6 ms·

"over-reliance on technical solutions" This drives me crazy. While closing down the oil industry should be a goal, all solutions that the public would accept

"over-reliance on technical solutions" This drives me crazy. While closing down the oil industry should be a goal, all solutions that the public would accept (and aren't worse than climate change itself) will be technical solutions, not sacrifice. The lockdown gave us a good glimpse at how effective sacrifice it. It's not enough.

solstice 6y ago
Not everything is a technical solution foremost: new laws prohibiting the import and sale of certain polluting equipment and/or incentivising people to buy lower-carbon equivalent are primarily political/economic/social solutions. If they are well-designed (which isnt easy, I give you that) reasonable people can accept them. Your point about sacrifice probably stands
slickrick216 6y ago
Not only is sacrifice an insufficient toll but it’s an unfair one. Who’s getting sacrificed for whom. Are we just going to tell thousands at a danish scale and millions at a global scale tough luck but at least you’ll have a shot at eeking out a subsistence level livelihood for your family. The smallest minority on earth is the individual and a civilisation that exists on the basis of overt human sacrifice isn’t one I and many others will abide by. This sounds a bit melodramatic but I’ve seen the toll it’s taken on family members this year who’ve lost a year of turnover in their small business. If the powers that be continue to throw these people under the bus they will have a fight on their hands and then we won’t even fix climate change probably the other way around.
ichbinwiederda 6y ago
I understand what you are saying, but you can make the same argument for why littering should be allowed. Banning littering is also sacrifice. Very likely technical solutions alone won't cut it. My issue with sacrifices is that they often punish the wrong people. For example, let's say there is a carbon tax on flights (very likely to happen soonish). People who travel for work and for other necessities should not incur the same penalty as tourists who travel purely for pleasure.
- tjansen 6y ago
  There seems to be a random distribution of what's acceptable and what not. Driving an SUV? Sinner. Owning a dog? Acceptable, despite higher CO2 emissions. Getting a daily newspaper on paper? Perfectly acceptable. Eating takeout? Irresponsible waste of resources, despite a family of 4 eating at a (European) McDonalds needing less paper than needed for a newspaper.
  - ichbinwiederda 6y ago
    No I agree with you on that but I think my definition of what is a luxury is quite well defined. All these fake greenies flying to India to find themselves are still going to burn in hell though.
- goatlover 6y ago
  The tourists traveling purely for pleasure are also helping the people who work in the tourist, service and entertainment industries at those destinations. For some smaller countries, that's a considerable part of their economy.
thesumofall 6y ago
This dismisses the successes eg Fridays for Future had. Making high-CO2 lifestyle choices (frequent international flights, SUVs, fast fashion, ...) socially less acceptable and “uncool” is absolutely part of the solution
- pelasaco 6y ago
  > frequent international flights You probably mean frequent national flights for small Europeans countries? People are just flying less internationally because of COVID, not because of Friday for Futures thinking that's not cool.
- tjansen 6y ago
  Are these actually successes? I don't know how you can become carbon neutral by avoiding flights, SUVs and fast fashion. You can reduce CO2 emissions a bit, but won't come even close to 0. I think they are distractions.
  - pelasaco 6y ago
    Isn't this SUV x CO2 a post-fact thing? Or to put in another way, is a new SUV worse than an Opel Corsa 1999 regarding CO2 emission?
    - tremon 6y ago
      Yes, because that new SUV will probably remain on the market for another 20 years. The 1999 Opel Corsa has at most 5 years of useful life left. So "new SUV" vs "old car" is a false dichotomy, and the real comparison should be between "20 years of fuel-guzzling SUV" or "20 years of fuel-efficient minicar" (mildly exaggerating, but you get the point).
      - Laarlf 6y ago
        So destroy anything that could be useful and reliable (which in turn decreases emissions as well because less things are being produced) and buy new shiny cars? Have you ever looked at how reliable modern cars are (especially with downsized engines which don’t do much about fuel economy but do a lot in reliability, not in a good way? you can’t expect most of them to last 20 years on the first engine and gearbox. While over 300k miles on the odometer was totally doable with 20 year old cars which are often rust free(not like 70s cars) and similarly efficient as modern cars, I don’t see why buying a new, more unreliable with almost the same fuel efficiency car would be better for emissions than keeping an old car running.
internet_user 6y ago
Sacrifice so that elites can travel to Davos in their private jets and gaslight you for not sacrificing enough.
ip26 6y ago
Yeah, there's something liberating about knowing we have to get to carbon zero or even carbon negative. It quickly & significantly narrows the solution space. No amount of carpooling or bicycling will ever be enough by themselves to get us to carbon zero. (Speaking as an avid cyclist)

solstice 6y ago

Not everything is a technical solution foremost: new laws prohibiting the import and sale of certain polluting equipment and/or incentivising people to buy lower-carbon equivalent are primarily political/economic/social solutions. If they are well-designed (which isnt easy, I give you that) reasonable people can accept them. Your point about sacrifice probably stands

slickrick216 6y ago

Not only is sacrifice an insufficient toll but it’s an unfair one. Who’s getting sacrificed for whom. Are we just going to tell thousands at a danish scale and millions at a global scale tough luck but at least you’ll have a shot at eeking out a subsistence level livelihood for your family. The smallest minority on earth is the individual and a civilisation that exists on the basis of overt human sacrifice isn’t one I and many others will abide by. This sounds a bit melodramatic but I’ve seen the toll it’s taken on family members this year who’ve lost a year of turnover in their small business. If the powers that be continue to throw these people under the bus they will have a fight on their hands and then we won’t even fix climate change probably the other way around.

ichbinwiederda 6y ago

I understand what you are saying, but you can make the same argument for why littering should be allowed. Banning littering is also sacrifice. Very likely technical solutions alone won't cut it. My issue with sacrifices is that they often punish the wrong people. For example, let's say there is a carbon tax on flights (very likely to happen soonish). People who travel for work and for other necessities should not incur the same penalty as tourists who travel purely for pleasure.

tjansen 6y ago
There seems to be a random distribution of what's acceptable and what not. Driving an SUV? Sinner. Owning a dog? Acceptable, despite higher CO2 emissions. Getting a daily newspaper on paper? Perfectly acceptable. Eating takeout? Irresponsible waste of resources, despite a family of 4 eating at a (European) McDonalds needing less paper than needed for a newspaper.
- ichbinwiederda 6y ago
  No I agree with you on that but I think my definition of what is a luxury is quite well defined. All these fake greenies flying to India to find themselves are still going to burn in hell though.
goatlover 6y ago
The tourists traveling purely for pleasure are also helping the people who work in the tourist, service and entertainment industries at those destinations. For some smaller countries, that's a considerable part of their economy.

thesumofall 6y ago

This dismisses the successes eg Fridays for Future had. Making high-CO2 lifestyle choices (frequent international flights, SUVs, fast fashion, ...) socially less acceptable and “uncool” is absolutely part of the solution

pelasaco 6y ago
> frequent international flights You probably mean frequent national flights for small Europeans countries? People are just flying less internationally because of COVID, not because of Friday for Futures thinking that's not cool.
tjansen 6y ago
Are these actually successes? I don't know how you can become carbon neutral by avoiding flights, SUVs and fast fashion. You can reduce CO2 emissions a bit, but won't come even close to 0. I think they are distractions.
- pelasaco 6y ago
  Isn't this SUV x CO2 a post-fact thing? Or to put in another way, is a new SUV worse than an Opel Corsa 1999 regarding CO2 emission?
  - tremon 6y ago
    Yes, because that new SUV will probably remain on the market for another 20 years. The 1999 Opel Corsa has at most 5 years of useful life left. So "new SUV" vs "old car" is a false dichotomy, and the real comparison should be between "20 years of fuel-guzzling SUV" or "20 years of fuel-efficient minicar" (mildly exaggerating, but you get the point).
    - Laarlf 6y ago
      So destroy anything that could be useful and reliable (which in turn decreases emissions as well because less things are being produced) and buy new shiny cars? Have you ever looked at how reliable modern cars are (especially with downsized engines which don’t do much about fuel economy but do a lot in reliability, not in a good way? you can’t expect most of them to last 20 years on the first engine and gearbox. While over 300k miles on the odometer was totally doable with 20 year old cars which are often rust free(not like 70s cars) and similarly efficient as modern cars, I don’t see why buying a new, more unreliable with almost the same fuel efficiency car would be better for emissions than keeping an old car running.

internet_user 6y ago

Sacrifice so that elites can travel to Davos in their private jets and gaslight you for not sacrificing enough.

ip26 6y ago

Yeah, there's something liberating about knowing we have to get to carbon zero or even carbon negative. It quickly & significantly narrows the solution space. No amount of carpooling or bicycling will ever be enough by themselves to get us to carbon zero. (Speaking as an avid cyclist)