4 ms·

And yet reality is that if we completely eliminated the ENTIRE transportation industry world wide —land, sea and air, effectively destroying civilization as we

And yet reality is that if we completely eliminated the ENTIRE transportation industry world wide —land, sea and air, effectively destroying civilization as we know it—- a reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration of 100 ppm will require somewhere in the order of 50,000 to 100,000 years. Talking about non-solutions might feel emotionally satisfying, yet it does nothing at all to really address the problem. Worse yet, it pulls the conversation away from real solutions.

MagnumOpus 7y ago
> reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration of 100 ppm Shifting the goalpost? Getting near net zero increase would be sufficient to avoid an extinction event. > pulls the conversation away from real solutions Do you have a real solution? If not, why badmouth something constructive just because it is not constructive enough? If yes, why don't you post it?
- dmitriid 7y ago
  > Getting near net zero increase would be sufficient to avoid an extinction event. --- start quote [1] --- This is the largest, dirtiest coal mine in Europe. It's responsible for 100 Million Tons of CO2 emissions per year. That's 3168 kg of CO2 per second. --- end quote --- I will be flying to Barcelona from Stockholm in June. Some sites show me the three-hour flight will cost 616kg of CO2. Is it per person? I don't know. Let's assume per person (even though I'm pretty sure it's for the entire flight). In that same time that mine will have released 60×60×3.5×3168 = almost 40 million kg of CO2. Enough for every single person on that flight to take over 200 such flights to be anywhere on the same level of CO2 emmissions. [1] https://twitter.com/JoanieLemercier/status/1111334848399052800 https://twitter.com/JoanieLemercier/status/11113348483990528...
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    You're also using the coal mine, just not directly. This is like justifying your personal waste based on the fact that a neighborhood of 10,000 people collectively wastes 10,000 times as much, and you also live in that neighborhood.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      So the biggest impact would be cutting dependence on coal rather than a few hundred people (or even a few thousand people) giving up on air travel.
  - username90 7y ago
    > Some sites show me the three-hour flight will cost 616kg of CO2. Is it per person? I don't know. Let's assume per person (even though I'm pretty sure it's for the entire flight). It is per person, going by plane takes roughly as much as going by car if it is over land. Stockholm to Barcelona is according to Google 2788 km. Typical car takes 1.2 litre per 10km, so the whole trip would be around 300 litres of petrol. 1 litre of petrol is around 2.4 kg CO2, so over 700 kg CO2 for the entire trip.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      > Typical car takes 1.2 litre per 10km A typical car takes 4-5 people. A typical plane takes 200-400 people. So 700 kg for the entire trip wouldn't be per person.
perfunctory 7y ago
The reality is that there is no one single industry where reductions will be sufficient. We need lots of reductions across the board. Including in transportation.
- robomartin 7y ago
  No. This is wrong and it is not supported by data. If humanity and all of our stuff evaporated from this planet it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to drop by 100ppm. These are all non-solutions. Even if we become extinct and all of our technology, buildings and power-plants rot away and dissolve, you are still looking at tens of thousands of years. None of these things, individually or collectively are better than humanity not being on this planet. Which means they can’t possibly produce results any faster than that.
jdietrich 7y ago
Everything is the real problem. If we eliminated everything but transportation, we'd still be screwed. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, domestic energy use - we have to fix it all to stand any hope of mitigating the worst effects of climate change. We can fix it all, but that requires concerted effort. Transportation is the biggest single source of emissions in the US, so it is entirely reasonable to make it a high-priority target. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
robomartin 7y ago
I continue to see that this issue is dominated by ideology and brainwashing. I have an open question that nobody has answered yet: If all of humanity evaporated from this planet tomorrow, it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to drop by 100ppm. We know this to a high degree of certainty because of ice core atmospheric data going back 800,000 years. In other words, way before any of our technology even existed. So, the natural “no humans anywhere” rate of change is in the order of 100ppm per 50,000 years. Now the question: How does your <insert any idea you care to test here> msnage to improve on this rate of change a thousand-fold when it is but a rounding error when compared to the planet without humanity at all? Simple example: Convert the entire world to the most optimal forms of renewable energy! OK, if all of humanity LEFT THE PLANET and we took ALL OF OUR TECHNOLOGY WITH US, it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for a useful change in atmospheric CO2. This renewable energy shift is an insignificant change when compared to a planet empty of us and our crap. Which means that, if there’s a reduction of atmospheric CO2 at all it can’t possibly happen any faster than 100ppm per ~50,000 years. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to explain the magical methods they will use to violate the laws of physics as we know them. BTW, to whoever made the comment: I don’t have to know the solution to a problem in order to recognize the problem as well as to identify non-solutions. I don’t know how to make humans breathe under water, but I can tell that eating more fish is not a solution.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Without questioning any of your assumptions. You see impact of up to 75k years from your and my emissions. Essentially any pollution you and I cause can be considered permanent from a human time perspective. If we were to stop emitting today, it's not certain where equilibrium would settle, nor what tipping points will pass as temperatures increase. You conclude there's no point bothering and to keep doing near permanent damage? Just keep on shitting in the pool until it's unusable? This is concluding there's no point investing in a pension. Personally, I conclude we need to reach carbon neutral as soon as possible - to stop making the problem worse. Very simply put 100ppm is going to be better for humanity and other species than 150ppm or 200ppm etc, so stop as soon as possible. To not pass the irreparable tipping points, to stop adding fuel to the fire. Not as soon as convenient, or as soon as affordable, but as possible. Mobilise countries as though on a war footing: rationing - of flying, of petrol, of food, of consumer goods and clothing, quotas, enforcement, require industries to stop producing some thing and produce something else instead. ALL of these were done in WW2, and no laws of physics were broken. Now consider human population growth, so probably add child rationing too. Personally I don't see that mobilisation happening soon. Based upon the pathetic progress over the last 30 or 40 years I think it almost inevitable - the market can't solve it. Very probably not in my lifetime, as humanity will probably need to be much closer to a clear abyss of impending disaster. I do think it the inheritance my children can very likely look forward to, and a society that's much less free and may have far less opportunity. Because their parent's and grandparent's generations couldn't be arsed. Nevertheless two easy first steps toward stop making the problem worse are carbon neutral electricity generation, and reducing flying. No magic or disingenuous claims.

MagnumOpus 7y ago

> reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration of 100 ppm Shifting the goalpost? Getting near net zero increase would be sufficient to avoid an extinction event. > pulls the conversation away from real solutions Do you have a real solution? If not, why badmouth something constructive just because it is not constructive enough? If yes, why don't you post it?

dmitriid 7y ago
> Getting near net zero increase would be sufficient to avoid an extinction event. --- start quote [1] --- This is the largest, dirtiest coal mine in Europe. It's responsible for 100 Million Tons of CO2 emissions per year. That's 3168 kg of CO2 per second. --- end quote --- I will be flying to Barcelona from Stockholm in June. Some sites show me the three-hour flight will cost 616kg of CO2. Is it per person? I don't know. Let's assume per person (even though I'm pretty sure it's for the entire flight). In that same time that mine will have released 60×60×3.5×3168 = almost 40 million kg of CO2. Enough for every single person on that flight to take over 200 such flights to be anywhere on the same level of CO2 emmissions. [1] https://twitter.com/JoanieLemercier/status/1111334848399052800 https://twitter.com/JoanieLemercier/status/11113348483990528...
- pessimizer 7y ago
  You're also using the coal mine, just not directly. This is like justifying your personal waste based on the fact that a neighborhood of 10,000 people collectively wastes 10,000 times as much, and you also live in that neighborhood.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    So the biggest impact would be cutting dependence on coal rather than a few hundred people (or even a few thousand people) giving up on air travel.
- username90 7y ago
  > Some sites show me the three-hour flight will cost 616kg of CO2. Is it per person? I don't know. Let's assume per person (even though I'm pretty sure it's for the entire flight). It is per person, going by plane takes roughly as much as going by car if it is over land. Stockholm to Barcelona is according to Google 2788 km. Typical car takes 1.2 litre per 10km, so the whole trip would be around 300 litres of petrol. 1 litre of petrol is around 2.4 kg CO2, so over 700 kg CO2 for the entire trip.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    > Typical car takes 1.2 litre per 10km A typical car takes 4-5 people. A typical plane takes 200-400 people. So 700 kg for the entire trip wouldn't be per person.

perfunctory 7y ago

The reality is that there is no one single industry where reductions will be sufficient. We need lots of reductions across the board. Including in transportation.

robomartin 7y ago
No. This is wrong and it is not supported by data. If humanity and all of our stuff evaporated from this planet it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to drop by 100ppm. These are all non-solutions. Even if we become extinct and all of our technology, buildings and power-plants rot away and dissolve, you are still looking at tens of thousands of years. None of these things, individually or collectively are better than humanity not being on this planet. Which means they can’t possibly produce results any faster than that.

jdietrich 7y ago

Everything is the real problem. If we eliminated everything but transportation, we'd still be screwed. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, domestic energy use - we have to fix it all to stand any hope of mitigating the worst effects of climate change. We can fix it all, but that requires concerted effort. Transportation is the biggest single source of emissions in the US, so it is entirely reasonable to make it a high-priority target. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

robomartin 7y ago

I continue to see that this issue is dominated by ideology and brainwashing. I have an open question that nobody has answered yet: If all of humanity evaporated from this planet tomorrow, it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to drop by 100ppm. We know this to a high degree of certainty because of ice core atmospheric data going back 800,000 years. In other words, way before any of our technology even existed. So, the natural “no humans anywhere” rate of change is in the order of 100ppm per 50,000 years. Now the question: How does your <insert any idea you care to test here> msnage to improve on this rate of change a thousand-fold when it is but a rounding error when compared to the planet without humanity at all? Simple example: Convert the entire world to the most optimal forms of renewable energy! OK, if all of humanity LEFT THE PLANET and we took ALL OF OUR TECHNOLOGY WITH US, it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for a useful change in atmospheric CO2. This renewable energy shift is an insignificant change when compared to a planet empty of us and our crap. Which means that, if there’s a reduction of atmospheric CO2 at all it can’t possibly happen any faster than 100ppm per ~50,000 years. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to explain the magical methods they will use to violate the laws of physics as we know them. BTW, to whoever made the comment: I don’t have to know the solution to a problem in order to recognize the problem as well as to identify non-solutions. I don’t know how to make humans breathe under water, but I can tell that eating more fish is not a solution.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Without questioning any of your assumptions. You see impact of up to 75k years from your and my emissions. Essentially any pollution you and I cause can be considered permanent from a human time perspective. If we were to stop emitting today, it's not certain where equilibrium would settle, nor what tipping points will pass as temperatures increase. You conclude there's no point bothering and to keep doing near permanent damage? Just keep on shitting in the pool until it's unusable? This is concluding there's no point investing in a pension. Personally, I conclude we need to reach carbon neutral as soon as possible - to stop making the problem worse. Very simply put 100ppm is going to be better for humanity and other species than 150ppm or 200ppm etc, so stop as soon as possible. To not pass the irreparable tipping points, to stop adding fuel to the fire. Not as soon as convenient, or as soon as affordable, but as possible. Mobilise countries as though on a war footing: rationing - of flying, of petrol, of food, of consumer goods and clothing, quotas, enforcement, require industries to stop producing some thing and produce something else instead. ALL of these were done in WW2, and no laws of physics were broken. Now consider human population growth, so probably add child rationing too. Personally I don't see that mobilisation happening soon. Based upon the pathetic progress over the last 30 or 40 years I think it almost inevitable - the market can't solve it. Very probably not in my lifetime, as humanity will probably need to be much closer to a clear abyss of impending disaster. I do think it the inheritance my children can very likely look forward to, and a society that's much less free and may have far less opportunity. Because their parent's and grandparent's generations couldn't be arsed. Nevertheless two easy first steps toward stop making the problem worse are carbon neutral electricity generation, and reducing flying. No magic or disingenuous claims.