4 ms·

There is no more time for individual action. We're about 20/30 years too late for this plan. Positive-feedback has kicked in, so slowing down emissions will ac

There is no more time for individual action. We're about 20/30 years too late for this plan. Positive-feedback has kicked in, so slowing down emissions will achieve very little. Because of positive feedback, even halting emissions might not be enough. The only possible path I can think of to stem the catastrophe is a two-step plan: 1. The immediate enactment of a global carbon tax, priced high enough to materially reduce carbon emissions, and quickly. 2. Massive investment in sequestration technologies to help us scrub the air of CO2 and methane. The challenge is colossal. Even if (1) could be done, (2) basically involves un-doing every emission of the past 20 years. Every mile driven must now be driven backwards, every good manufactured must be un-done...and with far more energy than it took the first time (thanks, thermodynamics!). And that energy must come from clean sources. And it must be done quickly; every day the carbon debt accelerates. Note, not grows — accelerates! A friend once gave me the following metaphor. Imagine you have a glass jar, filled 1/16 with bacteria. The bacteria look up and say "we have plenty of room to grow!". Two weeks later the bacteria are half way up the jar. "Hey, it took us two week to get here, we have time to curb our growth". The bacteria suffocate in about two hours.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Carbon sequestration seems like the (political) winner because it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something (in a democratic society at least). Edit: Of course not emitting the carbon is better and more efficient but from a practical "affecting change ASAP" perspective sequestration seems like an easier pill for society to swallow. That should go without saying but I forgot that weekends here are basically Reddit and those kinds of things cannot be considered obvious.
- elbasti 7y ago
  Unfortunately we need to do both. It's much "cheaper" (in money and thermodynamics) to release carbon than to capture it, so we need to stop pumping it into the atmosphere in order for it to make any sense whatsoever to spend money removing it.
- hannob 7y ago
  Please learn some basic facts. The idea that carbon sequestation is an alternative to reducing emissions needs to die as quickly as possible. It's rooted in fantasy, not in facts. All climate scenarios from the IPCC that don't end up in a huge catastrophy rely on rapid emission reductions. Most also rely on carbon sequestation for negative emissions in the future (which many think is too optimistic, because it needs yet to be shown that the technology can be scaled up enough). There is no scenario of averting catastrophic heating with carbon sequestation alone.
- cheerlessbog 7y ago
  > it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something If that was the case we could have a strong carbon tax, which would actually be a very good idea, probably the most economically efficient of all. But they don't. People like to keep their money even if that means much less money for them in the long run because we don't have an economy in the sense we are used to.
jodrellblank 7y ago
The bacteria are mentioned in Albert Bartlett's famous lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY It's clickbait titled and split into 8 parts, for who knows what reasons, but that quote is the tl;dr version of it. Exponential growth is unintuitive, and chasing endless growth is not going to work out well for us. Even if the bacteria find another entire jar of open space - as much space as has ever been known, as much space as they have used in their entire history - a fully terraformed Mars hanging out in the back yard previously unseen - it only lasts a single doubling-time.
- elbasti 7y ago
  Found a 3 minute version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk
plufz 7y ago
So people should stop with individual action while lobbying politicans? On what do you base that? I agree that political solutions are important but can’t see that individual contributions won’t be a part of the solution. I also think that politicans usually want to do what is popular, e.g if people start eating less meat politicians dare to suggest meat taxes. Politics is usually slow, I firmly believe we need to work on all levels to mitigate co2. I’ve heard some criticism against co2 tax, since different areas of society works very differently. For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2. Another big emitter of co2 is heating and cooling of real estate, but the cost of that is spread over a long time and is usually not payed by the entrepreneurs that build and sell the property and does not to a high degree affect the pricing. So in both of these cases we need other tools than taxes like subsidies for buying electric cars and building standards/regulations.
- elbasti 7y ago
  > So people should stop with individual action while lobbying politicians? If it helps them lobby their politicians more, then sure. I mean, it doesn't, but if it did I'd take that trade any day. > On what do you base that? Purely on a sense of urgency. Individual action will--at best--lower greenhouse emissions by lowering demand for carbon intensive products & practices. How many business cycles does it take for these actions to take effect? We simply don't have decades. As well, a consequence of lowering demand of carbon-intensive products results in...a lowering of the price of carbon/oil. Increasing demand, until the slack is picked up elsewhere. The invisible hand is powerful. A Co2 tax does the same thing as individual action--it lowers the demand for carbon, except it prevents the price from adjusting down. It is our only hope. > For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2. By definition, then the tax is too low. Demand for gasoline is very inelastic, but it's not perfectly inelastic. I don't think you understand the urgency. Runaway heating has started. We don't have 20 years. A draconianly high CO2 tax is our only hope.
  - plufz 7y ago

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Carbon sequestration seems like the (political) winner because it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something (in a democratic society at least). Edit: Of course not emitting the carbon is better and more efficient but from a practical "affecting change ASAP" perspective sequestration seems like an easier pill for society to swallow. That should go without saying but I forgot that weekends here are basically Reddit and those kinds of things cannot be considered obvious.

elbasti 7y ago
Unfortunately we need to do both. It's much "cheaper" (in money and thermodynamics) to release carbon than to capture it, so we need to stop pumping it into the atmosphere in order for it to make any sense whatsoever to spend money removing it.
hannob 7y ago
Please learn some basic facts. The idea that carbon sequestation is an alternative to reducing emissions needs to die as quickly as possible. It's rooted in fantasy, not in facts. All climate scenarios from the IPCC that don't end up in a huge catastrophy rely on rapid emission reductions. Most also rely on carbon sequestation for negative emissions in the future (which many think is too optimistic, because it needs yet to be shown that the technology can be scaled up enough). There is no scenario of averting catastrophic heating with carbon sequestation alone.
cheerlessbog 7y ago
> it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something If that was the case we could have a strong carbon tax, which would actually be a very good idea, probably the most economically efficient of all. But they don't. People like to keep their money even if that means much less money for them in the long run because we don't have an economy in the sense we are used to.

jodrellblank 7y ago

The bacteria are mentioned in Albert Bartlett's famous lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY It's clickbait titled and split into 8 parts, for who knows what reasons, but that quote is the tl;dr version of it. Exponential growth is unintuitive, and chasing endless growth is not going to work out well for us. Even if the bacteria find another entire jar of open space - as much space as has ever been known, as much space as they have used in their entire history - a fully terraformed Mars hanging out in the back yard previously unseen - it only lasts a single doubling-time.

elbasti 7y ago
Found a 3 minute version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk

plufz 7y ago

So people should stop with individual action while lobbying politicans? On what do you base that? I agree that political solutions are important but can’t see that individual contributions won’t be a part of the solution. I also think that politicans usually want to do what is popular, e.g if people start eating less meat politicians dare to suggest meat taxes. Politics is usually slow, I firmly believe we need to work on all levels to mitigate co2. I’ve heard some criticism against co2 tax, since different areas of society works very differently. For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2. Another big emitter of co2 is heating and cooling of real estate, but the cost of that is spread over a long time and is usually not payed by the entrepreneurs that build and sell the property and does not to a high degree affect the pricing. So in both of these cases we need other tools than taxes like subsidies for buying electric cars and building standards/regulations.

elbasti 7y ago
> So people should stop with individual action while lobbying politicians? If it helps them lobby their politicians more, then sure. I mean, it doesn't, but if it did I'd take that trade any day. > On what do you base that? Purely on a sense of urgency. Individual action will--at best--lower greenhouse emissions by lowering demand for carbon intensive products & practices. How many business cycles does it take for these actions to take effect? We simply don't have decades. As well, a consequence of lowering demand of carbon-intensive products results in...a lowering of the price of carbon/oil. Increasing demand, until the slack is picked up elsewhere. The invisible hand is powerful. A Co2 tax does the same thing as individual action--it lowers the demand for carbon, except it prevents the price from adjusting down. It is our only hope. > For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2. By definition, then the tax is too low. Demand for gasoline is very inelastic, but it's not perfectly inelastic. I don't think you understand the urgency. Runaway heating has started. We don't have 20 years. A draconianly high CO2 tax is our only hope.
- plufz 7y ago