4 ms·

It’s not that simple. You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle on the basis that any wholesale tran

It’s not that simple. You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle on the basis that any wholesale transition would harm poorer people—-on the contrary, it is the obligation of wealthy countries to radically curtail their own use of fossil fuels in order to allow poorer countries to continue basic necessities such as heating and nitrogen-fixed fertilizers from natural gas. The wealthy countries have the economic means to rapidly transition their economies away from fossil fuels. This technology must then be exported to poorer countries on a free or subsidized basis.

kaitai 7y ago
It is a massive win-win for rich countries to develop technologies to prevent pollution and transfer it to poorer countries at low or no cost. It's like cleaning your own house & then ensuring the neighbors don't dump trash in through the windows. Self-interest alone dictates this! And self-interest also says we should make sure the poor in highly-populated countries get the nutrition they need to live decent lives, rather than having so little to lose that they start wars!
chrisco255 7y ago
You are not adequately calculating the economic effects of rapidly attempting to refactor an economy the size of the United States nor the trickle down effects on the world economy and all the poor countries you claim to wish to help. This is extremely hand wavey and over simplistic.
- youareostriches 7y ago
  Yes, it’s hard; it will probably require greater mobilization than WWII and the Apollo program combined, but the longer the world waits, the harder it’s going to be and the faster that mobilization will need to occur. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml (BTW those scenarios are now extremely optimistic based on leaked drafts of the upcoming IPCC report) But people should understand that this degree of mobilization is mostly necessary because we insist on subjecting ourselves to a capitalist mode of production based on endless growth. A much easier alternative is simply to shutdown large parts of the economy and transition the lost jobs into land conservation/stewardship and geoengineering, while providing a basic income for everyone else working only a couple of days per week. (See Degrowth.) No, this will not create “profit”. Yes, this will require a mass redistribution of wealth. The sooner people acknowledge that The Party is Over, the sooner they can move on to real solutions.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Capitalism works better than anything else in history. Party isn't over. Let me ask you something: of the warming that is occurring now, what percentage is due to humans and what percentage is due to natural fluxes in climate? If we were to disappear off the face of the planet tomorrow, what would happen to the climate? Would it cool or would it warm?
    - youareostriches 7y ago
      Why don’t you do the research yourself and find out? Unless you think you know the answers, in which case go ahead and cite your sources. The truth is generally: humans have contributed to most of the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution considering the near-doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere and that climate sensitivity is between 3.5 and 5.5°C. (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL083574 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019...) If humans disappeared tomorrow, three things would happen: 1. The surface of the planet would immediately warm by at least 1°C due to the lack of pollution-sourced atmospheric aerosols (such as sulfur) from planes, ships, coal plants, etc. 2. The temperature would decline, but do so very very slowly due to CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM1_figure-final-e1541758557589-947x1024.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM1...) This is why some sort of long term geoengineering involving carbon removal will probably be necessary even after halting all emissions. 3. Wild plant and animal populations would immediately begin to recover as their native habitats re-grew. And yes, I agree: Capitalism is the best system for destroying our natural environmental as efficiently as possible — what some would call “the externalized costs of economic growth”. This system has clearly proven itself unworkable. Sure, maybe with enough regulation we could have equilibrated capitalism within the bounds of our ecosystem, but those changes would have needed to been made decades ago. Now, no more time remains even for reform.
ShlomoS 7y ago
>You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle I don't have that lifestyle, but the people telling me the world is going to end because of CO2 so I am evil for eating meat do though. Funny how that works. >it is the obligation of wealthy countries to radically curtail their own use of fossil fuels No it isn't. Why would we be responsible for the failures of others? >This technology must then be exported to poorer countries on a free or subsidized basis. We did not create their low standard of living, we are under no obligation to try to create a high standard of living for them, while being attacked for it. Africa could have a perfectly reasonable standard of living if they did not reproduce out of control, consuming all gains via increased population. There's a good book that discusses why "charity" and "aid" can not and will not ever fix the problems of the "developing" world: https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Princeton/dp/0691141282 https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Prince...

kaitai 7y ago

It is a massive win-win for rich countries to develop technologies to prevent pollution and transfer it to poorer countries at low or no cost. It's like cleaning your own house & then ensuring the neighbors don't dump trash in through the windows. Self-interest alone dictates this! And self-interest also says we should make sure the poor in highly-populated countries get the nutrition they need to live decent lives, rather than having so little to lose that they start wars!

chrisco255 7y ago

You are not adequately calculating the economic effects of rapidly attempting to refactor an economy the size of the United States nor the trickle down effects on the world economy and all the poor countries you claim to wish to help. This is extremely hand wavey and over simplistic.

youareostriches 7y ago
Yes, it’s hard; it will probably require greater mobilization than WWII and the Apollo program combined, but the longer the world waits, the harder it’s going to be and the faster that mobilization will need to occur. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/global_mitigation_curves.shtml (BTW those scenarios are now extremely optimistic based on leaked drafts of the upcoming IPCC report) But people should understand that this degree of mobilization is mostly necessary because we insist on subjecting ourselves to a capitalist mode of production based on endless growth. A much easier alternative is simply to shutdown large parts of the economy and transition the lost jobs into land conservation/stewardship and geoengineering, while providing a basic income for everyone else working only a couple of days per week. (See Degrowth.) No, this will not create “profit”. Yes, this will require a mass redistribution of wealth. The sooner people acknowledge that The Party is Over, the sooner they can move on to real solutions.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Capitalism works better than anything else in history. Party isn't over. Let me ask you something: of the warming that is occurring now, what percentage is due to humans and what percentage is due to natural fluxes in climate? If we were to disappear off the face of the planet tomorrow, what would happen to the climate? Would it cool or would it warm?
  - youareostriches 7y ago
    Why don’t you do the research yourself and find out? Unless you think you know the answers, in which case go ahead and cite your sources. The truth is generally: humans have contributed to most of the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution considering the near-doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere and that climate sensitivity is between 3.5 and 5.5°C. (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL083574 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019...) If humans disappeared tomorrow, three things would happen: 1. The surface of the planet would immediately warm by at least 1°C due to the lack of pollution-sourced atmospheric aerosols (such as sulfur) from planes, ships, coal plants, etc. 2. The temperature would decline, but do so very very slowly due to CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM1_figure-final-e1541758557589-947x1024.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM1...) This is why some sort of long term geoengineering involving carbon removal will probably be necessary even after halting all emissions. 3. Wild plant and animal populations would immediately begin to recover as their native habitats re-grew. And yes, I agree: Capitalism is the best system for destroying our natural environmental as efficiently as possible — what some would call “the externalized costs of economic growth”. This system has clearly proven itself unworkable. Sure, maybe with enough regulation we could have equilibrated capitalism within the bounds of our ecosystem, but those changes would have needed to been made decades ago. Now, no more time remains even for reform.

ShlomoS 7y ago

>You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle I don't have that lifestyle, but the people telling me the world is going to end because of CO2 so I am evil for eating meat do though. Funny how that works. >it is the obligation of wealthy countries to radically curtail their own use of fossil fuels No it isn't. Why would we be responsible for the failures of others? >This technology must then be exported to poorer countries on a free or subsidized basis. We did not create their low standard of living, we are under no obligation to try to create a high standard of living for them, while being attacked for it. Africa could have a perfectly reasonable standard of living if they did not reproduce out of control, consuming all gains via increased population. There's a good book that discusses why "charity" and "aid" can not and will not ever fix the problems of the "developing" world: https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Princeton/dp/0691141282 https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Prince...