6 ms·

I'm also skeptical climate change will be stopped (or, rather, slowed down) because this pandemic has shown us something else: A large part of the world has ba

by rakoo 6y ago

I'm also skeptical climate change will be stopped (or, rather, slowed down) because this pandemic has shown us something else: A large part of the world has basically stopped functioning for a few months. People stayed home, industries didn't produce anything, restaurants stopped serving people, and so on. It was a huge stress on everyone and now that we're reopening up the overall sentiment is that never should the world halt like that again. Governments everywhere are mentioning the idea that maybe we should change something, but the real mindset is to start like before, and work even more for lower wages to compensate for the loss. It is estimated that over the whole year, the emissions of CO2-equivalent will have gone down by 4% in 2020. There are only 2 years in the 20th century when this happened: 1929, the Great Depression, and 1945, because the industrial powerhouses that Germany and Japan were are not producing anything anymore. We've had the same this year. But the other fun stats is that if we want to achieve the +2C goal of 2100, that is directly correlated to the amount of CO2-equivalent that has been emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution; the quota we have until 2100 is such that we need to reduce our emissions every year, and this reduction must be 4% compared to the year before. In other words, we need an additional lockdown every year, until 2100. That's the scale of the change, and when I see what happens after a single one, it is clear to me we will never reach that +2C in 2100.

seanwilson 6y ago
> In other words, we need an additional lockdown every year, until 2100. That's the scale of the change, and when I see what happens after a single one, it is clear to me we will never reach that +2C in 2100. I've seen people point out that emissions haven't dropped much during lockdown but isn't that because manufacturing, mining, shipping, animal farming etc. and everything else that supports our personal unsustainable lifestyles would have largely been continuing as normal ready for things to restart? E.g. maybe you're not going to launch a cruise ship during lockdown or go on a cruise, but cruise ships are still getting designed, ordered and built during lockdown.
- orwin 6y ago
  Growth is based on productivity gains. Productivity gains only come marginally from optimization. Most productivity gains are from bigger machines (that eat more energy than smaller ones). 80% of our energy is from carbon, we have to cut 4% of this every year starting last year to have a chance to barely stay below 2C. This mean cutting what's feeding our machines by ~3% per year. So productivity losses. By cutting less productive sectors first we might manage that without entering recession for a few year, but even with that, thousands of people will be left over.
  - seanwilson 6y ago
    > Growth is based on productivity gains. > without entering recession for a few year Isn't the problem we can't keep growing when there's only finite resources? We need to change our definition of what it means for the country/world to be improving.
    - rakoo 6y ago
      Exactly, on a finite planet you can't grow indefinitely. In fact, you can't even have a constant, non-zero consumption of goods forever if said goods don't renew.
      - candiodari 6y ago
        In any universe where the second law of thermodynamics holds sway you can't have a society continue indefinitely at all. Of course, you can in our universe for an estimated 1e38 years. The point being that if there is a big enough supply of something that doesn't renew to last until the next breakthrough there is no problem. Never in the history of the human race has this failed. Will oil last until we get fusion figured out? It seems to me pretty likely that's a yes.
        rakoo 6y ago
        Oil is strongly correlated to growth, which means with volumes of oil going down, the only direction our economy is going to take is also down: we're in for a recession and it's not going to stop soon. Now we can survive in a recession, but we (as a species) have never done it before on long durations, so it's going to be quite a challenge. Considering that commercial fusion is nowhere near us for the next ~100 years, we're in for a very bad time.
- rakoo 6y ago
  No no, during lockdown the CO2 emissions have _definitely_ dropped: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavirus-causing-carbon-emissions-to-fall-but-not-for-long/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavir...
adrianN 6y ago
You don't fight climate change by stopping the economy, you fight it by building renewable energy, insulating homes and getting rid of fossil-fueled transportation wherever possible.
- rakoo 6y ago
  Actually climate change is driven by our use of fossil fuels, and use of fossil fuels has a direct correlation with our GDP. So, reducing our fossil fuel use will inevitably lead to a reduction in our GDP. Not a stop, but a recession. The good thing is that this recession is going to happen anyway, because the supply of fossil fuel is dwindling already.

by rakoo 6y ago

seanwilson 6y ago

> In other words, we need an additional lockdown every year, until 2100. That's the scale of the change, and when I see what happens after a single one, it is clear to me we will never reach that +2C in 2100. I've seen people point out that emissions haven't dropped much during lockdown but isn't that because manufacturing, mining, shipping, animal farming etc. and everything else that supports our personal unsustainable lifestyles would have largely been continuing as normal ready for things to restart? E.g. maybe you're not going to launch a cruise ship during lockdown or go on a cruise, but cruise ships are still getting designed, ordered and built during lockdown.

orwin 6y ago
Growth is based on productivity gains. Productivity gains only come marginally from optimization. Most productivity gains are from bigger machines (that eat more energy than smaller ones). 80% of our energy is from carbon, we have to cut 4% of this every year starting last year to have a chance to barely stay below 2C. This mean cutting what's feeding our machines by ~3% per year. So productivity losses. By cutting less productive sectors first we might manage that without entering recession for a few year, but even with that, thousands of people will be left over.
- seanwilson 6y ago
  > Growth is based on productivity gains. > without entering recession for a few year Isn't the problem we can't keep growing when there's only finite resources? We need to change our definition of what it means for the country/world to be improving.
  - rakoo 6y ago
    Exactly, on a finite planet you can't grow indefinitely. In fact, you can't even have a constant, non-zero consumption of goods forever if said goods don't renew.
    - candiodari 6y ago
      In any universe where the second law of thermodynamics holds sway you can't have a society continue indefinitely at all. Of course, you can in our universe for an estimated 1e38 years. The point being that if there is a big enough supply of something that doesn't renew to last until the next breakthrough there is no problem. Never in the history of the human race has this failed. Will oil last until we get fusion figured out? It seems to me pretty likely that's a yes.
      - rakoo 6y ago
        Oil is strongly correlated to growth, which means with volumes of oil going down, the only direction our economy is going to take is also down: we're in for a recession and it's not going to stop soon. Now we can survive in a recession, but we (as a species) have never done it before on long durations, so it's going to be quite a challenge. Considering that commercial fusion is nowhere near us for the next ~100 years, we're in for a very bad time.
rakoo 6y ago
No no, during lockdown the CO2 emissions have _definitely_ dropped: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavirus-causing-carbon-emissions-to-fall-but-not-for-long/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavir...

adrianN 6y ago

You don't fight climate change by stopping the economy, you fight it by building renewable energy, insulating homes and getting rid of fossil-fueled transportation wherever possible.

rakoo 6y ago
Actually climate change is driven by our use of fossil fuels, and use of fossil fuels has a direct correlation with our GDP. So, reducing our fossil fuel use will inevitably lead to a reduction in our GDP. Not a stop, but a recession. The good thing is that this recession is going to happen anyway, because the supply of fossil fuel is dwindling already.