a sustainable climate for future generation. That path consists of heavy, heavy investment in geo-engineering and low-cost nuclear right now. As soon as we have perfected solar geo-engineering, we need to put it in place to prevent catastrophic runaway/positive feedback loops, while we work to replace the infrastructure in developing (and developed) countries with low cost nuclear. This is politically unpopular, but I think that irrational opposition to nuclear (and somewhat rational opposition to geo-engineering) can be overcome more easily than people's unwillingness to sacrifice their own wealth.
- kaybe 7y ago
  The only real option is carbon capture. Everything else has the wonkiest side effects in the models, eg concerning atmosphere/ocean circulation, which heavily affects local and regional weather patterns, and the cooling is still not sufficient.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Carbon capture is not remotely feasible given the cost/intrinsic limitations in how to get the carbon out of the air. Sulfur dioxide has been shown to work in real life experiments (read: volcanic eruptions) and while t has some side effects, it’s a known quantity and the benefits generally outweigh the costs.
    - kaybe 7y ago
      Yes, it works, but there is a limit for how much warming it can migitate (if you make the particles larger/more they will just coagulate and precipitate faster), and the limit seems to be ~ -2 W/m^2. (It is important to not only consider the short-wave reflective cooling of the aerosol but also the long-wave heating it creates. More sulphur will just coagulate faster. Changing atmospheric circulation patterns mean the aerosol is not distributed equally and can grow and precipiate faster.) (Currently we're already at an estimated +0.6 W/m^2.) Additionally, the atmospheric circulation is disturbed [0]. Interaction with the ozone layer might also be highly problematic. So this is not a solution, only a last-ditch effort if we need to buy some time. With everything else being constant, the injection needs to be repeated for basically forever, a problem for all solar radiation management techniques. Carbon capture on the other hand allows us to stop at some point, it removes the problem instead of only treating the symptoms. There are ideas for enhanced weathering, or storing organic matter (eg as biochar), which are feasible from an energic perspective but still expensive. Whatever we do, it needs to be done on a huge scale, like a massive war effort, with everyone involved and helping, and it will be more expensive than not emitting the carbon in the first place. Also, one method alone will not cut it, and there will be side effects, which are hopefully less severe than the alternative. Don't rely on technology to fix the problem after the fact, push for change now. [0] https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-2018.pdf https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-201...
astrodust 7y ago
This isn't how it has to play out. You can fly, you can eat meat, you can import things, you can do anything you want so long as it's sustainable. What if cargo was travelling by modern, computer controlled sailboats that used zero fuel? What if planes used fuel produced by yeast that fed on raw sewage? What if cars could be made out of mushroom-based plastic and fully recycled metal? None of these things are impossible, but nobody will do any of them until they're forced to. Either that's by preventative regulation, or, if things get really grim, by necessity.
makerofspoons 7y ago
None of that sounds bad to me. Imagine how quiet it would be without cars and planes, and how much better the air quality would be. Perhaps obesity would even be curbed if people were eating local vegetables, fruits, and grains instead of fish, meat, dairy, and other animal products. What you have described doesn't sound like people are poor but living a leaner, simpler, healthier lifestyle.
throwanem 7y ago
We're going to have it either way, whether by deliberate choice or as a result of unchecked climate change. If we were to start acting now, even in small ways like funding public transit and new solar infrastructure so as to try to cushion the impact, that would make a difference. But we aren't, and we won't. And attitudes like yours are part of the reason why.
shrimp_emoji 7y ago
>No flying, no cars. Buying solar panels. Insulating your home. No meat. No imported foodstuffs. How much sacrifice and cost is that for 1 person? Multiply that by everyone, it's INSANE. That's far from what sustainability can mean, but it's not even that insane. It's only "insane" by the arbitrary consensus culture we've forged and grown up in. Imagine what "insanity" we might have to adjust to if we don't do anything. Pseudomilitary lifestyles in communal arcology dwellings with (necessarily) authoritarian regimes. Striving for efficiencies that have been unnecessary since the Paleolithic but through the tools of modernity: rigid, normalized discipline, rationing, eugenics, jumpsuits, nutrient slurry.[0] Even that would be far preferable to extinction, and it might be what space colonizers might have to endure even with a decadent, present day-style Earth civilization they can never return to. And it might not be far from what we have to eventually endure either way; even in the best case, Earth has a shelf-life.[1] 0: https://youtu.be/6ilJcs7JL4M https://youtu.be/6ilJcs7JL4M 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Future_of_the_Earth,_the_Solar_System_and_the_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Fut...

by zpeti 7y ago

crispinb 7y ago

> it's INSANE And the death of our living planet isn't? So-called 'economic growth' was never much more than a global entropy increase, as high quality self-organising evolved systems were ripped out to feed crude technological ones requiring endless inputs. This was always mere borrowing against the future. It was never 'growth' in any true sense. It ends because biology, chemistry & physics say it must, regardless of human pouting. We could perhaps 3 or 4 decades ago have made a collective decision to gradually reduce consumption and allow our home to survive in decent enough shape to sustain us. Or maybe it was a biological fait accompli that any species evolving capacities to escape population limits and spread like a devastating weed across the world would eventually outstip the world's capacity to absorb the change. We'll probably never know which.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> We could perhaps 3 or 4 decades ago have made a collective decision to gradually reduce consumption and allow our home to survive in decent enough shape to sustain us. One thing we know about humans is that, as a species, we were never and are not currently capable of making such collective decisions or otherwise coordinating at this scale. This is probably the root of most problems we have, except death and diseases.
- komaromy 7y ago
  Collective action has worked in the past. We did it with CFCs.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Sort of, mostly. It's an interesting case you bring up, and I think it may be informative about the conditions under which global-scale coordination happens. Note here though, that "collective action" meant government regulating CFCs out of use, and not a bottom-up people movement. I need to study the details of this case more; from the little knowledge I have on it, the cynic in me would conclude that it only worked as effectively as it did because by the time of the Montreal Protocol, DuPont had figured out and patented a replacement for CFCs.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    We're talking many, many orders of magnitude difference in change.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    Side note: There is a quite recent amendment to the Montreal treaty, the Kigali amendment (2016), which phased out the CFC replacements with strong greenhouse effects in favour of replacements without them. This alone will save us ~0.3° warming until 2100 (if the projections are right). This is about the only positive news I've ever seen for this topic. https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/... (eg page ES.23 & ES.24) (I really love those charts.)
- gxx 7y ago
  For this reason there is no hope that collective action through government pave the way to the solutions we need. Governments will only be forced to act when things are so bad that it's too late. There is also no hope that individual action will make a meaningful difference. Not enough people will care until things are so bad it's too late. Public corporations will not lead the way to a solution because they are only driven by short term profit. Does anyone seriously believe any of the above will lead to solutions soon enough? It seems to me that only the ultra rich have the resources, independence, and arguably intelligence to lead the way to solutions that could save humanity. They might devote their talents and resources to funding research into technologies we will need when when things get so bad that governments are forced to act. Also funding powerful lobbing groups to counteract the powerful lobbing efforts of corporations that benefit from delaying action on the climate.
ZeroFries 7y ago
No matter what we do as a collective society, the planet will change. Yes, our actions now are speeding it up. But they might also be speeding up the solutions. Borrowing against the future might be our best bet for preserving the future, if it means we develop the technology needed to properly address climate change.

MiroF 7y ago

I think this take is largely true. I think there is a path to saving the climate even when so many are completely unwilling to sacrifice any bit of their livelihood for a sustainable climate for future generation. That path consists of heavy, heavy investment in geo-engineering and low-cost nuclear right now. As soon as we have perfected solar geo-engineering, we need to put it in place to prevent catastrophic runaway/positive feedback loops, while we work to replace the infrastructure in developing (and developed) countries with low cost nuclear. This is politically unpopular, but I think that irrational opposition to nuclear (and somewhat rational opposition to geo-engineering) can be overcome more easily than people's unwillingness to sacrifice their own wealth.

kaybe 7y ago
The only real option is carbon capture. Everything else has the wonkiest side effects in the models, eg concerning atmosphere/ocean circulation, which heavily affects local and regional weather patterns, and the cooling is still not sufficient.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Carbon capture is not remotely feasible given the cost/intrinsic limitations in how to get the carbon out of the air. Sulfur dioxide has been shown to work in real life experiments (read: volcanic eruptions) and while t has some side effects, it’s a known quantity and the benefits generally outweigh the costs.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    Yes, it works, but there is a limit for how much warming it can migitate (if you make the particles larger/more they will just coagulate and precipitate faster), and the limit seems to be ~ -2 W/m^2. (It is important to not only consider the short-wave reflective cooling of the aerosol but also the long-wave heating it creates. More sulphur will just coagulate faster. Changing atmospheric circulation patterns mean the aerosol is not distributed equally and can grow and precipiate faster.) (Currently we're already at an estimated +0.6 W/m^2.) Additionally, the atmospheric circulation is disturbed [0]. Interaction with the ozone layer might also be highly problematic. So this is not a solution, only a last-ditch effort if we need to buy some time. With everything else being constant, the injection needs to be repeated for basically forever, a problem for all solar radiation management techniques. Carbon capture on the other hand allows us to stop at some point, it removes the problem instead of only treating the symptoms. There are ideas for enhanced weathering, or storing organic matter (eg as biochar), which are feasible from an energic perspective but still expensive. Whatever we do, it needs to be done on a huge scale, like a massive war effort, with everyone involved and helping, and it will be more expensive than not emitting the carbon in the first place. Also, one method alone will not cut it, and there will be side effects, which are hopefully less severe than the alternative. Don't rely on technology to fix the problem after the fact, push for change now. [0] https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-2018.pdf https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-201...

astrodust 7y ago

This isn't how it has to play out. You can fly, you can eat meat, you can import things, you can do anything you want so long as it's sustainable. What if cargo was travelling by modern, computer controlled sailboats that used zero fuel? What if planes used fuel produced by yeast that fed on raw sewage? What if cars could be made out of mushroom-based plastic and fully recycled metal? None of these things are impossible, but nobody will do any of them until they're forced to. Either that's by preventative regulation, or, if things get really grim, by necessity.

makerofspoons 7y ago

None of that sounds bad to me. Imagine how quiet it would be without cars and planes, and how much better the air quality would be. Perhaps obesity would even be curbed if people were eating local vegetables, fruits, and grains instead of fish, meat, dairy, and other animal products. What you have described doesn't sound like people are poor but living a leaner, simpler, healthier lifestyle.

throwanem 7y ago

We're going to have it either way, whether by deliberate choice or as a result of unchecked climate change. If we were to start acting now, even in small ways like funding public transit and new solar infrastructure so as to try to cushion the impact, that would make a difference. But we aren't, and we won't. And attitudes like yours are part of the reason why.

shrimp_emoji 7y ago

>No flying, no cars. Buying solar panels. Insulating your home. No meat. No imported foodstuffs. How much sacrifice and cost is that for 1 person? Multiply that by everyone, it's INSANE. That's far from what sustainability can mean, but it's not even that insane. It's only "insane" by the arbitrary consensus culture we've forged and grown up in. Imagine what "insanity" we might have to adjust to if we don't do anything. Pseudomilitary lifestyles in communal arcology dwellings with (necessarily) authoritarian regimes. Striving for efficiencies that have been unnecessary since the Paleolithic but through the tools of modernity: rigid, normalized discipline, rationing, eugenics, jumpsuits, nutrient slurry.[0] Even that would be far preferable to extinction, and it might be what space colonizers might have to endure even with a decadent, present day-style Earth civilization they can never return to. And it might not be far from what we have to eventually endure either way; even in the best case, Earth has a shelf-life.[1] 0: https://youtu.be/6ilJcs7JL4M https://youtu.be/6ilJcs7JL4M 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Future_of_the_Earth,_the_Solar_System_and_the_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Fut...