7 ms·

For an invective against environmental politics, this Spectator article somehow managed to avoid even alluding to carbon. If you're going to say that all green

For an invective against environmental politics, this Spectator article somehow managed to avoid even alluding to carbon. If you're going to say that all green types are nuts because everything is hunky dory, you have to at least put in some claim that the Earth isn't even really warming, or isn't warming as much as we thought, or that rapid warming is good. Any of them would be false, but you've at least got to try.

tucaz 7y ago
What’s the ideal temperature of Earth and how do we know that’s the ideal temperature?
- scarmig 7y ago
  Dumb question. It can be either X or X+10F. The issue is how rapidly we move from one to the other. If it happens at a slow enough rate, natural patterns of human migration and urban development can account for it; if it's fast enough, it kills people and causes tens of trillions of dollars of economic damage.
  - tucaz 7y ago
    Alright. I’m sorry for my dumb question. Let me try another one. What’s the ideal rate then at what temperatures should change? What is “slow enough”?
    - scarmig 7y ago
      You're playing a silly game by trying to make me state there is some "ideal" way the world "should" work, since everyone here knows the world isn't designed for anything. I can just as well demand you tell me what the ideal rate of change in temperature is. Note that you can't dodge that with "whatever the rate of temperature change would be if we enacted no policies", because there's no particular reason to think that whatever that exact amount is isn't too high (or too low!). The point is that current levels of climate emissions are much costlier and deadlier than a world where (good) policies have been enacted to decrease the flow of carbon into the atmosphere. Just to throw it out there, though, I'd suggest a guaranteed change of 2F/century would be greeted with an instant acceptance and sigh of relief by everyone.
    - eirini1 7y ago
      many times slower than it is now. The answer is of little relevancy because every single plan we have for reducing this rate either doesn't reduce it enough or only barely does so.
    - supermatt 7y ago
      That depends on what you would deem acceptable "impact" to our existing ecosystems.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      The change from the last ice age to the current climate took thousands of years. It was still fast enough to eradicate a good chunk of ecosphere. The change we're causing will happen at least ten times faster.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > What’s the ideal rate then at what temperatures should change? Ideal for what goal?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Earth is just a ball of rock hurtling through space. Earth is going to be okay at any temperature because it doesn't even make sense for a ball of rock hurtling through space to not be okay. It's not Earth we have to worry about, it's humans. 1. We know is that there's a range of temperatures where humans have thrived for hundreds of thousands of years, and life has thrived for millions of years. 2. We also know that there's a range of temperatures where it will be too hot for humans to survive. 3. We also know that global temperature is changing from the former to the latter. Given these three facts I don't think we need to know what the ideal temperature of the earth is to be concerned.
  - tucaz 7y ago
    I’m just trying to learn here. If we need to fix something I have learned we need to know what “broken” looks like as well as “fixed”. What are these numbers?
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      I'm saying that we don't need to know what those numbers are to know there's a problem. You're asking leading questions which contain a lot of presuppositions, and you're ignoring my post in which I specifically reject those presuppositions, which makes it hard for me to believe that you're just trying to learn.
    - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
      We have very little understanding of the range of temperatures that are "fixed". We know for sure that at pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and at that temperature, the complex ecological systems of the world were more or less sustainably living.
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      Here's an opinion on it. Haven't gone out and done my own validation, or checked other sources, but it'll give you somewhere to start https://youtu.be/oG19fCFSamQ https://youtu.be/oG19fCFSamQ
    - 7y ago
- adrianN 7y ago
  The ideal temperature for humans and the ecosystems we depend on is probably fairly close to what it has been since the last ice age, so for the last 10k years or so.
hawkice 7y ago
Or its warming but the warming isn't so terrible to outweigh the other advances.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Yes it is. Global warming is an existential threat to human existence on earth in a way that few other environmental issues are.
  - ars 7y ago
    I really don't understand people who believe this kind of thing. Existential means existence, yet not a single scientist believes global warming threatens human existence. Where exactly are you getting this from? It's certainly not from the science.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > Existential means existence, yet not a single scientist believes global warming threatens human existence. If you're going to argue this pedantically, perhaps don't start by claiming you know the opinions of every scientist, because if we're being pedantic, that's obviously not true. Less pedantically, I think we agree that probably humans will survive global warming. But I think that we can agree that there's a temperature that's not survivable, even if we don't know what temperature that is. There's no long-term upper bound on how hot earth can get, and we're modeling uncharted territory: earth has never been as hot as it's going to get, while life has been on earth. So we really don't know how bad it will get. There is some chance that global warming will literally wipe out humanity, and given the stakes, I think that's a significant risk we need to be addressing.
      - mcguire 7y ago
        Is there any science to back that up? By that reasoning, literally everything is an existential threat to humanity.
      - 7y ago
mfer 7y ago
It is important for us to celebrate good news and talk about positive things. It's part of positive reinforcement and giving us a more holistic view of things. Always focusing on the negative and problems has many thinking there has not been positive movement, has left people with more anxiety and depressions, and causes hordes of other problems. Celebrating and talking about positives is important. It doesn't mean all things are hunky dory. But, it's healthy to do.
- scarmig 7y ago
  I agree in general, but this article in particular is mostly a rant against environmentalists.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    How so? The article I read is mostly a list of interesting factoids about resource and commodity consumption. It doesn't attack environmentalists, if anything it starts with a jibe at journalists, but only insomuch as it notes "good news is no news". In particular, what parts were ranty? I didn't see anything that would rise to the level of a rant. It's remarkably good natured given the invectives routinely dished out by those who would disagree.
topkai22 7y ago
I read the implicit claim to be that technological innovation has fairly rapidly mitigated it’s own problems. What I think the author misses is the interplay between pessimists identifying problems and innovators creating solutions. A voice identifying a severe problem is important, but do is the own saying “we got this, let’s fix it.”
repsilat 7y ago
> this Spectator article somehow managed to avoid even alluding to carbon. It was alluded to in this section (ctrl-f "emissions"): >> A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Is someone suggesting burning wood?
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    One of the ways the UK has reduced emissions is by burning wood pellets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station
    - mcguire 7y ago
      "Wood pellets are the most common type of pellet fuel and are generally made from compacted sawdust and related industrial wastes from the milling of lumber, manufacture of wood products and furniture, and construction. Other industrial waste sources include empty fruit bunches, palm kernel shells, coconut shells, and tree tops and branches discarded during logging operations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel?wprov=sfla1 Interesting. I wonder how much power is available from that.
      - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
        Right now 7.1% of our power generation is coming from biomass. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk I'm not convinced it's all waste product.

tucaz 7y ago

What’s the ideal temperature of Earth and how do we know that’s the ideal temperature?

scarmig 7y ago
Dumb question. It can be either X or X+10F. The issue is how rapidly we move from one to the other. If it happens at a slow enough rate, natural patterns of human migration and urban development can account for it; if it's fast enough, it kills people and causes tens of trillions of dollars of economic damage.
- tucaz 7y ago
  Alright. I’m sorry for my dumb question. Let me try another one. What’s the ideal rate then at what temperatures should change? What is “slow enough”?
  - scarmig 7y ago
    You're playing a silly game by trying to make me state there is some "ideal" way the world "should" work, since everyone here knows the world isn't designed for anything. I can just as well demand you tell me what the ideal rate of change in temperature is. Note that you can't dodge that with "whatever the rate of temperature change would be if we enacted no policies", because there's no particular reason to think that whatever that exact amount is isn't too high (or too low!). The point is that current levels of climate emissions are much costlier and deadlier than a world where (good) policies have been enacted to decrease the flow of carbon into the atmosphere. Just to throw it out there, though, I'd suggest a guaranteed change of 2F/century would be greeted with an instant acceptance and sigh of relief by everyone.
  - eirini1 7y ago
    many times slower than it is now. The answer is of little relevancy because every single plan we have for reducing this rate either doesn't reduce it enough or only barely does so.
  - supermatt 7y ago
    That depends on what you would deem acceptable "impact" to our existing ecosystems.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    The change from the last ice age to the current climate took thousands of years. It was still fast enough to eradicate a good chunk of ecosphere. The change we're causing will happen at least ten times faster.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > What’s the ideal rate then at what temperatures should change? Ideal for what goal?
kerkeslager 7y ago
Earth is just a ball of rock hurtling through space. Earth is going to be okay at any temperature because it doesn't even make sense for a ball of rock hurtling through space to not be okay. It's not Earth we have to worry about, it's humans. 1. We know is that there's a range of temperatures where humans have thrived for hundreds of thousands of years, and life has thrived for millions of years. 2. We also know that there's a range of temperatures where it will be too hot for humans to survive. 3. We also know that global temperature is changing from the former to the latter. Given these three facts I don't think we need to know what the ideal temperature of the earth is to be concerned.
- tucaz 7y ago
  I’m just trying to learn here. If we need to fix something I have learned we need to know what “broken” looks like as well as “fixed”. What are these numbers?
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    I'm saying that we don't need to know what those numbers are to know there's a problem. You're asking leading questions which contain a lot of presuppositions, and you're ignoring my post in which I specifically reject those presuppositions, which makes it hard for me to believe that you're just trying to learn.
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    We have very little understanding of the range of temperatures that are "fixed". We know for sure that at pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and at that temperature, the complex ecological systems of the world were more or less sustainably living.
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    Here's an opinion on it. Haven't gone out and done my own validation, or checked other sources, but it'll give you somewhere to start https://youtu.be/oG19fCFSamQ https://youtu.be/oG19fCFSamQ
  - 7y ago
adrianN 7y ago
The ideal temperature for humans and the ecosystems we depend on is probably fairly close to what it has been since the last ice age, so for the last 10k years or so.

hawkice 7y ago

Or its warming but the warming isn't so terrible to outweigh the other advances.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Yes it is. Global warming is an existential threat to human existence on earth in a way that few other environmental issues are.
- ars 7y ago
  I really don't understand people who believe this kind of thing. Existential means existence, yet not a single scientist believes global warming threatens human existence. Where exactly are you getting this from? It's certainly not from the science.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > Existential means existence, yet not a single scientist believes global warming threatens human existence. If you're going to argue this pedantically, perhaps don't start by claiming you know the opinions of every scientist, because if we're being pedantic, that's obviously not true. Less pedantically, I think we agree that probably humans will survive global warming. But I think that we can agree that there's a temperature that's not survivable, even if we don't know what temperature that is. There's no long-term upper bound on how hot earth can get, and we're modeling uncharted territory: earth has never been as hot as it's going to get, while life has been on earth. So we really don't know how bad it will get. There is some chance that global warming will literally wipe out humanity, and given the stakes, I think that's a significant risk we need to be addressing.
    - mcguire 7y ago
      Is there any science to back that up? By that reasoning, literally everything is an existential threat to humanity.
    - 7y ago

mfer 7y ago

It is important for us to celebrate good news and talk about positive things. It's part of positive reinforcement and giving us a more holistic view of things. Always focusing on the negative and problems has many thinking there has not been positive movement, has left people with more anxiety and depressions, and causes hordes of other problems. Celebrating and talking about positives is important. It doesn't mean all things are hunky dory. But, it's healthy to do.

scarmig 7y ago
I agree in general, but this article in particular is mostly a rant against environmentalists.
- thu2111 7y ago
  How so? The article I read is mostly a list of interesting factoids about resource and commodity consumption. It doesn't attack environmentalists, if anything it starts with a jibe at journalists, but only insomuch as it notes "good news is no news". In particular, what parts were ranty? I didn't see anything that would rise to the level of a rant. It's remarkably good natured given the invectives routinely dished out by those who would disagree.

topkai22 7y ago

I read the implicit claim to be that technological innovation has fairly rapidly mitigated it’s own problems. What I think the author misses is the interplay between pessimists identifying problems and innovators creating solutions. A voice identifying a severe problem is important, but do is the own saying “we got this, let’s fix it.”

repsilat 7y ago

> this Spectator article somehow managed to avoid even alluding to carbon. It was alluded to in this section (ctrl-f "emissions"): >> A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions.

mcguire 7y ago
Is someone suggesting burning wood?
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  One of the ways the UK has reduced emissions is by burning wood pellets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station
  - mcguire 7y ago
    "Wood pellets are the most common type of pellet fuel and are generally made from compacted sawdust and related industrial wastes from the milling of lumber, manufacture of wood products and furniture, and construction. Other industrial waste sources include empty fruit bunches, palm kernel shells, coconut shells, and tree tops and branches discarded during logging operations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel?wprov=sfla1 Interesting. I wonder how much power is available from that.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      Right now 7.1% of our power generation is coming from biomass. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk I'm not convinced it's all waste product.