5 ms·

Well, my own prediction is a) that we will mitigate climate change and b) it will not be through any of the activism methods being pursued today. The reason we

by gfodor 7y ago

Well, my own prediction is a) that we will mitigate climate change and b) it will not be through any of the activism methods being pursued today. The reason we will succeed is because we are, luckily, converging on market incentives which will (as a side effect) fix climate change. Specifically, it seems likely that the next iteration of technology startups focused on energy should be able to create products that are both clean and radically reduce energy costs, and hence will be in-demand by the global markets. For example, small nuclear reactors, or solar products. These will be easily exportable, and as such will cause a virtuous cycle of iteration and innovation. In retrospect, the advocacy of regressive policies like "everyone should fly less" will be just another chapter of the long serious of luddites thinking the only solution to problems is to reverse technological progress in the face of new, unexpected problems raised through the continual growth of the global economy.

rayiner 7y ago
I agree for the most part. We will either fix it technologically (my guess through a combination of nuclear, renewables, and carbon capture) or we won’t fix it. In the latter case we either won’t fix it and everything will still be fine, because the IPCC and others estimate the cost of a do nothing scenario at like 10% of world GDP by 2100,[1] or we won’t fix it and we’ll all die. What will never happen is addressing climate change through social engineering. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/climate-change-to-slow-global-economic-growth-new-study-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/climate-change-to-slow-globa...
- shawndrost 7y ago
  I think you would probably agree that those technological shifts require significant policy shifts, like a carbon tax, right? Does your pessimism about social engineering extend to getting public support for those kinds of policy shifts? (I agree that individual choices to eg fly less will not be a major component of any solution we reach.)
  - beerandt 7y ago
    How is that not still social engineering? It's just collective and punitive instead of individual and guilt driven. A carbon tax (at least without going 100% to sequestration) is only an behavior penalty. It's not even a net gain, it's just slowing a net loss. There's nothing innovative about that. The sequestration part of the equation is where there's potential for technological breakthroughs. If we go carbon negative, it won't be because it requires a change in lifestyle, but because we find a cheap way to offset our carbon generation. And I mean literally pulling carbon from thin air (or water). Not using accounting trickery to buy some emission "offset" that a developing population surely would have hypothetically used, had you not paid them cash money (along with a sizable percentage to some broker who has friends in DC). I think you would find much less opposition, no matter the government's cost, once 1) a plan is laid out that doesn't require a regression in anyone's lifestyle, and 2) doesn't involve a punitive cost to sustain that lifestyle, and 3) doesn't involve any component resembling wealth re-distribution, or buying credit that amounts to paying someone else to not do something.
    - willis936 7y ago
      A carbon tax is not paying someone to not do something. It is charging someone for the actual cost of their actions. It is pure utilitarianism.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        I said carbon credits (in it's current enron-accounting form) is paying someone to do nothing, and that carbon credits and a carbon tax are both types of negative action social engineering, likely to fail. If you're going for utilitarianism, pick a more politically agreeable utility, like actual sequestration, if you want to be successful.
        willis936 7y ago
        I fail to see how a carbon tax "only slows a net loss". Are you implying that economy is a zero sum game and that investment does not yield results?
bambataa 7y ago
Clean energy solutions are only desired by the market because activism impelled governments to try to price in the externality costs of dirty energy. How do you foresee the other environmental pressures (water, soil etc) being resolved? Are we merely maturing through a series of dirty technologies and are on the cusp of a clean tech revolution that will allow us to arbitrarily increase the Earth's carrying capacity? At what point does absolute decoupling of growth and resource consumption occur? I do hope you're right, as it seems like the only viable path, but I am still doubtful.

by gfodor 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

I agree for the most part. We will either fix it technologically (my guess through a combination of nuclear, renewables, and carbon capture) or we won’t fix it. In the latter case we either won’t fix it and everything will still be fine, because the IPCC and others estimate the cost of a do nothing scenario at like 10% of world GDP by 2100,[1] or we won’t fix it and we’ll all die. What will never happen is addressing climate change through social engineering. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/climate-change-to-slow-global-economic-growth-new-study-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/climate-change-to-slow-globa...

shawndrost 7y ago
I think you would probably agree that those technological shifts require significant policy shifts, like a carbon tax, right? Does your pessimism about social engineering extend to getting public support for those kinds of policy shifts? (I agree that individual choices to eg fly less will not be a major component of any solution we reach.)
- beerandt 7y ago
  How is that not still social engineering? It's just collective and punitive instead of individual and guilt driven. A carbon tax (at least without going 100% to sequestration) is only an behavior penalty. It's not even a net gain, it's just slowing a net loss. There's nothing innovative about that. The sequestration part of the equation is where there's potential for technological breakthroughs. If we go carbon negative, it won't be because it requires a change in lifestyle, but because we find a cheap way to offset our carbon generation. And I mean literally pulling carbon from thin air (or water). Not using accounting trickery to buy some emission "offset" that a developing population surely would have hypothetically used, had you not paid them cash money (along with a sizable percentage to some broker who has friends in DC). I think you would find much less opposition, no matter the government's cost, once 1) a plan is laid out that doesn't require a regression in anyone's lifestyle, and 2) doesn't involve a punitive cost to sustain that lifestyle, and 3) doesn't involve any component resembling wealth re-distribution, or buying credit that amounts to paying someone else to not do something.
  - willis936 7y ago
    A carbon tax is not paying someone to not do something. It is charging someone for the actual cost of their actions. It is pure utilitarianism.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      I said carbon credits (in it's current enron-accounting form) is paying someone to do nothing, and that carbon credits and a carbon tax are both types of negative action social engineering, likely to fail. If you're going for utilitarianism, pick a more politically agreeable utility, like actual sequestration, if you want to be successful.
      - willis936 7y ago
        I fail to see how a carbon tax "only slows a net loss". Are you implying that economy is a zero sum game and that investment does not yield results?

bambataa 7y ago

Clean energy solutions are only desired by the market because activism impelled governments to try to price in the externality costs of dirty energy. How do you foresee the other environmental pressures (water, soil etc) being resolved? Are we merely maturing through a series of dirty technologies and are on the cusp of a clean tech revolution that will allow us to arbitrarily increase the Earth's carrying capacity? At what point does absolute decoupling of growth and resource consumption occur? I do hope you're right, as it seems like the only viable path, but I am still doubtful.