5 ms·

To me, it's mind bendingly frustrating that we're even considering things in terms of a 'reduction from current emissions'. It's like someone deeply in debt cu

To me, it's mind bendingly frustrating that we're even considering things in terms of a 'reduction from current emissions'. It's like someone deeply in debt cutting their spending by 5% or whatever. What is actually required is that we start from zero emissions and work upwards - e.g. if we need some agriculture, that's some unavoidable CO2 right now until we have electric solar powered tractors or whatever, and so on. The reduction method is so far from the correct approach that even if it works, it doesn't work, as you've stated, because it's based on the idea that we just go on as normal with small tweaks. It's looking like we actually need to create a completely different economy, rapidly, in order to survive. Oh boy.

MrEldritch 7y ago
Yeah, but that's completely politically infeasible. There's no way to get people to just stop using existing resources to improve their quality of life - or even to keep their quality of life at current levels - without any immediate tangible consequences. And of course, by the time the disaster arrives, it'll be too late to change. Or, correction, there's one way to get them to do that: Point guns at them. (Un?)fortunately, the vast majority of the developed world lives under democratic government, and the same people who would rather not massively and suddenly reduce their wealth and quality of life in response to future predictions also would rather not have martial law imposed to convince them to do so. So the "tiny ineffectual reductions from current emission levels" is the only possible framework under which any kind of preemptive climate action can actually happen. You're correct that there's no way this can solve the problem; the correct response is to understand that we're just basically fucked and the only ways out include things like "establish, by force, oppressive totalitarian global state oriented around climate management" which would damage the future world we live in just as much as climate change would, but in a different way. We're just fucked. And there's a certain liberty in that! You don't have to worry about whether or not we'll fix the problem; we won't, so there's no troublesome uncertainty. Just go see the sights around the world you'd like to see before they're destroyed.
- esotericn 7y ago
  What you're saying is probably fairly accurate though I don't like to accept it. We're in a world full of people grabbing and using as much as they can with no care for what that means for themselves never mind other people. Unexamined lives. People would have to change habits that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with. I don't care for seeing the sights, though I do care for the world to not become some sort of theme park terraformed (... ha) nightmare for humans to survive. The answer for me is going to be to continue to do my best regardless because to do otherwise would be barbaric. In a lawless world I wouldn't become a mass murderer just because society allowed it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - MrEldritch 7y ago
    >that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with Frankly, air conditioning alone is worth fighting for. The wealth and comfort generated by our carbon-spewing economy is the greatest achievement in mankind's history - and developing nations reaching towards it would be right to fight for it. Having to make the kind of far-reaching sacrifices needed to prevent climate change at this late stage would (if we actually did it) be among the greatest tragedies in human history, second only to the tragedy of what will happen if we don't.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - netsharc 7y ago
    Ah well, since this is a representative democracy, we've delegated the murdering to our elected representatives. Assuming you're USian or EUian, our governments already fuck with refugees who want to move to a livable part of the planet because (amongst other things) climate change made their part of the planet not livable. And this fucking has lead to many deaths for sure...
- coldtea 7y ago
AngryData 7y ago
For agriculture, the tractors themselves are producing negligible CO2. Most all farm emissions come from fertilizer and right now we produce nearly all of our commercial fertilizer from fossil fuels. In order to synthesize fertilizer from the air and other renewable sources we are looking at a near 100 fold increase in power requirements. IE, our current total world energy production would have to go almost 100% towards fertilizer production to produce what we currently use. And we aren't anywhere near producing that much renewable energy yet either. We are basically fertilizing our fields with fossil fuels, and that fossil fuel fertilizer accounts for around 60% of the world's total crop yield.
netsharc 7y ago
Yeah, we need a "reboot to safe mode" economy... stop all economic activity for luxury and just allow things for survival. So, mangoes from Latin America? Gone. Hollywood movies? Gone. That stupid Uberesque startup? Fuck off and take this shovel, they want you to plough the field!
- esotericn 7y ago
  You might be joking, but I think that really is what we need, globally. An example could be - I should go to the supermarket, and just not be able to buy anything outside of a tight range of 'sustainability per nutrition'. Not rice and beans, but ridiculous offenders like say, fruit with air miles could be right out. The idea that it'd be somehow terrible for this to happen baffles me. Why couldn't it be more like WWI/WWII but without the explicit killing involved? We are at war, and we need a war effort.
  - NikkiA 7y ago
    > fruit with air miles So put a couple of billion farmers in developing nations out of work? It's going to be complex and messy either way, I guess.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Yeah, because their harvest failing is going to be much better. Anything that changes ever puts someone "out of work" temporarily until they figure out another way to make a living. There's probably a name for this sort of 'but jobs' thinking. It feels like some variant of broken window fallacy. If your job is dependent on enormous negative externalities, then yeah, it's probably not sustainable, and someday it won't exist any more.
      - netsharc 7y ago
        It's tragic, for example the German government is weak on environment because, well, VW (including Audi and Porsche), BMW, Mercedes, and their many suppliers. They're afraid of manufacturers having to lay off workers...

MrEldritch 7y ago

Yeah, but that's completely politically infeasible. There's no way to get people to just stop using existing resources to improve their quality of life - or even to keep their quality of life at current levels - without any immediate tangible consequences. And of course, by the time the disaster arrives, it'll be too late to change. Or, correction, there's one way to get them to do that: Point guns at them. (Un?)fortunately, the vast majority of the developed world lives under democratic government, and the same people who would rather not massively and suddenly reduce their wealth and quality of life in response to future predictions also would rather not have martial law imposed to convince them to do so. So the "tiny ineffectual reductions from current emission levels" is the only possible framework under which any kind of preemptive climate action can actually happen. You're correct that there's no way this can solve the problem; the correct response is to understand that we're just basically fucked and the only ways out include things like "establish, by force, oppressive totalitarian global state oriented around climate management" which would damage the future world we live in just as much as climate change would, but in a different way. We're just fucked. And there's a certain liberty in that! You don't have to worry about whether or not we'll fix the problem; we won't, so there's no troublesome uncertainty. Just go see the sights around the world you'd like to see before they're destroyed.

esotericn 7y ago
What you're saying is probably fairly accurate though I don't like to accept it. We're in a world full of people grabbing and using as much as they can with no care for what that means for themselves never mind other people. Unexamined lives. People would have to change habits that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with. I don't care for seeing the sights, though I do care for the world to not become some sort of theme park terraformed (... ha) nightmare for humans to survive. The answer for me is going to be to continue to do my best regardless because to do otherwise would be barbaric. In a lawless world I wouldn't become a mass murderer just because society allowed it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- MrEldritch 7y ago
  >that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with Frankly, air conditioning alone is worth fighting for. The wealth and comfort generated by our carbon-spewing economy is the greatest achievement in mankind's history - and developing nations reaching towards it would be right to fight for it. Having to make the kind of far-reaching sacrifices needed to prevent climate change at this late stage would (if we actually did it) be among the greatest tragedies in human history, second only to the tragedy of what will happen if we don't.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- netsharc 7y ago
  Ah well, since this is a representative democracy, we've delegated the murdering to our elected representatives. Assuming you're USian or EUian, our governments already fuck with refugees who want to move to a livable part of the planet because (amongst other things) climate change made their part of the planet not livable. And this fucking has lead to many deaths for sure...
coldtea 7y ago

AngryData 7y ago

For agriculture, the tractors themselves are producing negligible CO2. Most all farm emissions come from fertilizer and right now we produce nearly all of our commercial fertilizer from fossil fuels. In order to synthesize fertilizer from the air and other renewable sources we are looking at a near 100 fold increase in power requirements. IE, our current total world energy production would have to go almost 100% towards fertilizer production to produce what we currently use. And we aren't anywhere near producing that much renewable energy yet either. We are basically fertilizing our fields with fossil fuels, and that fossil fuel fertilizer accounts for around 60% of the world's total crop yield.

netsharc 7y ago

Yeah, we need a "reboot to safe mode" economy... stop all economic activity for luxury and just allow things for survival. So, mangoes from Latin America? Gone. Hollywood movies? Gone. That stupid Uberesque startup? Fuck off and take this shovel, they want you to plough the field!

esotericn 7y ago
You might be joking, but I think that really is what we need, globally. An example could be - I should go to the supermarket, and just not be able to buy anything outside of a tight range of 'sustainability per nutrition'. Not rice and beans, but ridiculous offenders like say, fruit with air miles could be right out. The idea that it'd be somehow terrible for this to happen baffles me. Why couldn't it be more like WWI/WWII but without the explicit killing involved? We are at war, and we need a war effort.
- NikkiA 7y ago
  > fruit with air miles So put a couple of billion farmers in developing nations out of work? It's going to be complex and messy either way, I guess.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Yeah, because their harvest failing is going to be much better. Anything that changes ever puts someone "out of work" temporarily until they figure out another way to make a living. There's probably a name for this sort of 'but jobs' thinking. It feels like some variant of broken window fallacy. If your job is dependent on enormous negative externalities, then yeah, it's probably not sustainable, and someday it won't exist any more.
    - netsharc 7y ago
      It's tragic, for example the German government is weak on environment because, well, VW (including Audi and Porsche), BMW, Mercedes, and their many suppliers. They're afraid of manufacturers having to lay off workers...