4 ms·

It actually wouldn't require a large downgrade if nuclear was used.

PeterisP 7y ago
Switching 100% of electricity production to nuclear would be very hard (though maaaybe possible) and very expensive to do within a decade (the mean time to construct a reactor is 7.5 years, so we'd have to launch immense construction projects right now), but that's not a solution that brings you even close to zero emissions. Electricity is just a small part (roughly 25%) of them. To get close to zero emissions you'd also need to: 1) replace or remove all non-electric vehicles worldwide. That third world farmer with a thirty year old tractor who can't possibly afford to replace it with anything, much less with something new? That twenty year old pickup truck for a small storeowner? All those vehicles would have to stop being used. They would have to be pried out of their hands long before they become useless, meaningfully harming their livelihood (as replacements won't be affordable to them - they can't buy a ten-year old used truck/tractor because that's also fossil fuel based), which doesn't seem plausible without violence. 1a) Also, replace almost all ships worldwide. 1b) Also, replace all the fossil fuel based house heating systems. Poor regions without a centralised supply heating their homes with firewood? You're not allowed to burn that anymore, you need to build infrastructure to supply you with nuclear electricity. 2) Stop concrete production unless you also sequester enough carbon to compensate. That pretty much means destroying large parts of construction industry by making it prohibitively expensive, especially in poorer countries. 2a) Also, revamp all worldwide steel production. 3) Have everyone worldwide stop eating beef. These three things won't be sufficient, but are required to even approach zero emissions. Does it seem plausible to suceed in somehow forcing everyone worldwide to implement such policies within a decade?
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > These three things won't be sufficient, but are required to even approach zero emissions. Does it seem plausible to suceed in somehow forcing everyone worldwide to implement such policies within a decade? So governments should better finance mitigations for the consequences of climate change.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    There's no magic external source of resources. The wallet of "governments" is the wallet of the people. If people don't vote for a huge increase in taxes to finance mitigation or prevention (I mean, that's the whole point - the scale of resources needed for preventing climate change is very, very large, it's not like you can just increase the budget deficit by 1% and fund that), then governments can't and won't finance large scale mitigation or prevention. Of course, people will eventually be forced to finance mitigations or suffer the consequences unmitigated - but that's not now, that's later. Prevention is likely to be much cheaper and more effective, but as the people aren't willing to pony up the enormous resources for prevention, well, then they'll pony up enormous resources (or take enormous suffering) when the time comes. But apparently not much earlier. And the fact that causes and effects aren't equally distributed doesn't mean that countries (both governments and people) who suffer less will be willing to finance mitigations for the countries who bear the worst of the consequences.
- klemenfer 7y ago
  >Electricity is just a small part (roughly 25%) of them. 25% is not a small part at all and as for the 7.5 years reactor construct/expensive claim, i'm afraid you need to update you knowledge about small scale/modular nuclear reactors, this is not the 60s-70s.

Switching 100% of electricity production to nuclear would be very hard (though maaaybe possible) and very expensive to do within a decade (the mean time to construct a reactor is 7.5 years, so we'd have to launch immense construction projects right now), but that's not a solution that brings you even close to zero emissions. Electricity is just a small part (roughly 25%) of them. To get close to zero emissions you'd also need to: 1) replace or remove all non-electric vehicles worldwide. That third world farmer with a thirty year old tractor who can't possibly afford to replace it with anything, much less with something new? That twenty year old pickup truck for a small storeowner? All those vehicles would have to stop being used. They would have to be pried out of their hands long before they become useless, meaningfully harming their livelihood (as replacements won't be affordable to them - they can't buy a ten-year old used truck/tractor because that's also fossil fuel based), which doesn't seem plausible without violence. 1a) Also, replace almost all ships worldwide. 1b) Also, replace all the fossil fuel based house heating systems. Poor regions without a centralised supply heating their homes with firewood? You're not allowed to burn that anymore, you need to build infrastructure to supply you with nuclear electricity. 2) Stop concrete production unless you also sequester enough carbon to compensate. That pretty much means destroying large parts of construction industry by making it prohibitively expensive, especially in poorer countries. 2a) Also, revamp all worldwide steel production. 3) Have everyone worldwide stop eating beef. These three things won't be sufficient, but are required to even approach zero emissions. Does it seem plausible to suceed in somehow forcing everyone worldwide to implement such policies within a decade?

wolfgke 7y ago
> These three things won't be sufficient, but are required to even approach zero emissions. Does it seem plausible to suceed in somehow forcing everyone worldwide to implement such policies within a decade? So governments should better finance mitigations for the consequences of climate change.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  There's no magic external source of resources. The wallet of "governments" is the wallet of the people. If people don't vote for a huge increase in taxes to finance mitigation or prevention (I mean, that's the whole point - the scale of resources needed for preventing climate change is very, very large, it's not like you can just increase the budget deficit by 1% and fund that), then governments can't and won't finance large scale mitigation or prevention. Of course, people will eventually be forced to finance mitigations or suffer the consequences unmitigated - but that's not now, that's later. Prevention is likely to be much cheaper and more effective, but as the people aren't willing to pony up the enormous resources for prevention, well, then they'll pony up enormous resources (or take enormous suffering) when the time comes. But apparently not much earlier. And the fact that causes and effects aren't equally distributed doesn't mean that countries (both governments and people) who suffer less will be willing to finance mitigations for the countries who bear the worst of the consequences.
klemenfer 7y ago
>Electricity is just a small part (roughly 25%) of them. 25% is not a small part at all and as for the 7.5 years reactor construct/expensive claim, i'm afraid you need to update you knowledge about small scale/modular nuclear reactors, this is not the 60s-70s.