4 ms·

The problem is that is too little too late. If I get sick, I cant just solve my problem with some ibuprofen. Solving climate change requires a major overhaul

The problem is that is too little too late. If I get sick, I cant just solve my problem with some ibuprofen. Solving climate change requires a major overhaul in culture, lifestyle, expectation, technology and politics. We did it before, mostly in War situations, I do not understand why this is different.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
People on HN hate it when you say we have to change our whole society to deal with this problem. I agree with you though. I don’t think we’re willing to do what is necessary to avoid serious catastrophe. We’ve done a good job demonstrating that for 50+ years so far.
- roenxi 7y ago
  > People on HN hate it when you say we have to change our whole society to deal with this problem. We obviously don't have to change our whole society to deal with that problem. 1) I've been told that renewable are now grid competitive in cost and the power system is switching over to them naturally. 2) At any point we could go nuclear - even the most pessimistic anti-nuclear activist would have to admit that the risks from nuclear power are localised and that the raw volume of pollution rounds to 0 compared to what we do now. It would take a couple of breakthroughs in battery technology to solve the transport problem and the whole thing might get solved in the background without much more serious effort. Most people wouldn't even notice.
  - BigJono 7y ago
    You'd be surprised how much anti-nuclear activists would disagree with your second point. I'm sure I know a couple that would rather watch the world burn than vote for someone that will build a single reactor. I think once an issue like that becomes a left/right black/white thing all logic just goes straight out the window. You can't even say the word nuclear without hearing a cacophony of statements about the price of nuclear vs renewables, as if those claims don't need any actual numbers to go along with them.
    - Ygg2 7y ago
      When you break it down, for California (a relatively sunny place) it would take more than $3.63 trillion dollars to be 100% renewable. [1]https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY?t=709 https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY?t=709
      - phaemon 7y ago
        No it wouldn't. The assumptions made in that video are ridiculous. You don't need to have storage for all your solar; you turn other sources off when you have excess supply. Or you can switch them off simply by covering them. Batteries are not the only form of storage. Hydro exists and is in use already. You are allowed to import electricity. There are other renewables besides solar and wind. etc etc etc...
        Ygg2 7y ago
        I disagree. Assumptions made in the video are realistic. You kinda need battery storage for your solar/wind. Other sources can be hard/impossible to stop. Batteries are the only form of storage that's scalable. Hydro exist, but you can't expect to just add another hydroelectric dam, whenever your solar overwhelms your current capacity. Hell even storing gravitational energy probably requires frankly massive amounts of development. You are allowed to import/export electricity, but the assumption is others will have similar power sources, no? When there is the excess sun in one area, it's either going to be excess in nearby areas (because day happens nearby at the same time). Sure, you want to export to countries without sun, but the loses are probably going to be huge (loses mean infrastructure is stressed additionally). What other renewable resources? - Hydro? Destructive for the environment kills migrating fish, ruins ecosystems and not available everywhere. - Geothermal? Only available at a few places can possibly lead to earthquakes. - Bioenergy? Causes horrible air pollution.
        phaemon 7y ago
        > I disagree. Assumptions made in the video are realistic. Nope, they're the opposite of realistic because they disagree with reality. > You kinda need battery storage for your solar/wind. You kinda don't. Here in Scotland, we've gone from around 15% renewables in 2007 to 70% in 2017. We closed our last coal station in 2016. Guess how many battery storage facilities we have? None. There are plans to build one in the near future. And yet we have a perfectly fine and consistent electricity supply. When reality disagrees with your theory, it's your theory that's wrong. The other obvious renewable in California would be tidal. Oh, and you can get rid of all your hydro when you no longer have any need for water. I swear sometimes people forget what dams are actually used for.
  - realreality 7y ago
    1. Take a look at https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=... -- renewables are certainly not switching over fast enough. 2. Even if nuclear were not controversial, it cannot be deployed quick enough. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.h... I recall seeing a calculation that it would require us to turn on a new nuclear power plant every day for the next several decades. That's obviously not going to happen, when countries are currently decommissioning nuclear plants. > the whole thing might get solved in the background without much more serious effort. Most people wouldn't even notice. Frankly, this is a ridiculous and dangerous assumption. Globally, we have a limited carbon budget remaining in order to prevent catastrophic warming. That means we must be decreasing emissions on the order of at least 10% per year until we're at zero emissions, and then continue taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Such a scale requires massive transformation across all sectors of society.
  - southern_cross 7y ago
    > I've been told that renewable are now grid competitive in cost and the power system is switching over to them naturally. These are more lies and half-truths, for the most part. Wind and solar as always quoted on a "nameplate" basis - how much power they can theoretically produce under ideal conditions. But most don't produce anywhere near that, on average, and I suspect that many can't even make their "nameplate" promises either. Add in the fact that they will have to have more traditional power plants as backup for when they fail to produce, and actual costs are easily a multiple of what is currently being quoted, perhaps a relatively high multiple at that.
lubonay 7y ago
Greed seems to be the primary engine driving humanity as a whole. IMO the most viable path forward is to find some overlap between our desire to obtain and consume more, and the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Maybe if we find a way to make carbon capture super lucrative or something?
- wallace_f 7y ago
  It's really easy to implement a carbon tax. And it solves the problem. But what politicians want is more power grabs, not solutions. All of our wars on poverty, drugs, terror etc are intended this way. They are wars on people. This is the same. These people dont give a fuck about you. That's rarely ever been the case.
  - chappi42 7y ago
    No politician who would implement _real_ (very intrusive) carbon tax would be elected. Not easy at all.
  - lubonay 7y ago
    Implementing an unpopular measure (more tax) is almost equivalent to political suicide, and people in power tend to want to stay in power. So yeah, technically it may be easy, but politically (which is what really matters here) this is almost impossible.
    - wallace_f 7y ago
      Every president has been essentially increasing taxes in the sense that they are raising spending, and spending increases are tax increases. People just dont want their gas prices to go up. Their fine with ignoring a financial catostrophe for the next generation which is the national debt. They are also very happy to soap box and advertise that they care about the next generation by talking nonsense about global warming.
    - empath75 7y ago
      You don’t need more taxes (on net) at all. You just do a carbon tax and distribute all the money equally. Rational people would reduce their spending on items that put a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Ideally nobody pays the tax at all. That’s the whole point of it.
wallace_f 7y ago
I try to limit my carbon footprint, but I always am struck by how many people soapbox about alarmism cotastrophe. A couple generations ago many normal people of varyinf countries were each convinced to go out and start killing each other. Most people are just tools or bootlickers who do what their authorities or groups tell them to.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

People on HN hate it when you say we have to change our whole society to deal with this problem. I agree with you though. I don’t think we’re willing to do what is necessary to avoid serious catastrophe. We’ve done a good job demonstrating that for 50+ years so far.

roenxi 7y ago
> People on HN hate it when you say we have to change our whole society to deal with this problem. We obviously don't have to change our whole society to deal with that problem. 1) I've been told that renewable are now grid competitive in cost and the power system is switching over to them naturally. 2) At any point we could go nuclear - even the most pessimistic anti-nuclear activist would have to admit that the risks from nuclear power are localised and that the raw volume of pollution rounds to 0 compared to what we do now. It would take a couple of breakthroughs in battery technology to solve the transport problem and the whole thing might get solved in the background without much more serious effort. Most people wouldn't even notice.
- BigJono 7y ago
  You'd be surprised how much anti-nuclear activists would disagree with your second point. I'm sure I know a couple that would rather watch the world burn than vote for someone that will build a single reactor. I think once an issue like that becomes a left/right black/white thing all logic just goes straight out the window. You can't even say the word nuclear without hearing a cacophony of statements about the price of nuclear vs renewables, as if those claims don't need any actual numbers to go along with them.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    When you break it down, for California (a relatively sunny place) it would take more than $3.63 trillion dollars to be 100% renewable. [1]https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY?t=709 https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY?t=709
    - phaemon 7y ago
      No it wouldn't. The assumptions made in that video are ridiculous. You don't need to have storage for all your solar; you turn other sources off when you have excess supply. Or you can switch them off simply by covering them. Batteries are not the only form of storage. Hydro exists and is in use already. You are allowed to import electricity. There are other renewables besides solar and wind. etc etc etc...
      - Ygg2 7y ago
        I disagree. Assumptions made in the video are realistic. You kinda need battery storage for your solar/wind. Other sources can be hard/impossible to stop. Batteries are the only form of storage that's scalable. Hydro exist, but you can't expect to just add another hydroelectric dam, whenever your solar overwhelms your current capacity. Hell even storing gravitational energy probably requires frankly massive amounts of development. You are allowed to import/export electricity, but the assumption is others will have similar power sources, no? When there is the excess sun in one area, it's either going to be excess in nearby areas (because day happens nearby at the same time). Sure, you want to export to countries without sun, but the loses are probably going to be huge (loses mean infrastructure is stressed additionally). What other renewable resources? - Hydro? Destructive for the environment kills migrating fish, ruins ecosystems and not available everywhere. - Geothermal? Only available at a few places can possibly lead to earthquakes. - Bioenergy? Causes horrible air pollution.
        phaemon 7y ago
        > I disagree. Assumptions made in the video are realistic. Nope, they're the opposite of realistic because they disagree with reality. > You kinda need battery storage for your solar/wind. You kinda don't. Here in Scotland, we've gone from around 15% renewables in 2007 to 70% in 2017. We closed our last coal station in 2016. Guess how many battery storage facilities we have? None. There are plans to build one in the near future. And yet we have a perfectly fine and consistent electricity supply. When reality disagrees with your theory, it's your theory that's wrong. The other obvious renewable in California would be tidal. Oh, and you can get rid of all your hydro when you no longer have any need for water. I swear sometimes people forget what dams are actually used for.
- realreality 7y ago
  1. Take a look at https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=... -- renewables are certainly not switching over fast enough. 2. Even if nuclear were not controversial, it cannot be deployed quick enough. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304100413.h... I recall seeing a calculation that it would require us to turn on a new nuclear power plant every day for the next several decades. That's obviously not going to happen, when countries are currently decommissioning nuclear plants. > the whole thing might get solved in the background without much more serious effort. Most people wouldn't even notice. Frankly, this is a ridiculous and dangerous assumption. Globally, we have a limited carbon budget remaining in order to prevent catastrophic warming. That means we must be decreasing emissions on the order of at least 10% per year until we're at zero emissions, and then continue taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Such a scale requires massive transformation across all sectors of society.
- southern_cross 7y ago
  > I've been told that renewable are now grid competitive in cost and the power system is switching over to them naturally. These are more lies and half-truths, for the most part. Wind and solar as always quoted on a "nameplate" basis - how much power they can theoretically produce under ideal conditions. But most don't produce anywhere near that, on average, and I suspect that many can't even make their "nameplate" promises either. Add in the fact that they will have to have more traditional power plants as backup for when they fail to produce, and actual costs are easily a multiple of what is currently being quoted, perhaps a relatively high multiple at that.

lubonay 7y ago

Greed seems to be the primary engine driving humanity as a whole. IMO the most viable path forward is to find some overlap between our desire to obtain and consume more, and the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Maybe if we find a way to make carbon capture super lucrative or something?

wallace_f 7y ago
It's really easy to implement a carbon tax. And it solves the problem. But what politicians want is more power grabs, not solutions. All of our wars on poverty, drugs, terror etc are intended this way. They are wars on people. This is the same. These people dont give a fuck about you. That's rarely ever been the case.
- chappi42 7y ago
  No politician who would implement _real_ (very intrusive) carbon tax would be elected. Not easy at all.
- lubonay 7y ago
  Implementing an unpopular measure (more tax) is almost equivalent to political suicide, and people in power tend to want to stay in power. So yeah, technically it may be easy, but politically (which is what really matters here) this is almost impossible.
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    Every president has been essentially increasing taxes in the sense that they are raising spending, and spending increases are tax increases. People just dont want their gas prices to go up. Their fine with ignoring a financial catostrophe for the next generation which is the national debt. They are also very happy to soap box and advertise that they care about the next generation by talking nonsense about global warming.
  - empath75 7y ago
    You don’t need more taxes (on net) at all. You just do a carbon tax and distribute all the money equally. Rational people would reduce their spending on items that put a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Ideally nobody pays the tax at all. That’s the whole point of it.

wallace_f 7y ago

I try to limit my carbon footprint, but I always am struck by how many people soapbox about alarmism cotastrophe. A couple generations ago many normal people of varyinf countries were each convinced to go out and start killing each other. Most people are just tools or bootlickers who do what their authorities or groups tell them to.