2 ms·

I strongly disagree about climate change. It's nothing but a technology problem. The people addressing it are people like Gates with his funding of advanced nuc

by api 7y ago

I strongly disagree about climate change. It's nothing but a technology problem. The people addressing it are people like Gates with his funding of advanced nuclear and Musk with his driving of EVs, solar power, and grid scale storage. One of the major reasons we've failed at tackling climate change to date is that we've been treating it as a political, economic, or ultimately moral problem and trying to solve it by moralizing. I call this approach "abstinence based environmentalism," making a direct analogy to abstinence based sex-ed. It works about as well. Trying to shame people into using less energy or pursuing less economic activity is going to be about as successful as shaming teens into not having sex. If we try to push abstinence based environmentalism really really hard by legislating it and trying to force people to down-size, we'll get a populist counter-reaction and we'll see the election of explicitly anti-environmentalist candidates. That's worse than nothing. That's going backward. We've already seen some of this. We've been approaching environmental problems as moral and political issues for decades and what do we have to show for it? https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-05/processed/017-carbon-ppm-415-co2_1024.jpg https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-05/processed/017-ca... Total, absolute failure. To stop CO2 and methane emissions, replace fossil fuels. To stop STDs and unwanted pregnancies, give teens contraceptive pills and rubbers.

goldenbikeshed 7y ago
Fossil fuels only account for about 70% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing all of them with renewable energy sources will lower emissions but also bring more emissions (e.g. from cement needed to build those power plants). Our current global economic system is pretty much single mindedly focused on exponential GDP growth. As long as this system persists, all that new clean energy will be used to produce more useless disposable gadgets, driving up more emissions from methane (from all the new trash produced with all that energy). What we need to stop climate change is to lower consumption and to lower production. This is very much possible while also increasing quality of life. Technology can help with getting that into people's head, but a political will has to be there first, and that won't be possible without challenging the current economic system.
- api 7y ago
  "This is very much possible while also increasing quality of life." I don't disagree. It's in part a framing issue. For decades the message has been "you should feel guilty for wanting things, and to save the world everyone needs to de-industrialize and return to the lifestyle of a medieval peasant." (I'm exaggerating just a little bit, but not much.) The mainstream response has been similar to how people respond to other moral shaming campaigns: pretend to play along and engage in a lot of token signaling gestures (like banning plastic straws or recycled disposable cups) but otherwise ignore it. Actual behavior does not change, but you get this gloss of fake ineffective feel-good junk. The developing world's response has been a bit more pointed: "fuck you, we're poor." They're not going to listen to a bunch of rich westerners tell them they need to stay poor to save the planet.
petermcneeley 7y ago
I agree with the thrust of your argument but its actually still totally a social and economic problem and not a problem of technology. First covid19 demonstrates how much of education and work can take place from the home without the need of rushhour style transport. Second your examples of gates and musk are actually examples of the general failure of governments and markets to use existing technologies. Nuclear power, Hydro electric, ocean power, traditional solar ; all of these are existing technologies that dont need innovation what they need is the economic and social Will to construct. Musks EVs ; very expensive direct replacements for existing vehicles to me indicates something very wrong in the approach to solving climate change. The problem is one of Coordination. The sclerosis of western society and our focus on individual incentive prevents anything but the most marginal of improvements. A great example can be seen here in Ontario. Here the government subsidized private individuals to put up their own solar on their homes. Electric prices soared. The result is basically a wealth transfer from poor to rich with very little gained. Again there is some similarity here to the Tesla EV. Not that solar makes much sense in Canada but i am sure the government could have done much better to have run this project itself.
- buboard 7y ago
  home work and education is technology. it might have not been build to save the environment , but it could save it. None - zero - of the remote solutions were advocated by politics, in fact management and politics is hostile to it as has been attested in these forums many times
  - petermcneeley 7y ago
    Right but im in 100% in agreement with your statements. The "real" problems are in the social -political -economic realm. NOT actually that we need significant new technological developments. Thats why I disagree that it is a " It's nothing but a technology problem."

by api 7y ago

goldenbikeshed 7y ago

Fossil fuels only account for about 70% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing all of them with renewable energy sources will lower emissions but also bring more emissions (e.g. from cement needed to build those power plants). Our current global economic system is pretty much single mindedly focused on exponential GDP growth. As long as this system persists, all that new clean energy will be used to produce more useless disposable gadgets, driving up more emissions from methane (from all the new trash produced with all that energy). What we need to stop climate change is to lower consumption and to lower production. This is very much possible while also increasing quality of life. Technology can help with getting that into people's head, but a political will has to be there first, and that won't be possible without challenging the current economic system.

api 7y ago
"This is very much possible while also increasing quality of life." I don't disagree. It's in part a framing issue. For decades the message has been "you should feel guilty for wanting things, and to save the world everyone needs to de-industrialize and return to the lifestyle of a medieval peasant." (I'm exaggerating just a little bit, but not much.) The mainstream response has been similar to how people respond to other moral shaming campaigns: pretend to play along and engage in a lot of token signaling gestures (like banning plastic straws or recycled disposable cups) but otherwise ignore it. Actual behavior does not change, but you get this gloss of fake ineffective feel-good junk. The developing world's response has been a bit more pointed: "fuck you, we're poor." They're not going to listen to a bunch of rich westerners tell them they need to stay poor to save the planet.

petermcneeley 7y ago

I agree with the thrust of your argument but its actually still totally a social and economic problem and not a problem of technology. First covid19 demonstrates how much of education and work can take place from the home without the need of rushhour style transport. Second your examples of gates and musk are actually examples of the general failure of governments and markets to use existing technologies. Nuclear power, Hydro electric, ocean power, traditional solar ; all of these are existing technologies that dont need innovation what they need is the economic and social Will to construct. Musks EVs ; very expensive direct replacements for existing vehicles to me indicates something very wrong in the approach to solving climate change. The problem is one of Coordination. The sclerosis of western society and our focus on individual incentive prevents anything but the most marginal of improvements. A great example can be seen here in Ontario. Here the government subsidized private individuals to put up their own solar on their homes. Electric prices soared. The result is basically a wealth transfer from poor to rich with very little gained. Again there is some similarity here to the Tesla EV. Not that solar makes much sense in Canada but i am sure the government could have done much better to have run this project itself.

buboard 7y ago
home work and education is technology. it might have not been build to save the environment , but it could save it. None - zero - of the remote solutions were advocated by politics, in fact management and politics is hostile to it as has been attested in these forums many times
- petermcneeley 7y ago
  Right but im in 100% in agreement with your statements. The "real" problems are in the social -political -economic realm. NOT actually that we need significant new technological developments. Thats why I disagree that it is a " It's nothing but a technology problem."