5 ms·

The idea that we can accelerate progress without having any realistic prospect of magical future technologies to produce power is part of the problem. The most

The idea that we can accelerate progress without having any realistic prospect of magical future technologies to produce power is part of the problem. The most likely way to meet targets is in reduction of energy consumption. That is the one thing that this current economic system is not set up to do. Dreaming of some non-concrete, unbounded, inchoate blueskies solution while ignoring living patterns and modes which could be changed to improve their efficiency is reckless. The simple list is well-known, but apparently taboo due to cultural fixations in the West against centralized planning: automobile abuse; aeroplane abuse; irrational distribution of workers geographically from their workplaces; over-consumption of meat and dairy; poorly insulated housing; overpopulation(1) 1. Please do not bother re-iterating tired arguments about racism for this last point -- it is blindingly obvious that the elevation of consumptions patterns in the rest of the world to those in the West is a non-starter if we want to fix this problem. Just because some racists are delighted at the idea because they imagine population reduction does not involve Western countries does not mean that racist motives are the only impetus here. Similarly the consequence of not fixing this problem are predicted by many to have exaggerated effects on the very areas you are concerned with.

voisin 6y ago
> Dreaming of some non-concrete, unbounded, inchoate blueskies solution while ignoring living patterns and modes which could be changed to improve their efficiency is reckless. I don’t think this is what is needed. We know the solutions - we just need to institute them. Nuclear, solar, wind, wave, etc. Massive incentives to transition to EVs, solar mandated on every new house and incentives for retrofits, etc etc. We need a coordinated plan to attack this the same way we have worldwide (ex-USA) attacked Covid19.
- frabbit 6y ago
  I know we are not supposed to comment on voting here, but I would appeal to whoever is voting this response down to please consider making a reasoned rebuttal of it instead. Down-voting is supposed to be for something that is just complete noise. This comment is just a disagreement with my post. Hardly grounds for voting it down. I disagree with the post because although I am in favour of all the initiatives suggested in it I suspect they are insufficient in the face of an economic system which is designed to keep expanding and growing. In addition: Nuclear power carries huge risks with it (which may become proportionally preferrable to climate destruction) Solar is useful only for some parts of the world. We lose massive amounts of energy in transmission from generation to consumption. Storage is still a huge problem. All of the above suggests that unless some realistic solutions for storage and transmission are on the table we need to shift manufacturing and consumption closer to the energy sources. Historically civilizations have clustered around such energy centers. The small (but real) gains available from meat-consumption reduction and gasoline-consumption reduction start to look significant.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    From the Center for Environmental Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley > The US can reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035, dependably and without increasing consumer bills It really is as simple as scaling up renewables, transmission, and storage. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-90-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-dependably-and-without-increasing-consumer-bills https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-... Factory farming is an entirely separate issue. You have to make low meat and no meat diets sexy like Tesla made EVs sexy.
    - frabbit 6y ago
      I completely agree that is doable, and indeed profitable for many of us, but it is only a partial solution. That same report says: a 90 percent carbon-free electric generation sector by 2035, which would reduce economy-wide emissions 27 percent. Yet the IPCC targets are 43% globally by 2050, unless we believe that there is going to be some currently non-existent technology introduced then something needs to be done to close that gap...reduction seems obvious: Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air. Although that relates 2010 emissions to 2030 I think the CO2 emissions are actually higher now: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#how-have-global-co2-emissions-changed-over-time https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
      - frabbit 6y ago
        CORRECTION: USA 2010 emissions were 5.9 million metric tonnes and dropped to 5.1 in 2019 according to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
      - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        I’ve been watching some videos from https://paulbeckwith.net/ https://paulbeckwith.net/ IIRC he was reviewing some paper a while back about the disappearing arctic ice that wasn’t included in the IPCC models. Basically claiming that the target dates they mention should in fact come a few decades earlier. So if things need to happen by 2050, it could be more like by 2035

voisin 6y ago

> Dreaming of some non-concrete, unbounded, inchoate blueskies solution while ignoring living patterns and modes which could be changed to improve their efficiency is reckless. I don’t think this is what is needed. We know the solutions - we just need to institute them. Nuclear, solar, wind, wave, etc. Massive incentives to transition to EVs, solar mandated on every new house and incentives for retrofits, etc etc. We need a coordinated plan to attack this the same way we have worldwide (ex-USA) attacked Covid19.

frabbit 6y ago
I know we are not supposed to comment on voting here, but I would appeal to whoever is voting this response down to please consider making a reasoned rebuttal of it instead. Down-voting is supposed to be for something that is just complete noise. This comment is just a disagreement with my post. Hardly grounds for voting it down. I disagree with the post because although I am in favour of all the initiatives suggested in it I suspect they are insufficient in the face of an economic system which is designed to keep expanding and growing. In addition: Nuclear power carries huge risks with it (which may become proportionally preferrable to climate destruction) Solar is useful only for some parts of the world. We lose massive amounts of energy in transmission from generation to consumption. Storage is still a huge problem. All of the above suggests that unless some realistic solutions for storage and transmission are on the table we need to shift manufacturing and consumption closer to the energy sources. Historically civilizations have clustered around such energy centers. The small (but real) gains available from meat-consumption reduction and gasoline-consumption reduction start to look significant.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  From the Center for Environmental Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley > The US can reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035, dependably and without increasing consumer bills It really is as simple as scaling up renewables, transmission, and storage. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-90-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-dependably-and-without-increasing-consumer-bills https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-... Factory farming is an entirely separate issue. You have to make low meat and no meat diets sexy like Tesla made EVs sexy.
  - frabbit 6y ago
    I completely agree that is doable, and indeed profitable for many of us, but it is only a partial solution. That same report says: a 90 percent carbon-free electric generation sector by 2035, which would reduce economy-wide emissions 27 percent. Yet the IPCC targets are 43% globally by 2050, unless we believe that there is going to be some currently non-existent technology introduced then something needs to be done to close that gap...reduction seems obvious: Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air. Although that relates 2010 emissions to 2030 I think the CO2 emissions are actually higher now: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#how-have-global-co2-emissions-changed-over-time https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
    - frabbit 6y ago
      CORRECTION: USA 2010 emissions were 5.9 million metric tonnes and dropped to 5.1 in 2019 according to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
    - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
      I’ve been watching some videos from https://paulbeckwith.net/ https://paulbeckwith.net/ IIRC he was reviewing some paper a while back about the disappearing arctic ice that wasn’t included in the IPCC models. Basically claiming that the target dates they mention should in fact come a few decades earlier. So if things need to happen by 2050, it could be more like by 2035