6 ms·

Unpopular opinion: adaptation is best (only?) solution.

by pbreit 7y ago

truculent 7y ago
Unpopular opinion: adaptation at +4C is genocide
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  That seems likely. But (yet another unpopular opinion): "Zero emissions now" is also genocide, or at least large-scale death.
  - VBprogrammer 7y ago
    I don't know why this is being downvoted. If we went zero carbon tomorrow we'd have no replacement for the Haber process which produces the massive amounts of fertilizer needed to feed the human population.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Or for most of the tractors and combines that work the farm fields, or the trucks, trains, and ships that transport the food. Or for the power plants that run the air conditioning that keeps some people from literally dying in the summer, or for the natural gas that keeps some people from dying in the winter.
    - mrob 7y ago
      "Zero carbon" is short for "net zero carbon". Sequestration can compensate for the few cases were emissions are truly unavoidable.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Yes. A lot of wars and displaced people. The question is whether rich countries or people can isolate themselves from the upheaval or will suffer themselves.
- novalis78 7y ago
  Where I live is probably already 4C higher than where you live. No genocide here.
scarmig 7y ago
Adaptation is key to any solution, but there is a wide spectrum between "prevention only" and "adaptation only." There's no reason not to have both, and they complement each other. And, if nothing else, adaptation has to be funded somehow, and most modern solutions aimed at prevention generate revenue. Some or all of that revenue can be used to fund adaptation efforts. One issue with adaptation is that the people being asked to adapt aren't the same as the people being asked to prevent. It's all fine and good for the USA to say, it's most economically efficient to adapt, because prevention is expensive! But you don't see the USA dedicating a large portion of that profit stream enabled by their externalities to fund adaptation efforts in Bangladesh.
hannob 7y ago
There's no such thing as adapting to runaway climate change.
- pbreit 7y ago
  Of course there is.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Depends on your definition of "runaway". If runaway = Venus, then no, there is no adapting to that.
    - kd5bjo 7y ago
      Humans are really good at adapting to new situations; even if climate change causes a massive reduction in population and standard of living, I’m confident that some humans will survive. I don’t know what the solutions will look like, but sci-fi authors have shown us some semi-plausible solutions: domed, climate controlled cities here or elsewhere in the solar system; generation ships that aren’t dependent on any planet; a reversion to small tribal societies.
      - GuiA 7y ago
        Every single species that has ever gone extinct was really good at adapting until suddenly it wasn’t.
      - eduren 7y ago
        >I’m confident that some humans will survive Well yes, at our current technology levels ecological and climate based collapse has almost no chance of making humans 100% extinct. But I don't think that anyone is arguing the opposite. The moral calculus for addressing climate change isn't that affected by differences in the survival rate of 0% vs 5% vs 50%. All of the above would be catastrophically bad in human terms.
        deleted 7y ago
bryanlarsen 7y ago
Adapting to +8C will be a lot more expensive than reducing moderately to hit +4C and adapting to that. And the only way to limit to +4C IMO is to try and limit to +2C and inevitably missing.
- GuiA 7y ago
  +8c means the end of life on Earth as we know it. Maybe rich San Francisco VCs can live in underground bunkers with labor slaves fed on soylent tending to their hydroponically grown crops, but 99.9% of Earth’s population will be (quite literally) toast. “Only” +4 is already going to be a very, very rough situation rife with positive feedback loops that may well make +5, then +6, etc inevitable. http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
  - ddxxdd 7y ago
    On the other hand, if the economy grows at 3% per year, then humanity will be 12 times richer by 2100 than if the economy slows down to 2% growth due to heavy government interference. Compounding interest and economic growth has been the primary driving force for lifting people out of poverty, and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale. There is still plenty of debate to be had about whether the economic growth from acclimation outweighs the potential climate benefits from mitigation.
    - grive 7y ago
      This is asinine, there is no "other hand" here. At +8C, most of humanity is dead. You can be "12 times richer", it won't save you or anyone else. > and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale. This is fantasy. The elites having captured that much wealth will never give it up for free. Populations will have to take it from their dead hands, which is very costly. Rest assured: if the status quo is not moved, there will be violent uprising from people feeling the heat (figuratively: it will be water wars and famines). The economies will tank then, with or without mitigation in place.
wisty 7y ago
It's been argued that a hose pipe, a helium balloon, and a bit of sulphur could easily cool the planet as much as we want. But of course, people get mad about "playing god" or "using pollution to fight pollution". Kinda like a bad parent who refuses to ever punish their child, because they're afraid of being responsible if things go wrong (despite them already being responsible for things having gone wrong). There's also the risk that eventually carbon will acidify the oceans too much, so clearly there's a limit to how much we can have.
- fock 7y ago
  I recommend you ask your parents where the acid came from when we last blew tons of sulfur into the atmosphere...
- imtringued 7y ago
  No it's closer to letting your child become a slasher because the hospital can just fix the victims up.
imtringued 7y ago
I am not serious at all. I live in an area that will still be habitable even with 4°C warming. The problem is that the vast majority do not live in this area. They aren't going to die in their hometown. They will have to move and I don't have a lot of space. So the person living here will either be me or them. A lot of people are willing to risk their lives in overloaded smuggling boats and it's not uncommon for them to sink by accident. If necessary, a single shot from a destroyer is enough to prevent them from crossing the sea at all.
novalis78 7y ago
At some point we have to realize that neither this planet nor the universe cares much about the human species. There is no compassion built into the material universe. Living off the land - in a bigger context - means learning how to live in self-sustaining biospheres on but in particular off planet. Part of the exercises of having a smaller footprint is conducive to this end - while other self-mutilating and progress restricting suggestions are contra-productive and regressive. I am sure reason will prevail and we’ll strike the right balance.

Unpopular opinion: adaptation is best (only?) solution.

by pbreit 7y ago

Unpopular opinion: adaptation is best (only?) solution.

truculent 7y ago

Unpopular opinion: adaptation at +4C is genocide

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
That seems likely. But (yet another unpopular opinion): "Zero emissions now" is also genocide, or at least large-scale death.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  I don't know why this is being downvoted. If we went zero carbon tomorrow we'd have no replacement for the Haber process which produces the massive amounts of fertilizer needed to feed the human population.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Or for most of the tractors and combines that work the farm fields, or the trucks, trains, and ships that transport the food. Or for the power plants that run the air conditioning that keeps some people from literally dying in the summer, or for the natural gas that keeps some people from dying in the winter.
  - mrob 7y ago
    "Zero carbon" is short for "net zero carbon". Sequestration can compensate for the few cases were emissions are truly unavoidable.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
Yes. A lot of wars and displaced people. The question is whether rich countries or people can isolate themselves from the upheaval or will suffer themselves.
novalis78 7y ago
Where I live is probably already 4C higher than where you live. No genocide here.

scarmig 7y ago

Adaptation is key to any solution, but there is a wide spectrum between "prevention only" and "adaptation only." There's no reason not to have both, and they complement each other. And, if nothing else, adaptation has to be funded somehow, and most modern solutions aimed at prevention generate revenue. Some or all of that revenue can be used to fund adaptation efforts. One issue with adaptation is that the people being asked to adapt aren't the same as the people being asked to prevent. It's all fine and good for the USA to say, it's most economically efficient to adapt, because prevention is expensive! But you don't see the USA dedicating a large portion of that profit stream enabled by their externalities to fund adaptation efforts in Bangladesh.

hannob 7y ago

There's no such thing as adapting to runaway climate change.

pbreit 7y ago
Of course there is.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Depends on your definition of "runaway". If runaway = Venus, then no, there is no adapting to that.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    Humans are really good at adapting to new situations; even if climate change causes a massive reduction in population and standard of living, I’m confident that some humans will survive. I don’t know what the solutions will look like, but sci-fi authors have shown us some semi-plausible solutions: domed, climate controlled cities here or elsewhere in the solar system; generation ships that aren’t dependent on any planet; a reversion to small tribal societies.
    - GuiA 7y ago
      Every single species that has ever gone extinct was really good at adapting until suddenly it wasn’t.
    - eduren 7y ago
      >I’m confident that some humans will survive Well yes, at our current technology levels ecological and climate based collapse has almost no chance of making humans 100% extinct. But I don't think that anyone is arguing the opposite. The moral calculus for addressing climate change isn't that affected by differences in the survival rate of 0% vs 5% vs 50%. All of the above would be catastrophically bad in human terms.
      - deleted 7y ago

bryanlarsen 7y ago

Adapting to +8C will be a lot more expensive than reducing moderately to hit +4C and adapting to that. And the only way to limit to +4C IMO is to try and limit to +2C and inevitably missing.

GuiA 7y ago
+8c means the end of life on Earth as we know it. Maybe rich San Francisco VCs can live in underground bunkers with labor slaves fed on soylent tending to their hydroponically grown crops, but 99.9% of Earth’s population will be (quite literally) toast. “Only” +4 is already going to be a very, very rough situation rife with positive feedback loops that may well make +5, then +6, etc inevitable. http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
- ddxxdd 7y ago
  On the other hand, if the economy grows at 3% per year, then humanity will be 12 times richer by 2100 than if the economy slows down to 2% growth due to heavy government interference. Compounding interest and economic growth has been the primary driving force for lifting people out of poverty, and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale. There is still plenty of debate to be had about whether the economic growth from acclimation outweighs the potential climate benefits from mitigation.
  - grive 7y ago
    This is asinine, there is no "other hand" here. At +8C, most of humanity is dead. You can be "12 times richer", it won't save you or anyone else. > and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale. This is fantasy. The elites having captured that much wealth will never give it up for free. Populations will have to take it from their dead hands, which is very costly. Rest assured: if the status quo is not moved, there will be violent uprising from people feeling the heat (figuratively: it will be water wars and famines). The economies will tank then, with or without mitigation in place.

wisty 7y ago

It's been argued that a hose pipe, a helium balloon, and a bit of sulphur could easily cool the planet as much as we want. But of course, people get mad about "playing god" or "using pollution to fight pollution". Kinda like a bad parent who refuses to ever punish their child, because they're afraid of being responsible if things go wrong (despite them already being responsible for things having gone wrong). There's also the risk that eventually carbon will acidify the oceans too much, so clearly there's a limit to how much we can have.

fock 7y ago
I recommend you ask your parents where the acid came from when we last blew tons of sulfur into the atmosphere...
imtringued 7y ago
No it's closer to letting your child become a slasher because the hospital can just fix the victims up.

imtringued 7y ago

I am not serious at all. I live in an area that will still be habitable even with 4°C warming. The problem is that the vast majority do not live in this area. They aren't going to die in their hometown. They will have to move and I don't have a lot of space. So the person living here will either be me or them. A lot of people are willing to risk their lives in overloaded smuggling boats and it's not uncommon for them to sink by accident. If necessary, a single shot from a destroyer is enough to prevent them from crossing the sea at all.

novalis78 7y ago

At some point we have to realize that neither this planet nor the universe cares much about the human species. There is no compassion built into the material universe. Living off the land - in a bigger context - means learning how to live in self-sustaining biospheres on but in particular off planet. Part of the exercises of having a smaller footprint is conducive to this end - while other self-mutilating and progress restricting suggestions are contra-productive and regressive. I am sure reason will prevail and we’ll strike the right balance.