4 ms·

Real question: why isn’t some billionaire using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into doing something? If it can work for Russia to put Trump

by ttul 7y ago

Real question: why isn’t some billionaire using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into doing something? If it can work for Russia to put Trump into the Whitehouse, can it not work in support of carbon reduction?

Angostura 7y ago
They are. They are using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into believing the climate change isn't an issue or isn't anything to do with human activity, or is impossible to solve or is part of a big conspiracy to increase government control. See the comment by brighter2morrow in this discussion.
jbigelow76 7y ago
Maybe a lack of a recognition? You can slap your name on the side of a hospital, museum, or college library with a big enough check and everybody will know you spent some money to do it. Save the earth and the bunch of ungrateful plebes that get to continue living will never believe it, they'll think the problem never existed in the first place.
AbrahamParangi 7y ago
I think many people believe that carbon reduction isn’t a serious solution.
raisedbyninjas 7y ago
Or a rogue terraforming project like seeding the ocean with iron or deploying reflective particulates into the atmosphere.
- Roark66 7y ago
  Perhaps, because anyone capable of launching a project like this is also aware of the terminal stupidity of doing so. Proposing geoengineering when we can't even predict weather for 7 days into future in a reliable way despite having monitoring stations everywhere is akin to hitting a computer with a hammer to fix a software bug. Unfortunately we are affecting a system we do not understand. The only rational choice is to stop affecting it, not desperately try to swing it the other way with no understanding of how it works. The biggest danger of the climate change is that some nation or company gets a bright idea how to fix it and then seriously fucks the climate up. If you think few degrees too warm is bad, consider how bad having a mile thick ice cap all over Europe and North America would be if we manage to swing the system the other way.
burkaman 7y ago
It is very hard to become a billionaire without exploiting the environment in some significant way. So you'd have to become a billionaire, understand why the actions that got you there were immoral, and then be willing to risk your entire fortune if your plan succeeds (or waste it if it fails).
DanHulton 7y ago
Because none of them care to - or more specifically because it would work squarely against their interests. These people got rich in the current system, and fixing the climate at this point would require massive economic shifts, generally at the expense of all the industries these billionaires are deeply invested in.
- mac01021 7y ago
  Is that really true? Only a few billionaires have most of their assets in the fossil fuel industry.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
halfjoking 7y ago
If I became a billionaire I would mine, crush and spread olivine rocks in the ocean: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... Weathering is exactly how the earth brought itself back into equilibrium over millions of years after the mass extinction events. We just have to advance that process dramatically, and specifically target beaches and critical places in the ocean where ocean acidification would devastate ecosystems. Edit: Also this is an affordable plan. It costs about $12 per metric ton of carbon removed compared to other carbon sequestration technologies which usually cost $100+/ton.
- fouc 7y ago
  Don't need a billionaire, just need a kickstarter or indiegogo to make that happen.
  - halfjoking 7y ago
    Luckily someone else is already doing that and I've already donated to it: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ If we want to offset a huge chunk of human emissions we still need billionaire or government backing.
    - carapace 7y ago
      Olivine weathering seems very hopeful! Some links: Same folks as Vesta, I think: https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change-and-ocean-acidificaiton/ https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change... Some general information: https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-to-capture-co2-and-counter-climate-change.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-... Another research group, I think: https://olivoa.eu/ https://olivoa.eu/
graeme 7y ago
I think the population is less manipulable than people think. On the case of Trump, we’re talking about 2-3% swings, if that much. The man is genuinely popular with a large part of America. To change opinion on climate you’re talking 30-705 swings. Even those who believe in it don’t take it that seriously for the most part. Support for a meaningful level of carbon taxation is quite low. I think it’s beyond the level of billionaires to sway. They could buy politicians, who are easier to influence. But politicians can’t move far ahead of the people. Yes, I’m aware the petroleum industry and Fox News have a very effective disinformation campaign. But that’s moving in a short term direction people are already inclined to support. Look at Japan and Germany, two countries largely uninfluenced by American media propaganda and renowned for sensible planning: they’re both tearing down nuclear plants and increasing their carbon emissions. The world population at large doesn’t take climate change seriously, and it’s damned hard to swing public opinion as much as we would need.
- mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
  Japan is not tearing down any nuclear plants, we are building more. Nobody wants to increase carbon emissions here, it’s just that we have growing demand that cannot be met without importing. A huge chunk of energy in Japan is imported but we are slowly adding renewables and more nuclear. It’s silly to think that a country WANTS to depend on imports for a majority of its energy needs. The energy department has a forecast to 2030 somewhere out there (a pdf) and the goal is to reduce imports while putting more into renewables.
  - graeme 7y ago
    You're right, I was somewhat incorrect. Japan temporarily shutdown its reactors after fukushima, with plans to reactivate. However, according to wikipedia only 5 out of ~50 are reactivated now. This may be outdated. The article also mentioned some 80% of the japanese population is opposed to nuclear. There are obviously valid concerns, but....my point is the public fears one and takes little heed of CO2.
Will_Parker 7y ago
> why isn’t some billionaire using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into doing something? Maybe there is selection bias, where only borderline (at least) psychopaths seeking individual profit and power become billionaires. Also, I think the steel-man of the conservative position isn't that AGW doesn't exist (it clearly does), but that economic damage from over-reaction is actually a bigger threat and cost than adaptation will be. They just focus on fuzzing over the science since that is much easier to sell than what they really believe, which I think is actually more like "We just don't care much about animals, and what we're doing is about comparable to effect to what our species did when we invented the automobile and air travel and paved the earth. This is progress, deal with it."

by ttul 7y ago

Angostura 7y ago

They are. They are using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into believing the climate change isn't an issue or isn't anything to do with human activity, or is impossible to solve or is part of a big conspiracy to increase government control. See the comment by brighter2morrow in this discussion.

jbigelow76 7y ago

Maybe a lack of a recognition? You can slap your name on the side of a hospital, museum, or college library with a big enough check and everybody will know you spent some money to do it. Save the earth and the bunch of ungrateful plebes that get to continue living will never believe it, they'll think the problem never existed in the first place.

AbrahamParangi 7y ago

I think many people believe that carbon reduction isn’t a serious solution.

raisedbyninjas 7y ago

Or a rogue terraforming project like seeding the ocean with iron or deploying reflective particulates into the atmosphere.

Roark66 7y ago
Perhaps, because anyone capable of launching a project like this is also aware of the terminal stupidity of doing so. Proposing geoengineering when we can't even predict weather for 7 days into future in a reliable way despite having monitoring stations everywhere is akin to hitting a computer with a hammer to fix a software bug. Unfortunately we are affecting a system we do not understand. The only rational choice is to stop affecting it, not desperately try to swing it the other way with no understanding of how it works. The biggest danger of the climate change is that some nation or company gets a bright idea how to fix it and then seriously fucks the climate up. If you think few degrees too warm is bad, consider how bad having a mile thick ice cap all over Europe and North America would be if we manage to swing the system the other way.

burkaman 7y ago

It is very hard to become a billionaire without exploiting the environment in some significant way. So you'd have to become a billionaire, understand why the actions that got you there were immoral, and then be willing to risk your entire fortune if your plan succeeds (or waste it if it fails).

DanHulton 7y ago

Because none of them care to - or more specifically because it would work squarely against their interests. These people got rich in the current system, and fixing the climate at this point would require massive economic shifts, generally at the expense of all the industries these billionaires are deeply invested in.

mac01021 7y ago
Is that really true? Only a few billionaires have most of their assets in the fossil fuel industry.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

halfjoking 7y ago

If I became a billionaire I would mine, crush and spread olivine rocks in the ocean: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... Weathering is exactly how the earth brought itself back into equilibrium over millions of years after the mass extinction events. We just have to advance that process dramatically, and specifically target beaches and critical places in the ocean where ocean acidification would devastate ecosystems. Edit: Also this is an affordable plan. It costs about $12 per metric ton of carbon removed compared to other carbon sequestration technologies which usually cost $100+/ton.

fouc 7y ago
Don't need a billionaire, just need a kickstarter or indiegogo to make that happen.
- halfjoking 7y ago
  Luckily someone else is already doing that and I've already donated to it: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ If we want to offset a huge chunk of human emissions we still need billionaire or government backing.
  - carapace 7y ago
    Olivine weathering seems very hopeful! Some links: Same folks as Vesta, I think: https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change-and-ocean-acidificaiton/ https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change... Some general information: https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-to-capture-co2-and-counter-climate-change.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-... Another research group, I think: https://olivoa.eu/ https://olivoa.eu/

graeme 7y ago

I think the population is less manipulable than people think. On the case of Trump, we’re talking about 2-3% swings, if that much. The man is genuinely popular with a large part of America. To change opinion on climate you’re talking 30-705 swings. Even those who believe in it don’t take it that seriously for the most part. Support for a meaningful level of carbon taxation is quite low. I think it’s beyond the level of billionaires to sway. They could buy politicians, who are easier to influence. But politicians can’t move far ahead of the people. Yes, I’m aware the petroleum industry and Fox News have a very effective disinformation campaign. But that’s moving in a short term direction people are already inclined to support. Look at Japan and Germany, two countries largely uninfluenced by American media propaganda and renowned for sensible planning: they’re both tearing down nuclear plants and increasing their carbon emissions. The world population at large doesn’t take climate change seriously, and it’s damned hard to swing public opinion as much as we would need.

mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
Japan is not tearing down any nuclear plants, we are building more. Nobody wants to increase carbon emissions here, it’s just that we have growing demand that cannot be met without importing. A huge chunk of energy in Japan is imported but we are slowly adding renewables and more nuclear. It’s silly to think that a country WANTS to depend on imports for a majority of its energy needs. The energy department has a forecast to 2030 somewhere out there (a pdf) and the goal is to reduce imports while putting more into renewables.
- graeme 7y ago
  You're right, I was somewhat incorrect. Japan temporarily shutdown its reactors after fukushima, with plans to reactivate. However, according to wikipedia only 5 out of ~50 are reactivated now. This may be outdated. The article also mentioned some 80% of the japanese population is opposed to nuclear. There are obviously valid concerns, but....my point is the public fears one and takes little heed of CO2.

Will_Parker 7y ago

> why isn’t some billionaire using subversive techniques to manipulate the population into doing something? Maybe there is selection bias, where only borderline (at least) psychopaths seeking individual profit and power become billionaires. Also, I think the steel-man of the conservative position isn't that AGW doesn't exist (it clearly does), but that economic damage from over-reaction is actually a bigger threat and cost than adaptation will be. They just focus on fuzzing over the science since that is much easier to sell than what they really believe, which I think is actually more like "We just don't care much about animals, and what we're doing is about comparable to effect to what our species did when we invented the automobile and air travel and paved the earth. This is progress, deal with it."