14 ms·

I'm not sure what you're implying. You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this. The first issue is that everyone el

I'm not sure what you're implying. You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this. The first issue is that everyone else thinks only government can solve this. If you say governments can't, but have no other solution, you're essentially saying "no-one can do this." Which, while depressing, isn't going to achieve much. The second issue is that, clearly, governments could actually fix this. They most likely aren't going to. But the capital and human investments needed aren't impossible. It's not like a neolithic tribe building a computer for example. Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology. Really? We'd all love to see a plan. Or by "resolving" did you mean "holding it to only a 2 degree rise"? > They most likely aren't going to. Yeah... I think that's kind of andrewstuart's point. They aren't going to. So, given that they aren't going to, what's the next move? > You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this. andrewstuart may not know. I certainly don't. But if the government isn't going to fix it, then the correct move is to stop expecting that the government is going to fix it. I don't know what else to do, you don't, and andrewstuart doesn't. But maybe we ought to start thinking like we've got to figure out how to solve it, because the government isn't going to.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Build enough renewables to replace all fossil fuels and then some, use any extra energy to suck carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it. Plant trees and turn them into charcoal. If you're very fancy you can do some more risky geoengineering.
  - loup-vaillant 7y ago
    > Build enough renewables to replace all fossil fuels and then some Might work if you throw lots and lots of nuclear reactors into the mix. It's less dangerous than most people think, and is most likely the most efficient way to amortise the energy shortage induced recession. (Renewables still need massive investment, I'm just saying they likely won't be enough.)
    - adrianN 7y ago
      There are studies for Germany that show that just renewables can do it. I assume in other countries it's similar. I'm not opposed to nuclear, but building nuclear plants takes way too long. We have twenty years give or take to become carbon neutral, there doesn't seem to be enough time to fight the legal battles you have to win before you can even start building nuclear plants.
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        Wind and Solar have something Nuclear doesn't have, ability of small players to enter the market, relentless decreases in capital costs, and low regulatory requirements. Which why they have traction and nuclear doesn't.
- loup-vaillant 7y ago
  > Really? We'd all love to see a plan. Prioritize. Food, shelter, health. Everything else is expendable. Accept an unprecedented, long term recession on the order of 10% per year, possibly a bit less if we're lucky. That's the easy part. The hard part is doing that without having a civil war (or just plain war) on your hands. We most probably need to come up with a convincing story where the economy slows down drastically, and we're all happier than we are now. There's one little snag, though: this plan necessarily involves reducing inequalities. We cannot afford the richest of us. The problem is that they are rich and have a lot of influence. They will throw the army at us (possibly by asking the politicians whose election campaing they funded).

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology. Really? We'd all love to see a plan. Or by "resolving" did you mean "holding it to only a 2 degree rise"? > They most likely aren't going to. Yeah... I think that's kind of andrewstuart's point. They aren't going to. So, given that they aren't going to, what's the next move? > You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this. andrewstuart may not know. I certainly don't. But if the government isn't going to fix it, then the correct move is to stop expecting that the government is going to fix it. I don't know what else to do, you don't, and andrewstuart doesn't. But maybe we ought to start thinking like we've got to figure out how to solve it, because the government isn't going to.

adrianN 7y ago
Build enough renewables to replace all fossil fuels and then some, use any extra energy to suck carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it. Plant trees and turn them into charcoal. If you're very fancy you can do some more risky geoengineering.
- loup-vaillant 7y ago
  > Build enough renewables to replace all fossil fuels and then some Might work if you throw lots and lots of nuclear reactors into the mix. It's less dangerous than most people think, and is most likely the most efficient way to amortise the energy shortage induced recession. (Renewables still need massive investment, I'm just saying they likely won't be enough.)
  - adrianN 7y ago
    There are studies for Germany that show that just renewables can do it. I assume in other countries it's similar. I'm not opposed to nuclear, but building nuclear plants takes way too long. We have twenty years give or take to become carbon neutral, there doesn't seem to be enough time to fight the legal battles you have to win before you can even start building nuclear plants.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      Wind and Solar have something Nuclear doesn't have, ability of small players to enter the market, relentless decreases in capital costs, and low regulatory requirements. Which why they have traction and nuclear doesn't.
loup-vaillant 7y ago
> Really? We'd all love to see a plan. Prioritize. Food, shelter, health. Everything else is expendable. Accept an unprecedented, long term recession on the order of 10% per year, possibly a bit less if we're lucky. That's the easy part. The hard part is doing that without having a civil war (or just plain war) on your hands. We most probably need to come up with a convincing story where the economy slows down drastically, and we're all happier than we are now. There's one little snag, though: this plan necessarily involves reducing inequalities. We cannot afford the richest of us. The problem is that they are rich and have a lot of influence. They will throw the army at us (possibly by asking the politicians whose election campaing they funded).